< January 3	January 5 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Driscoll (disambiguation)[edit]

unneeded disambiguation page. There are no articles that link here and a hatnote has been made to bypass it. Tavix (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep add athlete or Hockey. --166.214.185.206 (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move Peter Driscoll to something like Peter Driscoll (athlete). JJL (talk) 00:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is a hockey player so the correct dab is (ice hockey). I'd like to ask why you would keep it, as it isn't useful. Tavix (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either this page or Peter Driscoll should disambiguate between the author and the athlete. JJL (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In which Peter Driscoll already does that with a hatnote at the top of the article pointing to the author. Tavix (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Two valid bluelinks are sufficient for a disambiguation page. JJL's suggestion (but to the more specific Paul Driscoll (ice hockey)) would also work, and may actually work better in the long run. B.Wind (talk) 06:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply No, they aren't sufficient because a hatnote has been made at the top of the article to redirect someone to the correct Paul Driscoll. A disambiguation's only purpose is to redirect the user to the correct article when it is ambiguous. In this case, a hatnote has done the job and therefore the disambiguation has been bypassed. The disambiguation is no longer needed, so it should be deleted. Tavix (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "No longer needed" doesn't seem to appear in WP:DEL#REASON.B.Wind (talk) 04:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is because DABs are not articles. Articles cannot be deleted for that reason, but since DABs are essentually ambiguous redirects, "no longer needed" is logical. Tavix (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Doesn't hurt. And useful for research purpose since it appears in Category:Human name disambiguation pages. --Edcolins (talk) 12:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply But it isn't useful! There are absolutely no articles that link here. A hatnote does the trick. I don't see what the category has to do with anything, as that category isn't for research purposes but for editing purposes. Tavix (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Two items are generally not enough for a dab page (WP:DAB#Disambiguation page or disambiguation links?), especially when one of them has been prodded. A hatnote is sufficient. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You may have overlooked this piece of WP:DAB: However if there are two topics for a term but neither is considered the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is used. It should also be pointed out that at this stage of the Wikipedia game, roughly 5% of the "articles" in article space are dab pages, of which one-third to one-half of them have only two targets each. Furthermore, with the worldwide reach of Wikipedia, what might be considered a primary topic in one country (for example, a British author) might be considered elsewise in another (say, a sports figure in baseball or ice hockey). As far as prodding is considered, two things: 1) there is a discussion going on as to whether dab pages could, and should, be prodded; and 2) once the prod tag is gone from an article or dab page, it's no longer prodded and cannot be in the future. B.Wind (talk) 04:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move Peter Driscoll to Peter Driscoll (ice hockey), fix incoming links to Peter Driscoll to avoid the redirect and change the resulting redirect page to redirect to this dab page. From WP:DAB#Disambiguation page or disambiguation links?: "However if there are two topics for a term but neither is considered the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is used." In this case, neither Peter Driscoll can be considered to be the primary topic covered by the appellation. 88.233.36.11 (talk) 03:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AIDAluna[edit]

Article about non-notable, not even finished building, cruise ship. The article is promotional without asserting notability. Unable to locate Google News sources. Unable to locate Google Web sources. Dlohcierekim 15:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't show notability per WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 23:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not seem notable, reads like an ad. Res 2216 firestar 00:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Devrukhe Brahmins - List of Institutions founded by Devrukhes[edit]

I have two concerns about this list: a) It's unsourced and therefore hard, if not impossible, to verify. No sources have been added in more than one year. b) It's unclear why the subject meets WP:N, in the absence of sources. B. Wolterding (talk) 13:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is just a copy of the list at devrukhe.blogspot I checked half the institutions and could not find any independent refs. Maybe the article on Devrukhe could have a link to the blogspot list - although blogspots are generally not great sources. The list does not need a separate entry. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 23:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above reasons. Themfromspace (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stanford Flipside[edit]

This organization is newly created at a US university and doesn't establish notability and has no reliable third party sources. 16x9 (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question – Way wouldn’t you just merge and redirect to Stanford University? ShoesssS ^Talk 16:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it isn't notable for even that article. It is a student organization that was just created this year. 16x9 (talk) 17:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A student university newspaper, endorsed and officially recognized by that same major university, is not notable in your opinion, to be included, say under student activities, of that univeristy piece? I am not meaning to sound or be sarcastic, I am just trying to point you in the right direction. Fair enough? 17:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)ShoesssS ^Talk

I would say the campus newspaper for a major university is notable hint The Stanford Daily or even The Stanford Review. This site has no third party sources or offer any notability besides being connected to Stanford. Should all organization endorsed and officially recognized have their own wiki article ? 16x9 (talk) 17:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -No, but you are getting close to my suggestion. If you reread my original statement, it was phrased as a question and not an opinion on whether to Keep or Delete the piece. In fact, you are right, this should not be a stand-alone piece, at this time. However, it is a perfect candidate for a merge/redirect. In that all editors have the right to move and redirect articles you didn’t need to bring this to AFD, you could just move it over and redirect. No fuss-no muss :-). That was the point I was trying to lead you to. OK? ShoesssS ^Talk 18:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Stanford Flipside is notable within Stanford University, and Stanford University is notable, so I think this article should be notable. Also I think that its notability is separate from the fact that it started this year. jkeesh —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 23:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sources. I agree with 16X9 about the standards for student publications--the main student newspaper or magazine is notable, and some places may haver more than one of each. But a new humor magazine is very unlikely to be notable. Perhaps this can be merged, but it would have to be to something more specific than the main university page. DGG (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree that a stand alone article is not warranted. I believe I said the same thing, just above. I suggested a merge under student activitie swhere similar items are listed. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 20:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why the fact that it's "endorsed and officially recognized" means it warrants a mention at Stanford University. If no sources independent of Stanford have taken note of this student publication, why does it warrant a mention anywhere on Wikipedia? 98.122.44.244 (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Once a University endorse and acknowledges a group – project – activity, they are pledging the full support and reputation of the University. Which I believe bestows a certain amount of notability when coming from a major and notable University. If that were not the case and under a philosophy that all organizations must be notable on their own rights, groups like the Stanford Astronomical Society or the Harvard Wireless Club should also be deleted from the articles. Hope this makes my point a little clearer. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 20:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- More than likely the "endorsement" is more a formality given to any student group that asks after following certain procedures... notability does not dribble down to ever small piss hole on earth. In the case of Harvard Wireless Club it asserts its notability in the article being the oldest "ham radio" club in the nation, something Flipside does not. 16x9 (talk) 02:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - “Piss hole” - Stanford University - by my standards you may want to rethink that argument. ShoesssS ^Talk 03:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The lack of independent sources is fatal — all articles, including any article one might merge this to, need them. Stifle (talk) 12:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Exception Magazine[edit]

fails WP:WEB, no reliable sources, article says it just started up in Dec 2008, deprodded without addressing concerns ccwaters (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't show notability per WP:WEB. Schuym1 (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 23:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Barger[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Schuym1 (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unable to find any articles writing about the subject, and the list of credits on IMDB do not indicate there is notability -- Whpq (talk) 00:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 23:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Whpq. Decltype (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inflation-protected Cash Savings Accounts[edit]

Original research essay about preventing inflation and such Jac16888 (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Some might argue spamming, but it's definitely a personal essay, which is more than enough grounds for deletion. MuZemike (talk) 01:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not spam exactly, but the existing article endorses a financial instrument that doesn't seem to exist yet, but no sources listed. --Lockley (talk) 03:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 01:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holger F. Struer[edit]

Article doesn't have any reliable, independent secondary sources that assert notability per WP:BIO. Wizard191 (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lack of sources is a reason to search for sources, not to delete. Struer appears to be the founder in 1875 of a Danish company, Struers, that's still trading. Given the date & the language, Google searches are unlikely to be of much assistance, but I did find an article in a trade journal[1] which confirms the above. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant earlier technical innovator. More sources would help, but EA's is a start. DGG (talk) 05:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as significant, notable, verifiable. --Lockley (talk) 03:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Students and Workers for the Liberation of UCLA Primates[edit]

I don't believe this group is notable per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). They (if they are a "they") are responsible for a couple of minor attacks in the LA area. The only 3rd party source that mentions them is the UCLA student newspaper and only then to report on the attacks, rather then give significant coverage to them as a group, their aims or objectives. In fact, we have no 3rd party sources that states what their goal is, who they are, or what their methods are. Most damning of all, the communiques are signed in all lower case, which rather suggests the "students and workers for the liberation of UCLA primates" is descriptive rather than the title of a defined entity as the article appears to suggest. Rockpocket 23:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 23:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to North American Animal Liberation Press Office. I don't think sufficient notability is established as an independent article, but the verifiable content is definitely good to reinforce notability of the North American article. MuZemike (talk) 01:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although i wonder if they are a registered student group... Amerique^dialectics 06:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Organization has received significant coverage from secondary sources meeting WP:ORG. Besides the references already provided in the article, I found this sources: 1, 2, 3, 4. This doesn't fall under WP:ONEEVENT, because the organization will continue to act until “at some point the university will stop or people doing the research will come to their senses.” and the LAPD and FBI are investigating the organization. --Jmundo (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think the problem with this argument is that, under the leaderless resistance model under which AR people take direct action, the same people recycle names depending on the nature of the "attack", the city, the target, the particular sub-campaign it falls under etc. In this post 9/11 world, the attacks inevitably get reported giving them a claim of notability, but the inferred group behind it (in reality, its a front) isn't notable unless we have reliable sources telling us something significant about them. The sources you provide give only trivial coverage of the "group" behind the crime (it tells us they claimed the action... and thats about all). Moreover, how does the fact "they" claim they will continue to act mean that WP:ONEEVENT isn't relevant? Do we any secondary sources that tell us that? Even then, isn't that rather WP:CRYSTALish? The reality is the "group" is simply the same handful of people that signed their last action ALF, or ARM, or JD or RCLAB. Those groups have third party sources about them, rather than simply reports on an action signed as them. That is a key difference. Finally, you'll note that the sources state that the LAPD and FBI are investigating the attack, not the organization (because, presumably, they too are aware that it doesn't actually exist in any meaningful way). Rockpocket 23:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand your arguments, maybe they don't meet WP:organization because of the nature of the "group". What I can't understand is why we can't have an article about this "group" which actions got the attention of the FBI (notability). The article doesn't claim that the group is a registered organization. The article says that the group is "claiming to be students and workers at UCLA." This is not crystalish, article was created in December (WP:No deadline).--Jmundo (talk) 16:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:CRYSTAL definitely applies here. Also, FYI...they are NOT a registered student organization at UCLA. If they were, the UCLA Center for Student Programming would have them listed as such on this site. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 04:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG. We don't even have evidence that the group exists; only some "so-called communiqué" claiming responsibility. I agree that WP:CRYSTAL applies too - lets see if the group gains real-world legitimacy/notoriety before writing up a wikipedia article. Abecedare (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rockpocket. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly merge (Animal Liberation Press Office would be a possible target, but there's not really much content worth keeping). The guideline WP:NOTNEWS would seem to apply here - this organisation, if it even exists, has not achieved lasting notability. Terraxos (talk) 02:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Abecedare. -- 68.183.104.7 (talk) 11:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noys[edit]

Contested PROD. A one-hit wonder whose single gets play on a single local station and some popularity in "midwest dance clubs" doesn't meet notability criteria. Deadly∀ssassin 23:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree the group was a one hit wonder, I thought the release was notable because it was an alternate published work of the classic Ave Maria. However since this is all the information I have available I will understand if it's removed. --Bdkennedy1 (talk) 23:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, almost an A9 since it's more about the song than the artist. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please include Alpha Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in the discussion as it has the same issues. --Deadly∀ssassin 01:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no verifiable 3rd party sources. JamesBurns (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Whitehouse (disambiguation)[edit]

unneeded disambiguation, there are no articles that link here and a hatnote has been made to bypass it. Tavix (talk) 23:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unwanted disambig. South Bay (talk) 01:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Doesn't hurt. And useful for research purpose since it appears in Category:Human name disambiguation pages. --Edcolins (talk) 12:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply But it isn't useful! There are absolutely no articles that link here. A hatnote does the trick. I don't see what the category has to do with anything, as that category isn't for research purposes but for editing purposes. Tavix (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Two valid bluelinks are sufficient for a dab page. To a non-UK eye, there appears no primary use (other than the implication of an undisambiguated article name for an article that was simply created first) - from WP:DAB: However if there are two topics for a term but neither is considered the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is used. B.Wind (talk) 04:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A disambiguation page isn't useful if there's only two items on it; hatnotes are fine for that. As Tavix notes, there are no inward links. Stifle (talk) 12:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hatnote should be fine. -Yupik (talk) 01:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Latham Circle[edit]

This is a non-notable traffic circle in a suburb of Albany, NY. The article was created well over a year ago, and nobody has made any progress on it. I think that this could be verifiable (it's not that hard to pull up old newspaper articles and town plans on it), but that still leads to the question of notability. Nothing is really significant about this roundabout. --Seascic ^T/_C 22:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article title was created a year ago BUT it was a redirect to Latham Circle Mall. It has only been a regular article of its own for about a month at most. I changed it from the redirect but have been busy working on Port of Albany-Rensselaer getting it passed through GA review. As most know that is time consuming and I have not had time to research and expand Latham Circle. Please give it time. A check of Latham Circle's history would have shown that it was a redirect for most of its existence...does anyone ever do research before they do these things?!Camelbinky (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took time out to quickly expand a bit the article, added two citations, and have found that the article is wikilinked from three other articles- US Route 9 in New York, Latham, New York, and NY Route 2. I hope that very very soon we can do-away with this deletion talk. Oh, and for the record- it is not a roundabout, it is a traffic circle, there is a difference and perhaps the fact that its a traffic circle that has been modified to have roundabout characteristics should make it notable, not to mention traffic circles tend to be rare outside of New England, and the Latham Circle has Texas U-turns which are extremely rare outside of the Southern United States. The circle is extremely well known in the Capital District, an area of over 1 million people.Camelbinky (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge into Latham, New York. While there it is verifiable and there seems to be regional notability about this traffic circle (there seems to even be a soccer team named after it), it doesn't seem to have enough information to have a standalone article. I therefore propose that the article redirect to the hamlet article and have its own section there. If at some point, there's enough information about the article after a time to split, then so be it. I doubt that'll happen anytime soon, so merge looks like the best option here. I say "weak" because I'm willing to give it a "keep" as a second choice. Since it has won awards and has been featured, it's also notable in the traffic engineering community, as well as the New York community. --Triadian (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge/keep Agree with the above comment. Slightly notable interchange and a landmark of the Latham hamlet. PaleAqua (talk) 07:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the article currently exists, there are enough reliable and verifiable sources about the circle to merit retention. Alansohn (talk) 14:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Camelbinky. While notability may seem minimal currently, it is a notable location in the greater Capital District of New York. I'm currently on vacation and have limited access to internet, but will work on this when I am back, including adding more references, content, and hopefully an infobox. Note that I won't be back from vacation until after the 10th. I'd like to see if we can suspend the AfD until I have some time on it? THanks, and I hope to work on this when I'm home! ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 15:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Fyfe[edit]

Notability not established and original-research replacement of a copy-vio page. Merely being the CEO of a corporation does not equate to notability. There are thousands of CEOs, but they have to have accomplished something notable for an entry. Harry the Dog WOOF 20:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep CEO of a really notable public company like Air New Zealand is in my opinion notable. and yes, thousands of business executives are notable--probably tens of thousands. why shouldn't they be? It's a position of public importance, and holding it is the notable accomplishment. TOOMANYOFTHEMARENOTABLE is not an argument for deletion. The article is in any case sourceable--I asked the nom, who is an expert on the subject, to try to actually source it, but he didn't choose to. I do not know why. DGG (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because the subject is not notable. Merely getting a job, no matter how important in a corporation, is not notable. What has he actually achieved? Harry the Dog WOOF 20:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Being the CEO of an international airline seems to satisfy any reasonable notability requirement. Stifle (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 22:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 22:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep could do with some expansion but it's a valid stub and there's plenty of sources (in addition to simple places where he's just quoted) from which to build an article. StarM 22:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, becasue he is CEO of a notable company, but tag as a stub. It ought to be exapnded to say what he has acheived during his serivice with the company. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, as CEO of a notable company, and one of the more important figures in New Zealand business.-gadfium 22:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Schuym1 (talk) 12:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Genevac[edit]

The main sources that I can find are company profiles and press releases. Fails WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant coverage to warrant article under WP:CORP. One of their products, centrifugal evaporator, has been received very well by industry ([2], [3], [4]). The company has also received a notable award for this product. ^LeaveSleaves 06:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atmospheric Jellyfish[edit]

The article seems to be original invention. It has no reliable references, and I can find none online: A Google search returns only 23 mentions (169 including duplicates and such), primarily forum threads, wikis, and blog entries (several citing this article). A Google Books search finds no mentions. A proposed deletion was removed along with the cleanup tags. —{admin} Pathoschild 22:06:09, 04 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete Nonsense and original research, lacking any reliable references to satisfy verifiability. They "go against all the usual rules that are applied to living things." Indeed. Extreme claims with no shred of proof. Edison (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could be something along the lines of flying rods, but I'm not really getting any strong indications that this is a widely recognised fortean phenomena or of Robert Gardners work in Cryptozoology, so delete until sources can be found to confirm it. Firming up what exactly Charles Fort said and whether he used the term might help also. Artw (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment the general accepted term for phenomena of this type are Atmospheric beasts - the article in that namespace has been deleted, but there probably should be one, and if so reports of flying jellyfish would definately warrant a mention. Artw (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly sure that Atmospheric Jellyfish appear in a short story by Arthur Conan Doyle, The Horror of the Heights^[1]. I'm not sure he uses that particular phrase, however. Richard Hock (talk) 14:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, jellyfish-like monsters are described in The Horror of the Heights by a fictional aeronaut exploring an ecology in the air which he calls an 'air-jungle'. (He also braves hail, wind-rivers and tourbillons, meteors, air-serpents, and purple amorphous predators who presumably consume him in the end.)

"Suddenly I was aware of something new. The air in front of me had lost its crystal clearness. It was full of long, ragged wisps of something which I can only compare to very fine cigarette smoke. It hung about in wreaths and coils, turning and twisting slowly in the sunlight. As the monoplane shot through it, I was aware of a faint taste of oil upon my lips, and there was a greasy scum upon the woodwork of the machine. Some infinitely fine organic matter appeared to be suspended in the atmosphere. There was no life there. It was inchoate and diffuse, extending for many square acres and then fringing off into the void. No, it was not life. But might it not be the remains of life? Above all, might it not be the food of life, of monstrous life, even as the humble grease of the ocean is the food for the mighty whale? The thought was in my mind when my eyes looked upwards and I saw the most wonderful vision that ever man has seen. Can I hope to convey it to you even as I saw it myself last Thursday?
"Conceive a jelly-fish such as sails in our summer seas, bell-shaped and of enormous size—far larger, I should judge, than the dome of St. Paul's. It was of a light pink colour veined with a delicate green, but the whole huge fabric so tenuous that it was but a fairy outline against the dark blue sky. It pulsated with a delicate and regular rhythm. From it there depended two long, drooping, green tentacles, which swayed slowly backwards and forwards. This gorgeous vision passed gently with noiseless dignity over my head, as light and fragile as a soap-bubble, and drifted upon its stately way.
"I had half-turned my monoplane, that I might look after this beautiful creature, when, in a moment, I found myself amidst a perfect fleet of them, of all sizes, but none so large as the first. Some were quite small, but the majority about as big as an average balloon, and with much the same curvature at the top. There was in them a delicacy of texture and colouring which reminded me of the finest Venetian glass. Pale shades of pink and green were the prevailing tints, but all had a lovely iridescence where the sun shimmered through their dainty forms. Some hundreds of them drifted past me, a wonderful fairy squadron of strange unknown argosies of the sky—creatures whose forms and substance were so attuned to these pure heights that one could not conceive anything so delicate within actual sight or sound of earth.

—{admin} Pathoschild 18:42:01, 06 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete Without any secondary sources it is impossible to say if this is just on-wikipedia synthesis or outright hoax. Abecedare (talk) 02:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article is essentially original research, and has a severe lack of reliable sources. Terraxos (talk) 02:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article is most certainly not original research. Any reasonably well-read Cryptobiologist will direct you to Ivan T. Sanderson's Uninvited Visitors (1967) or Trevor J. Constable's Sky Creatures, aka The Cosmic Pulse of Life (1978) for demonstrated notability. DrJon (talk) 03:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Going by Google books neither seem to include direct references to "atmospheric jellyfish" or "atmospheric beasts" - that's really what is needed. However adding them as cites, with decent quotes, couldn't hurt if you have access to them. Artw (talk) 06:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Anne Drysdale[edit]

This seems to be about a non notable ophthalmologist. No evidence on Google. Fails WP:BIO.Paste ^Talk 21:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you type "Dr. Anne Marie Drysdale" (Marie being the physician's middle name) into Google, the first three entries are directly related to Dr. Drysdale's ophthalmology practice in Oakville, Ontario, Canada. Also, if you search Dr. Anne Marie Drysdale in the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario website, this link http://www.cpso.on.ca/docsearch/details.aspx?view=1&id=%2033149 will appear. I feel that the information regarding Dr. Drysdale on the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario website proves that she is a notable ophthalmologist, therefore her wikipedia page is not worth deleting.

Delete. A doctor. No more notable than any other professional worldwide. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The material available shows she's an ophthalmologist, not that she's notable. Notability in this profession take major positions and publications. DGG (talk) 05:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC),[reply]
Delete as per DGG. Stifle (talk) 14:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Cleevely[edit]

Article reads like a CV. Most of the text was added by user DavidCleevely (talk · contribs). Notability is not provided by association with the (probably) notable company Abcam plc. MightyWarrior (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep Have deleted some of the less notable information - David Cleevely is one of the key drivers behind slicone fen. I believe that David Cleevely is notable and will try to gather more references. BillyBobPedant (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Reads EXACTLY like a CV, non-notable, probable vanity. --Lockley (talk) 03:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

can a more experience editor please suggest how to make this less CV-like? I was using Hermann Hauser as an article template as both figures achieve similar notoriety in Cambridge, but I've clearly not done a good enough job. Help much appreciated. Thanks. BillyBobPedant (talk) 08:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I looked into the sources and I think the article passes WP:N guideline. It only needs further improvement. A CV-like article does not warrant deletion. Dekisugi (talk) 08:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Definitely needs unfluffing but his professional fellowships seem to indicate some notability, as well as the claims he had the ear of some influential people (athough I need to check those claims out). I may have a go at cleanup. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update I had a go at cleanup. Perhaps it could be unfluffed some more but it appears his notability comes from his broad range of involvements with startups and such. Have another look. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have added more information and the notable reference Hansard. I hope that this helps. BillyBobPedant (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - now seems to have enough references to pass WP:BIO. Terraxos (talk) 02:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: more info and refs added BillyBobPedant (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources establish beyond question the notability of the subject. --Jmundo (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Oak Bay, British Columbia. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oak Bay Police Department[edit]

AfDs for this article:

As was the case with a previous AfD six months ago, there's no evidence that this police department is notable. The article was re-directed but has been recently re-created. It's not a G4 since it wasn't deleted last time, but there's still no evidence whatsoever that this PD is notable. Exists, yes. Notable, no. StarM 21:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 21:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 21:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete -- convert to redirect. The previous AfD concluded with a decision to delete this article, replacing the article with a redirect. This is a recreation of an article deleted as a result of an AfD, so it qualifies for speedy deletion. --Orlady (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect again to Oak Bay, British Columbia. Nothing has been addressed/improved since the previous AFD. I would also consider protection on the redirect to prevent any further redirect-warring. MuZemike (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As the author of this 're-created' page, I felt it's a little unjustified to say this article was same as before - I've tried to include all sourceable material but unable to expand as OBPD website is currently under construction. On the question of notability - OBPD was one of the PD who was in the spot light for potential amalgamation of 5 Vancouver Island PDs on 2 separate occassion in recent memory in 2003 (http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/police_services/publications/integration/FinalReport.pdf) and 2007 (http://www.llbc.leg.bc.ca/public/PubDocs/bcdocs/438941/200801CI_police.pdf). Gatineau Police or Service de police de Longueuil articles contains virtually no information but was kept because they have a large population - that makes no sense to me?--Cahk (talk) 05:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (with a heavy heart). Fails WP:ORG as not enough coverage from sources outside the local area, would not suffer from merging with Oak Bay, British Columbia. ninety:one 10:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Renshaw[edit]

This subject does not appear to meet the criteria of WP:BIO/WP:AUTHOR. Google search brings up many references to the book "In Search of the Greeks", but none of them are reviews, only places to purchase the book. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 21:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One high school textbook does not = notability, unless it gets major reviews and adoptions as required, not just one of a list of recommended books. DGG (talk) 05:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No third party sources or reviews that confirm notability or claims about "recommended book to GCSE students". ^LeaveSleaves 06:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. Stifle (talk) 14:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could not find enough to establish notability under WP:PROF. Does not seem to pass WP:BIO either. The book In Search of the Greeks, the main claim of notability in the article, is in 26 libraries worldwide according to WorldCat. As noted by LeaveSleaves, the "recommended book" claim fails WP:V. May become notable in the future, but not there yet.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Imma Be[edit]

The article Imma Be should be deleted due to several reasons. The article has no reliable sources that state that it's unknown if any of the content is true, the article gets poor views per month and it only contains rumors, so none of the content is real BittersweetJoJo (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No verifiable info yet, should've been released already if it were to have been released. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources confirming the release of the said single. A redirect to the album article is also not a bad idea, iff there is evidence that the song is part of the new album. ^LeaveSleaves 05:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Redirect. A snippet has been leaked so there is a good chance that it could be the next single (the snippet is given as reference in the article) but it still is unknown... So i think it should stay but be redirected to the album, for now. 10:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.195.153 (talk)
Delete. Reads like pure speculation, no proper sources, nuke it. tomasz. 15:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - currently speculation, and contains no references to reliable sources. Terraxos (talk) 02:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Abecedare (talk) 02:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harptallica[edit]

Unreferenced article about an unsigned Metallica cover band. With only one self-released album to their credit, they do not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related article:

Delete both for failing to meet WP:MUSIC. Which is a pity because being a musician, I love it when people cover songs waaaaay outside there genre, but alas, no coverage in reliable, third-party, published sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no reliable 3rd party coverage WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, convert to disambiguation page. (non-admin closure) Terrillja _talk 04:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Foothill Elementary School[edit]

unnotable elementary school Tavix (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect which I have done and should have simply been carried out in the first place, TerriersFan (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I disagree with the redirect. There are other schools named "Foothill Elementary School" (such as the one here and that redirect only implies there is one school. I think the page should be deleted so people will know there is no article on the school, and someone trying to find a different school won't end up in the wrong place. Tavix (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to disambiguation page per what I did at Horace Mann Middle School during Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horace Mann Middle School. Cunard (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The dab would be like this:

Foothill Elementary School may refer to a number of elementary schools:

Foothill Elementary School, Boulder, Colorado, part of Boulder Valley School District
Foothill Elementary School, Coronoa, California, part of Corona-Norco Unified School District
Foothill Elementary School, Monterey, California, part of Monterey Peninsula Unified School District
Foothill Elementary School, Pittsburg, California, part of Pittsburg Unified School District
Foothill Elementary School, Riverside, California, part of Alvord Unified School District
Foothill Elementary School, Santa Barbara, California, part of Goleta Union School District
Foothill Elementary School, Saratoga, California, part of Saratoga Union Elementary School District

Cunard (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to disambiguation page per Cunard. Seems the best outcome with so many with same name.--Sting Buzz Me... 23:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to disambiguation page - I agree. TerriersFan (talk) 01:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket Power (album)[edit]

No reliable sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Incredibly non-notable soundtrack which didn't get into any Billboard chart territory at all. Nate • (chatter) 06:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 'speedy delete' per CSD G4. Daniel Case (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

High School Musical 4: College Years[edit]

AfDs for this article:

WP:CRYSTAL; parent article does not back up any substantial claim this article could make. [ cycle~ ] (talk), 20:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I didn't realize (until creating this AfD) that this had been nominated before (see here). Previous AfDs resulted in a speedy delete (G4; recreation of deleted material). Perhaps an admin can review and close this? [ cycle~ ] (talk), 20:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Not an admin but I have nominated the page for speedy deletion, it should be taken care of soon. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subprime Nation[edit]

Non-notable neologism. Only two of the sources cited in the article even use the phrase "subprime nation". One of them is the website that seems to have invented the term, and the other is a post on a political site that uses it in a way completely different from the definition given in the article. Unscented (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. K50 Dude ROCKS! 20:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this neologism clearly fails to meet the notability guideline and should be deleted. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this term is in use in Ireland and is spreading. I will add additional links asap. ConemaraMan 09:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ConnemaraMan (talk • contribs) [reply]
Struck out duplicate !vote. Stifle (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mia Culpa, I forgot to sign the last post properly. ConnemaraMan (talk) 11:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I came across this term in mid-2008 in both general conversations regarding the financial issues facing Ireland and in the Press (the Irish Times???). It certainly describes the nature of the issue succinctly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DMurphy2901 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In so far as the article actually relates to "subprime nation" as a term, the sources provide little more than tangential coverage. Most of the article is actually an original-research summary of the current financial situation here in Ireland. Stifle (talk) 14:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is one of the most accurate articles i have came across on the sudden and apparently 'unforeseen' failure of the Irish economic model, which was fuelled by speculation of property developers. Both the Banks and the Government effectively wrote developers a blank cheque, the cost of which will now be picked up by the taxpayer while paying a ridiculous amount in mortgage repayments. Expect to hear much more of the term in the near future.Moytura (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There doesn't seem to be enough sourced material to warrent an article. --Stormbay (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears that the only edit of DMurphy2901 is to this article, if that has any bearing on this discussion. --Stormbay (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Moytura also joined us for a first time to discuss this article. --Stormbay (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clear example of a neologism and original research. Terraxos (talk) 02:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, as pointed out by Stormbay, all the users who have argued to keep this article registered their accounts within the last five days, and none have made any significant edits unrelated to this article. Seems like an attack of the WP:SPAs. Terraxos (talk) 02:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable neologism. Article content is a very good example of WP:SYNT, used to give a non-notable subject the veneer of respectability. Abecedare (talk) 02:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleting as a copyright violation.

I realize that it's unusual for me as a participant in the debate (and indeed a somewhat controversial participant) to delete and close, but "IAR" combined with concern about copyright force a speedy closure.

Pace various editors (including myself), but this deletion does not prejudice the fate of any future article on Ohm Phanphiroj. Hoary (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ohm Phanphiroj[edit]

Seemingly autobiographical article that's been around for two years. No citations. Notability questionable. For my part, I'll be Neutral, because this might be a personal case of "I've never heard of it". CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 19:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that the text of this article also appears to be a copied and pasted from the artists' website. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 19:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This appears to be little more than the subject individual's own resumé, posted to Wikipedia. This runs afoul of WP:SOAP at least, and the tone and content definitely violates WP:NOT#OR and WP:PROMO. While I could possibly be convinced otherwise, I don't think his works are shown in galleries and museums in the USA and Europe as well as in Asian countries qualifies as an assertion of notability, particularly since there is absolutely zero support for any of the assertions. It's not as clear a case of WP:BIO violation as some, but I do think it is such a violation. And if none of those will do for a reason to delete, CaveatLector's observation that this text is copied wholesale from the subject's own website ought to do it. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C21:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this blather, because WP:IMPISSEDOFF: I'm entirely innocent of the action alleged in this posting, though I'll concede that it woke me up in a way that no single cup of coffee could do, and that it has a certain black humor value. Contra Schweinwefermann, I do believe that "his works are shown in galleries and museums in the USA and Europe as well as in Asian countries" is an assertion of notability; I just haven't seen any evidence of this, and I have been waiting a long time. A quick look at Amazon showed that yes our man does indeed have at least one book published; its cover has a competent (focus, lighting, and exposure all OK) photo of a "hunk" with his legs widespread; those who are interested in male organs may be fascinated, while I (who happen to have other predilections) see no more (or less) photographic (or exhibition-worthy) value in this than in any of the lovingly lit depictions of [female] cleavage on the covers of the cheesecake anthologies published by the dozen every month in the nation where I happen to live. In other words, the man appears to be a competent artisan, no more; for two years I've been willing to be proven wrong via citation of WP:RS but this hasn't happened yet. -- Hoary (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My visit from the typo fairy also apparently included a call from the copy-paste-mistake fairy. I used the wrong template on your talk page, and didn't mean to insinuate that you created the article. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 05:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment Oh, and I should also note that any aesthetic judgments of the artwork are irrelevant (WP:IDONTLIKEIT). The question we should ask is "is this person notable". CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 05:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, you did manage to wake me up. No hard feelings. And as I also said, I've yet to see any disinterested sign that he's notable. -- Hoary (talk) 06:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 00:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 00:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 00:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search of all dates on Google news turned up two mentions of an Atlanta showing and one mention of a Bangkok showing, not in major museums. I think notability has not been established because at this point, it cannot be. Maybe with some international awards, but there don't seem to be any. Scarykitty (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 05:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio of [5] and subpages, particularly "about". It's usually worth checking for copyvio when one sees an article like this. DGG (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the problem I had with that is that it appeared as though the one adding the information was Phanphiroj himself. Since he owns the copyright on the website bio, I didn't leap to copyvio. Just a clarification. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 05:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If somebody reposts stuff that's undeniably his own, I believe it's still a copyvio as far as WP is concerned unless it was previously either labeled as GFDL or released into the public domain. -- Hoary (talk) 06:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. DGG, I couldn't access the "about" off the website. If it is copyvio then please add teh template and let's get rid of it and it can start fresh and more neutral. It took only moments to find these and these which suggests that even if some puffery has occurred, they still have met the GNG threshold. -- Banjeboi 08:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your comment about notability contributes very little to this discussion. You have provided links not to actual sources but to Google and Amazon hits. Search results are not sources. If you find specific sources that you believe help this person meet wp:n, please provide direct links or citations to those sources and we can discuss them. Linking to Google and Amazon hits is very easy, and of little value. That said, a cursory look at your Google and Amazon hits shows only that this person has produced photography and written a book. Wp:n requires coverage of the topic, i.e. in this case we would need works about this person, not by him/her. Therefore, your search results appear not to help the case for this person's notability. 98.122.44.244 (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Question What's GNG? Scarykitty (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The "general notability guideline". -- Hoary (talk) 00:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think your look was a little on the overcursory side. The books that are "hit" aren't written by Ohm Phanphiroj; instead, they have photos by him. I infer that there's some demographic that wants photos of elegantly coiffed "hunks" lazing around in [studios made up as?] sleazy motel rooms; OP produces the goods. Incidentally, my description in an earlier comment was not about a book but instead about a calendar. ¶ Further, you're being curiously restrictive when you say If you find specific sources that you believe help this person meet wp:n, please provide direct links or citations to those sources and we can discuss them. The Google hitlist could be interpreted as list of specific sources that Banjeboi believes help this person meet wp:n. One problem, however,is that the putative sources are described elliptically and may be little more than bare mentions; another is that there are very few of them. -- Hoary (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hoary, you're continual degradation of Phanphiroj's art form or those who would enjoy it contributes zero to this conversation. Benje, the "about" section in question pops up in a menu when you move your cursor to the left hand side of the screen. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 17:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - My apologies to the practitioners and consumers of this "art form". -- Hoary (talk) 00:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm more concerned that this is a copyvio as should be speedied. To answer one point though, yes, there are many photographers who are notable for taking photos of men lazying around in their underwear. The links I provided should that he indeed was published and has had shows. The Amazon link lists several of his photography books. GNG is general notability guideline. Until the cpopyvio issue is resolved one way or another the point is rather moot. -- Banjeboi 00:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- there are many photographers who are notable for taking photos of men lazying around in their underwear I sit corrected, though I will say that few if any appear in any of the general surveys of photography that I possess. ¶ I'm more concerned that this is a copyvio as should be speedied. I agree. -- Hoary (talk) 00:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then you might do well to expand your horizons - lol! -- Banjeboi 00:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I do think the subject is notable but copyvio is a policy breaker. I have nommed for speedy on that basis. No issue towards recreation without copyvio material. -- Banjeboi 00:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 00:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You, Me & The Devil Makes 3[edit]

There two reason for removing this page:

It's a suspected hoax article
An article that can only say "Song X is by Band Y from Album Z" is not really worth doing. Articles on individual songs have to demonstrate why the song is notable in itself - e.g. it was released as a single (and charted) etc. Stormcloud (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My reasons are given above. Stormcloud (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional singles are almost never notable. This one has no non-trivial coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Nor has it been recognised by anynational music charts or won any awards.

Google web search brings up non-trivial coverage; there are a number of sites listing the lyrics and a radio station site mwith some info about it. That's it.
Google news search bring up nothing.

Patton^t/c 19:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Almost no content, and it is highly dubious that it was ever a promotional single at all. Zazaban (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No chartage, no awards, no cover versions, = no article. Even if it had met any of those criteria it still wouldn't pass since there is not enough info for a reasonably detailed article. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete | A7 — not even a claim of notability! —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C21:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Langton[edit]

An obscure sportsman basically. Seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:RS (two of the five sources at the time were self-published) ~~and also WP:NONENG (the remaining three of five sources were in French)~~. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 19:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: It might be useful to note this article has already been deleted once today as non-notable - 1. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 19:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:NONENG is not grounds for deletion. If the only available reliable sources are not in English, then we use those sources and everything's fine. JulesH (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Obscure? The best pitcher in the most competitive baseball league in Quebec( Canada's largest province) does not seem to be obscure to me. Also, he is an actor for MSOPA which is the organization responsible for training and developping actors in Montreal, Canada. --Montreal is one of the biggest cities in Canada. Anttot (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Is the league he plays for a professional league? If so, he meets WP:ATHLETE. LinguistAtLarge 19:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just because he is a member of an organisation that trains actors doesn't make him notable. I'm sure there are lots of people in the RADA - does that make them all notable? No. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 20:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point about the RADA, you're right!! and as far as I know, the LBEQ is amateur but is still the highest league in Quebec. Thus, he would not qualify for WP:ATHLETE. However, should'nt he qualify as WP:ENTERTAINER because ".. had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions." Anttot (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unless such roles can be reliably sourced (which, at present, they aren't) then no. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 22:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reeks of self-promotion. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as doesn't seem to be sufficiently notable as an actor nor sportsman. Even proof he was in films does not show notability unless the source discusses him in some detail (so credits from film do not confer automatic notability).Yobmod (talk) 09:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Further renaming and/or merge discussions can take place at the article's talk page. Cirt (talk) 02:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008-09 Screen Actors Guild strike[edit]

First, it's just a proposed strike with no vote having happened yet. There is also pushes to cancel the vote entirely. Second, even if the article were to be kept (which I don't think it should be), the name would have to be changed since it didn't start in 2008 and it's just a proposed strike. Almost every major union in the country talks about a strike when their current deal is near expiration or has expired and they get press coverage. Why this article wasn't deleted back when it was created in June is beyond me, but there is no need for an article just for a proposed striker since this happens every time the SAG contract is up for renewal. TJ Spyke 18:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I really doubted this would be notable when I set out for sources however it appears has been reported by many news services; [6] [7] [8] http://filmtvindustry.suite101(dot)com/article.cfm/hollywood_stars_oppose_strike

[9] [10]. The article has only been viewed 26 times though.--Patton^t/c 19:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Everytime the SAG contract expires there is a lot of publicity about a possible strike. Same deal (to a lesser extent) with other major unions like the UAW. If a strike does happen, I agree it would be notable. Right now though its just a lot of speculation. I think a lot of people realize this, and maybe that's why there have been so few people checking out the article. TJ Spyke 19:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well, seemingly there's a planned strike, whether happening or not it is pretty notable since it has far-reading impact. Wandering Courier (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In today's Google news search under a specific search of "SAG strike", there are 207 current articles: http://news.google.com/news?client=safari&rls=en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&um=1&tab=wn&q=%22SAG+strike%22&scoring=n. There should absolutely be an article on this topic and I STRONGLY DISAGREE with user:TJ_Spyke. However, I do support a "crystal ball" tag (which currently exists), as the event has not yet happened. DanielVovak (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And what potential name? "Potential 2009 Screen Actors Guild strike"? Because that's what it is. And what happens if the vote results in them choosing not to strike? If they choose not to strike and reach a new deal, this will be brought back up again (assuming the article gets kept now). TJ Spyke 22:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Some would argue that there already is a strike: http://www.shellypalmermedia.com/2009/01/04/sag-vs-amptp-a-zero-sum-game/. There is certainly a work slowdown occurring: Intl. Cinematographers Guild President Stephen Poster has already called the SAG non-strike a "slowdown":http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117988288.html?categoryid=18&cs=1. Until SAG accepts a contract there is a strike occurring, even if it is a de facto strike. At a minimum, there is a civil war occurring within SAG, though I am confident there will be an official strike. The word "potential" is not accurate because it already is somewhat occurring. DanielVovak (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is a difference between slowdown and strike. Also, that source doesn't say there is basically already a strike. It talks about the conflict within SAG (some high profile actors supporting a strike, other high profile actors objecting to a strike) and talking about some of the issues at stake. There is not a strike right now though. TJ Spyke 23:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Screen Actor's Guild for now, until a strike happens. There is no strike, as there has been no strike authorization by the SAG members. The article even calls it a "possible strike," meaning that this article violates WP:CRYSTAL as it is definitely not almost certain to take place. There is no contract, but there is no strike either, and it's not certain that they'll get authorization before a new contract is negotiated.[11][12][13][14] ColorOfSuffering (talk) 06:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the strike that is the name of the article not existing. Stifle (talk) 14:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The events surrounding this industrial dispute are probably still notable enough for an article, even if they do not eventuate in a strike. It may end up needing to be renamed, though.--Pushsense (talk) 04:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Rename. The strike is not yet a fact. Although all the issues being discussed are relevant to this moment of the industry, it should not be called a strike yet. The issue could be solved by merely renaming. Also, by calling it a strike before it actually is one Wikipedia might be seem as taken a side and supporting the idea -- which is relevant since this is currently on vote right now. All the information may remain here, once properly titled. Kosmonauta (talk) 06:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (possibly rename) - this article is a rare exception to WP:CRYSTAL, as at the moment it's widely expected that the strike will happen. Even if it doesn't, the article is probably still worth keeping under a different title, as the prospect of a strike alone has generated a significant amount of coverage in reliable sources. Terraxos (talk) 02:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename since the anticipation/prospect of the strike has sufficient notability to qaulify under WP:EVENT guideline ("A news event is notable if it receives significant, continual coverage in sources with national or global scope."). Article naming issue can be handled on its talk page. Abecedare (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CRYSTAL and for that ma$tter the death of Bush's cat is far more newsworthy than this article is, having been reported around the world, but we don't seem to have an article on that event yet. -Yupik (talk) 01:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Styic Entertainment Co.[edit]

Possible NN-corporation. Declined as an A7 speedy. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article has recieved no non-trivial coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources:

Google web search only brings up a youtube video, a facebook page and the company's website
Google news search brings up nothing.

If this article is kept it definitily needs to be cleaned up as it is written like an advertisement.--Patton^t/c 19:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Patton. Also, I would like to point out that none of the entertainers/singers/bands that it represents has an English wiki entry. It fails WP:NOTE. TheAsianGURU (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 01:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speyside Cooperage[edit]

Declined speedy. May meet criteria for inclusion, but is not a speedy candidate, as it asserts notability - just. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I've added a couple of sources and an image I found on Commons, but haven't the time now to search for further sources, though it looks as though they're out there. Recommending weak keep for now, since this appears to be one of the larger operations of its kind in Britain, as well as a popular tourist attraction. Deor (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added another source, found on BBC. Thanks for your support, Deor. Abrax5 (Talk) 00:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has sufficient sources for a stub with the possibility of more to be found[15][16][17] (N.B. I have visited this place.) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Terrillja _talk 04:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David West (footballer)[edit]

This person may meet the notability criteria for sportsmen. I have declined it as a speedy candidate, and am placing it here for AfD, as it asserts notability (just). Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless it can be shown that he played professionally for another club. It seems that he never played a first team match for Liverpool.--Michig (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ClubOranje^Talk 08:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Appears not to have made it in the footballing world of notability - next to nothing found on him, and nothing of note amongst that. Doesn't appear to have played professionally--ClubOranje^Talk 08:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn in light of recent edits, pending further investigation. This player does not seem to appear on any of the usual stats sites --ClubOranje^Talk 19:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Keep. I'm happy with that now.--ClubOranje^Talk 20:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - made 21 appearances for Torquay United in the Football League Fourth Division, a fully professional league, per neil Brown's site -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the Torquay appearances.--Michig (talk) 08:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ChrisTheDude. Giant Snowman 13:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. He played in the football league for Torquay when they were a Football League club Have expanded it to make this more obvious. WikiGull (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above, per recent edits. Govvy (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Group Zuper Senior Year: Iquitos Youth[edit]

Possible non-notable group. I declined this from being speedily deleted, as it asserts notability, but I'm not sure it warrants inclusion in the project. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What on earth is a graduation? Appears to be about a non-notable group of people. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Graduation? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I thought it was a performace? a play? it really doesn't make that clear. --Numyht (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 El Llano en Llamas. MBisanz ^talk 02:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Le Llano en Flammes[edit]

There is no reason stated in this article why the French translation of the Spanish original is notable. -Yupik (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Juan Rulfo, author of the original book in Spanish. Notability has not been established for this to warrant its own article. LinguistAtLarge 20:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to El Llano en Llamas and un "redirect" Spanish name (El llano en llamas as well) from Juan Rolfo. The book is notable and should have its own article, even if it starts as a stub. Non-English language items are underrepresented in English wikipedia, so I think a little leeway is in order. Scarykitty (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm gonna make an edit and move this article as wikignomes are coming by and removing links that are currently circular, but will not be after this sensible move. If the vote or close is to delete, so be it. Not trying to subvert the process AT ALL. Scarykitty (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

- Never mind couldn't make it happen as El Llano en Llamas redirects to Juan Rulfo. Would be great if someone could close this and we'll get about to seeing if this article can survive. Note that since this nomination, an editor has added a list of stories contained in the volume along with brief plot synopses of some of the stories - a big improvement! Scarykitty (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. To be frank, it still doesn't change the reason why this was put up for AfD in the first place. What is notable enough about this particular language's translations of this book that it needs to be translated and put up on this wikipedia? I'd have no problem with this article if it were an article discussing the English translation and the Spanish original, but a French translation? -Yupik (talk) 13:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with the nominator insofar as the notability of the French translation of the Spanish book is not established (although one might argue that the fact that the preface for the French transaltion was written by an Nobel Laureate points to a certain notability); I agree with Scarykitty insofar as the book clearly deserves an article. I'll go ahead and make it a stub under El Llano en Llamas. We can redirect after the closure of this AfD. Lectonar (talk) 13:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Le Llano en Flammes
  (there are 10 references)
  and a very well informed Spanish language version El llano en llamas
  and a request to get help in translating from Spanish into English [[18]]
  but prefer toUse Spanish language title (El llano en llamas) of the book rather than the French language title of the book .
  El Llano en Llamas used to redirect to Juan Rulfo [[19]].Then it has been made into a stand alone page [[20]].
  --Stadt (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Spanish title & Keep. Don't go to the hassle of writing a new article - just go through the requested movers page. Johnbod (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content into El Llano en Llamas and have Le Llano en Flammes as a redirect. Abecedare (talk) 02:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have gone ahead and merged content to El Llano en Llamas. At close of this AFD Le Llano en Flammes should be made into a redirect; it should not be deleted in order to preserve the contribution history as required under GFDL. Abecedare (talk) 03:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks to everyone who has helped provide a suitable solution for this article! -Yupik (talk) 10:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per CSD:A3. No actual content. Stifle (talk) 14:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gianna Maria Crane[edit]

Doesn't appear to meet our internal requirements for WP:NOTABILITY. rootology (C)(T) 16:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable infant who appeared in a television show. No substantive independent coverage found to establish notability. LinguistAtLarge 20:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. An infant who appeared in three episodes, with evidently no significant role. ^LeaveSleaves 05:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per LeaveSleaves and LinguistAtLarge. Decltype (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Pearson[edit]

This person, at this time, I don't think meets our site's notability standards for inclusion. Nominating for deletion. rootology (C)(T) 16:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately - There are some ghits and gnews hits for "Katie Pearson" but they appear to be about other individuals. LinguistAtLarge 20:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Possible redirect to Kate Pierson.SPNic (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to fail notability and WP:ENTERTAINER. Edison (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks a sufficient body of notable work. --Stormbay (talk) 03:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Millie Binks[edit]

A sub-stub article, and this actor does not appear to meet our standards for notability for a biographical article, per notability. rootology (C)(T) 16:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google draws a blank. I don't think we can establish notability for this one. LinguistAtLarge 20:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to fail notability and WP:ENTERTAINER. Edison (talk) 23:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 03:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Denyse Tontz[edit]

Child actor, but one that doesn't yet appear to meet our internal notability standards. Delete. rootology (C)(T) 16:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She's young, but being in four movies, I'd think that is significant. K50 Dude ROCKS! 16:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She meets the notability criteria for entertainers as having fairly significant roles in multiple notable films (including The Last Day of Summer, E-Ring, and Dog Gone^[1]). Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I concur that she meets WP:ENTERTAINER, but the article still needs to be referenced for verifiability. LinguistAtLarge 20:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's notable, but the article needs help. Little Mountain 5 23:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:ENTERTAINER. Schuym1 (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, being in that many movies seems to confer notability. Stifle (talk) 14:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Morganne Matis[edit]

Unknown notibility, french TV show contestent? RT | Talk 15:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; fails WP:BIO, seems inappropriately promotional —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C15:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, lack of significant RS coverage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantumobserver (talk • contribs) 16:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve - clearly asserts notability per WP:MUSIC by television appearance on notable program, live appearance at a major international sporting event and national concert tour in France. Needs more references to prove all this, however. OttoTheFish (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note Original user who posted the page posted on this AFD talk page, admin looking at this for deletion should look at that comment too RT | Talk 18:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While it definitely needs additional sources, the article subject definitely meets notability criteria for musicians, satisfying not one but three of the possible criteria: #2 with a charted song, #4 with a national tour, and #10 having performed on a television series. Raven1977 (talk) 02:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to meet WP:NMG criteria. Stifle (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I've added reliable sources to prove she meets criteria #2 at WP:BAND. --JD554 (talk) 13:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 01:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dalet School[edit]

no reliable sources in article or findable by me to establish notability. There also appear to be conflict of interest issues for the article's creators. I have also just nominated the Obadiah school, which is apparently colocated with this one. Bali ultimate (talk) 15:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The school is actual the headquarters of the Assemblies of Yahweh as shown here [21]. That in and of its self establishes notability. I referenced and cited the piece as such. Likewise most secondary educational institutes are usually considered notable by a majority of consensus. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 15:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In that the Dalet School has a program that includes education for grades 9 through 12, it might qualify under our rules for high schools. Weak keep, however, because it doesn't appear that the entire K-12 program has that many students. If nothing else, merge to Assemblies of Yahweh, which operates the school. Mandsford (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - includes a high school and sources to meet WP:ORG are available. TerriersFan (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per edits by ShoesssS. Passes WP:N --Sting Buzz Me... 00:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Only Ricky and Bali have been having a go against all the AOY articles. Dalet School may be a private school, but it one of few schools that promote the keeping of the biblical law. Also, corresponds to the Assemblies of Yahweh. I would also suggest reversing all the edits done by Ricky and Bali to the article/s, as it seems to have caused a lot of discontent. In Citer (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)— In Citer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - I personally find the tag placed on In Citer signature as not only trying to poison the well but offense. I would ask that you remove it. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 17:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Citer, is that attack against me necessary? I haven't even make a comment in this AFD and I wish you would assume good faith as to my edits in this article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Murtaza Shibli[edit]

Fails WP:CREATIVE. No more than few articles published in major or minor publications. The body of work he is part of, kashmiraffairs.org, also doesn't have significant and/or reliable coverage. ^LeaveSleaves 14:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Runs afoul of WP:BIO and WP:PROMO. The newsletter itself may warrant an article, but this present article is little more than an advert. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C16:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:BIO and we don't have secondary reliable sources to base a biography on. Abecedare (talk) 07:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sizzla. Cirt (talk) 08:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Judgement Yard[edit]

This bizarre advert-like article has been tagged for references and notability for almost two months with no substantive changes since thne. There are no claims of notability whatsoever nor any references. Searches for “Judgment Yard” together with “August Town” do not even help to clarify what the topic of this article might have been intended to be. Bongo matic 14:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My gut instinct is that the subject probably *is* notable. However, the article itself doesn't clearly demonstrate this, and indeed isn't comprehensible enough for anyone who doesn't already know the subject matter to make a fair stab at rewriting it. In such circumstances, isn't the onus on the original article creator to improve the article for notability and comprehensibility or for it to be deleted? It probably needs rewritten from scratch anyway. Ubcule (talk) 15:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete | A7; we have here an article about a real organization that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. Its odd, rambling first-person narrative seems to consist almost wholly of personal essay (original research), and if it doesn't violate CSD G1 (patent nonsense) it comes very, very close. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C16:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ change to merge per Lockley Dlohcierekim 13:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC) Although the subject is probably notable, the article is incoherent and lacking in a clean version. There is not sufficient context to identify the subject, there is no clear assertion of notability. The article would have to be completely rewritten from scratch with verifiable sources. Even so, speedy deletion has been declined in the past, so I do not feel comfortable speedily deleting now. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 20:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / redirect into Judgment Yard's creator, Sizzla. --Lockley (talk) 03:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sizzla - currently lacks evidence of independent notability; can always be recreated as a separate article later if sources are found. Terraxos (talk) 02:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD A7. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mehdi kargar[edit]

Nonsense article. ²wenty³ (talk) 14:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 01:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giant Squid (band)[edit]

There are no claims in this article that would (if demonstrated with independent sources sources, none of which are cited at present) satisfy the notability guidelines for bands. Bongo matic 14:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per new info provided by Michig Delete per nom, also no apparent compliance with WP:BIO for any of the band members. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C16:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, same as above. K50 Dude ROCKS! 16:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral for now~~ They have an Allmusic profile here which is usually a reasonable indicator that they have a degree of notability. There also seem to be plenty of interviews and the like with the band from a cursory Google search. Would certainly need some sourcing if someone had the time, but might possibly scrape through. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to keep on basis of sources found. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. They also have this subsantial review from Allmusic, and a google search would have found loads more: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]. Please spend some time searching for sources before bringing articles to AFD.--Michig (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, easily passes WP:MUSIC#C1 with the ref's Michig found, since they obviously had the time. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there's a difference between what Michig and Esradekan consider to be a reliable source and my view. Maybe others will weigh in. By the way, Michig, please don't assume that everyone who disagrees with you doesn't spend the time to consider his/her actions and think about assuming good faith in the future. Bongo matic 02:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Before_nominating_an_article_for_deletion. Pointing out what the guideline states should be done is not a failure to 'assume good faith', and it's annoying when people come up with this argument.--Michig (talk) 07:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But assuming that the nominator didn't do those things is such a failure. Bongo matic 07:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You gave no indication that you did such a search or found those results. It is not a failure to 'assume good faith', it's an assumption that the nominator didn't search Google and Google News before nominating the article, and a reminder that this should be done. By the way, what problem do you have with Austin American-Statesman, Allmusic, and austin360.com (the Austin American-Statesman's website), for example, as reliable sources?--Michig (talk) 07:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:MUSIC#1, as demonstrated by Michig. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 08:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 17:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Eggleston[edit]

Unable to find any significant coverage of this recently deceased poet. The lack of an obituary in a major Australian newspaper--while not dispositive--is a pretty good indication of a lack of notability.. Bongo matic 14:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Biography in AustLit (subscribers only): [31]. A brief mention here. JulesH (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bibliograph does not constitute "significant coverage". Bongo matic 02:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ Keep - I created the page believing notability could be established, but have found it hard to find verifiable sources to establish notability. 6 mentions in google books results. Mentioned in Small Press Publishing in Australia: The Early 1970's (Second Back Row Press, 1979) Possibility would be to fold this article into one on the long-running Montsalvat poetry festival, which surely is notable, and then make the Eggleston page a redirect. Stumps (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The mentions located in Google Books are all passing references--not a single one could be considered to be "non-trival" (let alone "significant") coverage.

If the Montsalvat poetry festival is notable (long-running doesn't demonstrate that it is), a redirect would seem reasonable. But in the meantime, since there is no notability established, this article should be deleted. Bongo matic 02:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've upgraded to 'Keep' as I've now found that the Australian Defence Force Academy library has a couple of boxes of Eggleston manuscript materials - reference added to article. If a university keeps an archive of his material I'd say that does support a claim of notability. Stumps (talk) 07:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it doesn't. Papers frequently end up archived due to bequests of the author or his/her survivors. Institutions are generally obligated to abide by the terms of the bequest in perpetuity. Bongo matic 07:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bequest ... Library index record last updated 2003/11/06 ... date of death 2 Dec 2008. Stumps (talk) 08:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd probably lean towards a weak keep. I am partial to the ultimate standard of whether the article makes the encyclopedia better or not, so I guess that makes me something of an inclusionist. It's not promotional, advertorial, difficult to maintain, controversial, and its accuracy isn't disputed, so I think it's okay to include it. The individual is not especially notable, but I did see a small number of mentions on google books, so he has some notoriety it would seem. That's my 2 cents. Thanks for thinking of me. (Reposted from a talk page)ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - If the other sources mentioned are added to the article, if more references are not added, however, I would recommend deletion. So I guess my vote will change if more references are not added, as one book does not constitute extensive coverage. Like CoM, I think the encyclopedia could use this information, but policies must be adhered to. Scapler (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep The sources I have seen so far suggest that Eggleston is notable for his writing as well as his work in the performance poet. Editors may however require some time (and library trips!) to properly document this; recommend they check out La Mama Poetica, which is an anthology of poetry by performance poets including Eggleston and may contain some more biographical information. Abecedare (talk) 03:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 00:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yevgeni Nikolayev[edit]

Non-notable person per WP:BIO. Valrith (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article was created because this man won the Hero of the Soviet Union. This nom is really an example of our Western bias. Would we consider nominating a Victoria Cross winner for deletion? Buckshot06(prof) 15:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Had some trouble confirming the award but here it is (translated from Russian). As recepient of highest Soviet award, definitely notable. Strangely Russian wiki does not have article on him. ^LeaveSleaves 18:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Recipients of the highest award of a major country are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 There is no evidence, including Pepsi's own website, that this product exists, --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 15:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pepsi Wylde[edit]

Hoax article, plain and simple. Article about a product that Pepsi has launched aimed at the gay and lesbian community of Australia. No sources, no references and any links given don't mention the product. No sources found, which beggars belief for a product launched by Pepsi FlowerpotmaN·(t) 12:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note A speedy tag has been challenged by a few IP editors, hence the AFD. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 12:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hoax article. Not a single source found, and seriously, a drink "Especially for lesbian and gay people"? Even Pepsi's own website doesn't mention it.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —FlowerpotmaN·(t) 13:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of LGBT related deletions. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 13:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - hoax. Can we close this now? PhilKnight (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 00:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bed ball[edit]

No evidence of notability, Google search for this name finds no reliable sources, also references cited in article are not verifiable. —Snigbrook 11:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MADEUP. Graymornings_(talk) 12:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourceable. Juzhong (talk) 12:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete As something someone madeup oneday. Lugnuts (talk) 12:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources that indicate notability. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Terminal case of madeupitis. Besides, I can find better things to do at hotels. =^_^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Multiple similar copies were speedied for WP:MADEUP, including one tagged by me. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete per WP:MADEUP. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - urban dictionary entry? Wandering Courier (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't one. IfIt for sure fails WP:NOTE. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete WP:SNOW. That's all she wrote. --Numyht (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indian online DVD rental services comparision[edit]

WP:OR, WP:SYN; I don't see anything here that indicates that comparison of Indian online DVD rental services is a notable topic or one to which much research has been devoted. roux 10:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not Consumer Reports, and this article runs afoul of WP:NOTLINK; the tabular presentation of the companies' rate structures doesn't change the fact that this is nothing but a collection of links to Indian DVD rental companies. Verges on violating CSD G11 (blatant advertising), and in any event, neither the comparison nor the companies meet notability requirements. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C16:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure OR. Plus no indication of notability of subject matter. Unnecessary cruft. ^LeaveSleaves 17:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable OR. Perhaps we should expand WP:NOT to say, "Wikipedia is not a comparison shopping site". Abecedare (talk) 07:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cardcaptor Sakura. MBisanz ^talk 02:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clow Cards[edit]

Unnotable list of cards from the Cardcaptor Sakura series; no significant coverage in reliable, third party sources and the card's relevant/role is generally limited to single episodes and chapters which is already better covered by those specific lists. List itself is primarily unsourced and list is primarily OR and repetition of the aforementioned episode/chapter summaries. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 09:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 09:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Cardcaptors 76.66.198.171 (talk) 10:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Cardcaptor Sakura Tags have been in place 11months, it's safe to say it's not likely to be updated in any major way Dandy Sephy (talk) 10:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: why Cardcaptors which is a secondary adaptation instead of the original workd, Cardcaptor Sakura? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 10:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, that was me not paying attention :p Now changed Dandy Sephy (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cardcaptor Sakura. Edward321 (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I don't want to sound like WP:OSE, but I've seen worse lists. If we merge this content, the page will become quite massive. However, I agree that the content there is more trivial than encyclopedic. Victor Lopes (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't anything to really merge except maybe some lead stuff. Except for maybe 3 or 4 cards, most are single episode things that then just get used. Doesn't need a lot of explanation to say the Watery card makes water :-P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please leave this list up, it is very helpful —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.41.232 (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC) — 75.80.41.232 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rann (film)[edit]

Apparently fails future film notabililty guidelines. (At least I think so - it's a total mess at the moment.) No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that shooting has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 13:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for more or less failing WP:NFF. While multiple sources confirm announcement of the film, none indicate beginning of principle photography. Plus another source indicates that the producer-director is now in the process of shooting a different film. ^LeaveSleaves 17:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in agreement with the nom and LeaveSleaves. The article is sourced to blogs, not WP:RS, and so fails WP:NFF. No prejudice against bringing it back once there are reliable sources to show notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; LeaveSleaves's uncovered source reflects how directors will have numerous projects on their slate, but they only pursue one at a time. It is not possible to know whether such projects on the slate will be revisited until they actually do so. —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wes Burden[edit]

Through a lack of reliable sources, the article fails to meet the standards of notability set at WP:N, WP:MUSIC. dissolve ^talk 08:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I believe the guidelines for notability are too vague. Should someone be notable internationally, nationally, regionally, only in a certain city, etc.? Wes Burden is fairly well known in the Pacific Northwest jazz scene (especially Portland) and has been for over 20 years. Is that notable enough? PS: I am, and always will be, an inclusionist. --Thorwald (talk) 06:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep nominator did not attempt any of the alternatives before deleting this article, as explained on Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Nomination. travb (talk) 09:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is absurd. I tagged the article for lacking references and questionable notability a year ago. I searched Google, Google News, Allmusic and the persons Web site for something that would reference notability or meet WP:MUSIC and then proposed deletion when nothing was found. dissolve ^talk 10:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, like the nom, I can find nada that would establish any sort of notability per WP:MUSIC#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. This is the closest I got [32]. If travb feels that strongly about it, I challenge them to come up with some reliable, third-party, published sources. I'd be more than willing to change me vote then. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourceable. (BTW Your deletion nominations might go more smoothly if you actually tell people where you have searched... and you should search google news archive not just google news (in this case you would have found a trivial mention)). Juzhong (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like he's currently indy and not doing too big yet. NO prejudice to recreation when Wes makes the big time - good luck, man. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: article fails to establish notability WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 20:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Cry (film)[edit]

No notability asserted. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article asserts $21,000 in takings in four cinemas. rt has one minor review listed. No way this passes Wikipedia:Notability_(films) Phil153 (talk) 08:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This thing fails notability guides. 65.60.203.137 (talk) 09:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 13:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NO notability, little content, doesn'st even say in particular what this is about. Well, OK - it's about "an urban legend" at the time of my !vote - which one? There are legion urban legends - Snopes, Mythbusters, and alt.folklore.urban are but three things dedicated to finding the truth behind them all! --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Change vote to Keep in light of recent changes. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's about La Llorona. Juzhong (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a very notable movie. Keep - in light of the expanded article and new sources. Wandering Courier (talk) 01:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest of keeps as I found PLENTY that showed notability since its release to DVD and have been expanding and sourcing the article since I found it at AfD. I ask those who opined delete to re-visit the artilce. Its now a keeper. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While MQ above has done excellent work on the article, it simply does not meet the guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability_(films)#General_principles. I looked at about 60 of the sources provided and none of them meet the automatic inclusion criteria for films, while all of them fall under the category of trivial coverage as detailed in the link above. Without guidelines I'd keep it but it seems to fail our guidelines badly absent evidence otherwise. Phil153 (talk) 01:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: how much more significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject do you require, as I have found dozens. Far from being "trivial", they are substantive and in-depth... which more than meet the reqirements of WP:NF. Please advise. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response rotten tomatoes lists 1 review. The film notability guidelines specifically exclude: Trivial coverage, such as newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews," plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as "Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide," "Time Out Film Guide," or the Internet Movie Database.. They specifically require: [significant coverage in] published works such as books, television documentaries, full-length featured newspaper articles from large circulation newspapers, full-length magazine reviews and criticism Please provide a links to sources that fit this policy. I may not agree with the guidelines but they're there for a reason, and this doesn't even seem borderline to me. Phil153 (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is apparent that I must list them here at the AfD to show extensive coverage that more than qualifies under WP:GNG and thus WP:NF: Here are a few of the non-trivial, in-depth reviews that show, per WP:NF, "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the project (IE: not "capsule" reviews"): Sara Schieron of Box Office, Anthony Thurber of Film Arcade, Justin Felix of DVD Talk, Kryten Syxx of Dread Central, Elliot V. Kotek of Moving Pictures Magazine, Diana Thoren of American Vulture, Best Horror Movies, and DVD Verdict. This establishes a significant coverage independent of the subjects by experts in their field who are qualified to give opinion in the genre being reviewed. If there were but one or two, I'd be saying "toss the article"... but that is not the case. I have so tagged the article for WP:RESCUE. Since WP:NF's general principal calls for "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", I have shown exactly this... with overkill. And yes, to show that I am very aware of the difference, I also offer a slew of "capsule" reviews for comparison... reviews that are more-than-trivial mentions on a list, but less than substantive in-depth reviews: Rotten Tomatoes, DVD Empire, Ciao, Film Annex, Charlotte Observer, Video Service Corp, Horror-Movies.ca, HK Flix, New York Times, Turner Clasic Movies, Movieweb, Film.com, MSN Movies, New York Dailey News, Movieclock, Horror Mall, Horror Asylum. There ARE MORE of both. And Phil153 is quite correct, this film's notability is not even borderline.... It has more than been established PER THE GUIDELINES. Thanks Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I didn't see the article before MQS got to it, but it's definitely well-fleshed out and well-sourced now. From a quick glance through the given sources, in my opinion most if not all of them qualify as reliable sources, so the article in my opinion meets notability criteria now. Raven1977 (talk) 04:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the notability having been established since the nomination. —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability has been established. Terraxos (talk) 02:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Realiable sources to meet notability criteria. --Jmundo (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pen!s is big[edit]

Innapropriate/Offensive/Serves no purpose, irrelevant. Friginator (talk) 08:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Reilly (computer scientist)[edit]

Not even close to notable. Co-authored a single (not notable) book. Article and author's website says it all really. Phil153 (talk) 08:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, he seems to have done more than work on that single book, and as the book is in its second printing I suspect it is notable. Probably. But none of his work seems to rise to the point that suggests he himself is notable. No heavily cited papers found by google scholar; a few technical articles written for the IT press, but nothing that stands out as groundbreaking; Delete. JulesH (talk) 10:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I should clarify. I didn't mean to imply that he hasn't done good work (his book is well regarded by reviewers on Amazon, and he's written some useful articles, for example), merely that he doesn't meet our notability guidelines for inclusion at present. Phil153 (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable person. Salih (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even by Wikipedias low, low standard of Bios this doesn't come close to meeting WP:BIO and reads like a promotion. Shot info (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Adventures in Odyssey#Music. The issues with the group of the articles recently nominated should be solved in a consistent way. Tone 21:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Sings![edit]

Part of a host of unsourced and unnotable subsidiary articles related to Adventures in Odyssey, a radio show whose own article does little to establish notability and contains virtually no verifiable information, being AfDed. Splitting off these two music-album articles, per recommendation in original AfD. Neither album appears to be notable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page for the same reasons:

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete | A7, does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. Also fails music album notability requirements. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C16:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect into Adventures in Odyssey or a similar page. I'll be glad to do it. ✼ American Eagle (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit on the fence, but I'm going to still say Speedy Delete per scheinwerfermann. A7. K50 Dude ROCKS! 20:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect both, I think, is the best option here--I don't see how the AIO page will get deleted, given how big it is and how many people work on it regularly. 22:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment: given its woeful lack of sourcing, I don't think that AIO's continued existence can be assumed. Size isn't everything -- sourcing matters -- particularly on AfDs. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am further nominating the following page, which is a newly-created combined-copy of the above two pages (I will leave to editors consideration whether such an action, in the middle of an AfD, can be considered to be in good faith):

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What in the world? I just created the page, and haven't been able to work on it. It needs expanding, not deleting. Arrgg. ✼ American Eagle (talk) 02:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You think a simple 'copy and paste' of the entirety of articles currently up for AfD, into a newly created article, should enjoy special consideration? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know (except, the lead was new). Anways, I didn't know weather it would be better to merge them into AIO, or create AIO music. I changed my mind, and have merged AIO music into AIO itself. ✼ American Eagle (talk) 03:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would further note that American Eagle has since copied the contents of these three pages into Adventures in Odyssey, adding to the (already high) preponderance of cruft there. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adventures in Odyssey has much un-encyclopedic content, of which I have been in the process of removing. However, the music isn't "fan cruft," its notable content (which probably is not yet worthy of a stand-alone article). Is it alright if I now redirect both Eugene Sings! articles into AIO, and close this deletion? Thanks. ✼ American Eagle (talk) 03:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought that you would have realised by now how much credence I place in bare assertions of notability. If you have decided against continuing with Adventures in Odyssey music, you are welcome to speedy that as its sole author. As to the two 'Eugene Sings!' articles -- I see no need for them to continue as redirects -- as I see little probability that anybody would look for them independently of the main topic of Adventures in Odyssey. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to appropriate section within the Adventures in Odyssey article. Graymornings_(talk) 17:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 17:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Zimmer (disambiguation)[edit]

Superfluous dab page, hatnotes on 2 relevant pages suffice. Page is orphaned and an unlikely search term Tassedethe (talk) 07:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —Tassedethe (talk) 07:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article on the politician David Zimmer already has a disambig link at the top to The Book of Illusions. Graymornings_(talk) 08:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I created the dab long ago). Doesn't hurt. And useful for research purpose since it appears in Category:Human name disambiguation pages, see [33]. --Edcolins (talk) 13:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, harmless but useless, so it should be deleted if nominated. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At most, since it's only DABing two things (and this is an unlikely search term), there should be a pointer in the other article to the book series containing the character of the same name. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:NOHARM, "doesn't hurt" is not a valid reason to keep it. The assertion that a human-name dab page should be kept because it appears in Category:Human name disambiguation pages is circular and likewise does not justify keeping. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C16:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It takes only two valid target articles to make a valid dab page. If either target is deleted, this can be easily turned into a redirect. B.Wind (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two valid targets are all that's needed for a base name (no primary topic) disambiguation page, true. That is not the case here. This dab page is an orphan, because there is no need for it. Readers looking for either article will find the one sought by entering David Zimmer in the search box or by clicking through the hatnote on the primary topic article David Zimmer. So, this dab page is useless and harmless and should be deleted since someone took the trouble to identify it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. When there is a third David Zimmer to add, it can be recreated. For now, since there are only two articles, reciprocal dablinks between the two are easier for the end user. LinguistAtLarge 21:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dab pages are cheap, especially when they already exist. It's more trouble to delete them & convert them to hat notes than to leave them be. We shouldnt deliberately create new ones when there are 2 alternatives, but i see no reason to remove any which are not confusing, or in situations where one of the two is much the more important. DGG (talk) 06:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, only because a third valid entry has been added. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep multiple routes to the same article are best. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 12:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Disambiguations are supposed to guide someone to two or more different articles when there are multiple articles. There is only one notable person that needs disambiguating, so the disambiguation is not necessary. If the other articles are created, I don't see why this can't be recreated, but at this moment, it is NOT needed. Tavix (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

GUI_Jon[edit]

The result was speedy delete by User:Efe (G3). Non-admin close. JulesH (talk) 10:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/GUI Jon

Redirect article created as part of ongoing vandalism of another article MsSunn (talk) 07:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Meyers (disambiguation)[edit]

Superfluous dab page, hatnotes on 2 relevant pages suffice. Page is orphaned and an unlikely search term. Tassedethe (talk) 07:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —Tassedethe (talk) 07:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, harmless but useless, so should be deleted if nominated. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Doesn't hurt. And useful for research purpose since it appears in Category:Human name disambiguation pages, see [34]. --Edcolins (talk) 13:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:NOHARM, "doesn't hurt" is not a valid justification for keeping. And the statement that a human-name dab page appears in Category:Human name disambiguation pages is circular and likewise does not justify keeping. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C16:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, for it to be a circular link, it would have to link directly to the page on which the wikilink appears. Usually that occurs when an article is linked to a redirect to that same page. Categories are completely different in this regard. B.Wind (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  The link isn't circular, the argument is. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Yeah, what ↑he said↑. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C21:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Two valid targets are all that's needed for a dab page. If either of the target articles is deleted, the dab page can be converted into a redirect. B.Wind (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two valid targets are all that's needed for a base name (no primary topic) disambiguation page, true. That is not the case here. This dab page is an orphan, because there is no need for it. Readers looking for either article will find the one sought by entering Brad Meyers in the search box or by clicking through the hatnote on the primary topic article Brad Meyers. So, this dab page is useless and harmless and should be deleted since someone took the trouble to identify it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. When there is a third Brad Meyers to add, it can be recreated. For now, since there are only two articles, reciprocal dablinks between the two are easier for the end user. LinguistAtLarge 21:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dab pages are cheap, especially when they already exist. It's more trouble to delete them & convert them to hat notes than to leave them be. We shouldnt deliberately create new ones when there are 2 alternatives, but i see no reason to remove any which are not confusing, or in situations where one of the two is much the more important. DGG (talk) 06:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This one doesn't need to be converted. It's an orphan (useless) dab page; the correct hatnote already exists. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOHARM, "doesn't hurt" is not a valid justification for keeping. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C13:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two articles looks okay to me. We have lists and categories for the same information, so redundancy is no reason to delete a disambiguation page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 12:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation pages are neither list articles nor categories. Redundancy is not one of the reasons given for deletion. It is useless, and there is no reason not to delete it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for deletion was given as: "Superfluous dab page, hatnotes on 2 relevant pages suffice". Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines redundant as: exceeding what is necessary or normal : superfluous b: characterized by or containing an excess". If you know how to use Wikipedia, you should know how to use a dictionary and a thesaurus. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do. superfluous b: not needed : unnecessary[35] -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as the disambiguation has been bypassed by a hatnote. Since no articles link here, it isn't needed anymore. "It does no harm" is not a valid reason to keep. Tavix (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected. No need for further discussion for deletion, as the page is already a redirect. (non-admin closure) DARTH PANDA ^duel 22:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Saturday massacre[edit]

This is a clear wp:NEO violation. The two sources using this term are from January 3, and the article was written January 4. Those two sources are also not major news outlets, so their neutrality is questionable. The title is highly POV, and the subject is clearly and better covered at 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. NJGW (talk) 07:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salted redirect to 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:At present that article is too large and we should split it.(123,480 bytes)--Seyyed(t-c) 07:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do not address the issues with this article. If that other article is split, it should not be to articles with names which violate Wikipedia standards and policies. NJGW (talk) 07:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What standards and policies are being violated by this name? Certainly in the context it is not neutral, but that is solved by redirect, as its done with another non-neutral article Operation Cast Lead. So I am curious to see what other violations are there? Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 07:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you point out, wp:N and wp:POVFORK, and then there's wp:NEO, and as for being sourced, I see no wp:V source that this is anything more than a propganda move (as hinted at by the wording and timing of the Daily News source. NJGW (talk) 08:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEO doesn't apply here. It applies to words, not phrases. Look-up what a "neologism" means in a dictionary, you seem to be confused. That said, we disagree on the lack of verifiability. This is how it is being called by Arab media, and how the article is named (or has been named) in Arab Wikipedia - what is neutral to you and me might not be neutral to Others: WP:BIAS. In English media the whole thing gets reduced to "massacre", but it is verified by (for example) Fox News, YNET and AFP. This is why I agree to redirect, the term is a notable way used by one side of the conflict to unambigously refer to the conflict, or at least to one of its components. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 08:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

" A new term does not belong in Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources specifically about the term — not just sources which mention it briefly or use it in passing." The news sources you provide all quote one side of the conflict to arive at the word "massacre". Also, this is English Wikipedia. Each language site has different standards. So far we have established that some Palestinians call this event a "massacre". I have seen no wp:V sources which suggest anything different. The fact that one side refers to an event one way and the other side refers to it in another way is not news, but could be mentioned at the main article. This discussion is on another topic. NJGW (talk) 08:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, NJGW, (someone PLEASE back me up), "Black Saturday massacre" is a phrase, not a term or word. All three words used in the phrase have been long used in the English language, and combining them to describe an event is not a neologism. Please read Neologism#What_Neologism_isn't for a wonderful explanation of what I mean. WP:NEO's purpose and intent is to keep new words, that might not be known by our readers, from creeping in, as we are not a dictionary. Any reader of english even at a basic level understands what "Black Saturday massacre" means. Sorry, but if you do not want to take my word for it, ask an uninvolved person in WT:NEO and they will certainly explain this to you. Its a question of language, not NPOV, and you insiting on this is not good and makes you look dumb. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not call people dumb. From Wiktionary: "term ... 2. A word or phrase, especially one from a specialised area of knowledge." As for your link to what Neologisms aren't, that goes to an OR portion of an article, not to any Wiki policy or guideline. The problem isn't with what the term "Black Saturday Massacre" means, it's with the new usage of that combination of words to refer to specific event and the fact that it is a term created as propoganda by one side in a conflict (a term which they would love to have creep in to common usage). This is not an official term for the event, nor is it one assigned by historians, or even the press (who only use the term when attributing it to Palestinians). This is it is exactly what NEO and wp:N were created for. NJGW (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That might be true, but it isn't for you to decide. You didn't discuss this in the article's talk page. Your argument further evidences the WP:POVFORK nature of this article. However since the term is a verifiable sourced one, we could redirect. If we ever choose to for to it, we would do it. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 07:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close let merger discussion happen, but if this is not closed then Redirect to 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. Before AfD some other user proposed a merge discussion. Nominator ignored this, which is not good... While this is clearly a WP:POVFORK and I would have WP:SNOWBALLed it had I not found its existence by the merge proposal, the AfD is premature. However, once a discussion was raised, I think an AfD was unnecesary, and shows lack of judgement in a contentious editing environment. As to salting, well, WP:SALT is clear no preemptive measures should be taken, unless I am missing something, there are no vandalism issues here. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 07:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge As I suggested in the article's talk page, I think we should create an article on Operation Cast Lead to describe the first few days of the conflict and merge this article into that one. --Al Ameer son (talk) 08:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not raise issues here that belong in the talk page, but is suffices to mention the overwhelming majority of the editors do not agree with you. They either want to rename the present article to the Operation, or want to change the current name but keep the redirect a redirect. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 08:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close or Redirect. Agree with Cerejota. Best, Tkalisky (talk) 09:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge well sourced, also as per above. travb (talk) 09:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete or redirect to 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict There is no justification for a separate article on this conflict, and having information in two places is a bad idea. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Cerejota's arguments.--Omrim (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The only valid objection that I see here is the name of the article. Generally, if more than 200 people were killed and more than 1,000 injured in a given location and in a single day, that would be considered notable. It should not matter whether it occurs in Gaza, Israel or in Gary, Indiana. I imagine that if the rockets fired from Gaza were to have killed 20 Israelis in a single day, that would be considered to be a unique occurence. Mandsford (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are talking about two different things. The event is notable and covered at another article, but the title itself is as POV as it gets. There are thousands of instances in history where hunderds of people have been killed and it wasn't called a massacre (see war). This phrase is propoganda created before anyone even knew what had happened (see the sources from the same day who already had this name for it). Even those supporting this name on the article's talk page acknowledge that we don't know if the 200 where military or civilians. NJGW (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ATTENTION UNINVOLVED ADMINS THE PAGE HAS BEEN REDIRECTED PER SNOWBALL FURTHER DISCUSSION IS MOOT, PLEASE SPEEDY CLOSE If someone disagrees, please raise an RfD. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Please close as snowball redirect, and consider salting due to the editwarring which has been going on over the redirect. NJGW (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Centro Warringal[edit]

Shopping centre with Coles and Aldi anchors only, 11000 sqm floor space (8,000 or 9,000 in Croydon's case). Not notable. Orderinchaos 07:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Orderinchaos 07:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. Every single mall doesn't need a Wikipedia article, and nothing seems to make this one particularly notable. --Cybercobra (talk) 10:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless Eastmain finds sources. Just kidding. Seriously, though, I don't think more than one or two strip malls have ever survived AFD. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. I'm tempted to invoke WP:SNOW. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C16:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable per nominator. Sarah 04:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This mall is large enough to be notable, however the article does need independent references to demonstrate importance. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, beg pardon, but this mall is large enough to be notable looks like a nonsequitur to me. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C01:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Centro Meadow Heights[edit]

Clearly non-notable. A 5,000 sqm shopping centre centred on an IGA. Orderinchaos 07:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Orderinchaos 07:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I believe this topic may have inherent notability (as a geographic place), however, there are no secondary sources that verify any of the article's content (Google News). Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources. They have IGA in Australia? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — fails notability, no apparent appropriate verifiability. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C16:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable per nominator. Sarah 04:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 00:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 neighbours plots[edit]

Violates Wikipedia:Not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball. Quantumobserver (talk) 06:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as A1 decliner. Not encyclopedically written, no particular value. No objection to it being substantially rewritten, but it'd have to be overhauled. Jclemens (talk) 06:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely original research. Fosnez (talk) 06:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per blatant original research. A1 as said above FOR SURE. K50 Dude ROCKS! 16:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear wikipedia

Why are you deleting my article? If you think that this article if fake, well your wrong. It's true. But if you want go ahead and destroy the page. That is why the Article Deleters Hating Division (ADHD) is rallying against you— Preceding unsigned comment added by 711joel (talk • contribs)

Hello Mr. Eman, in conforming with Wikipedia's mission only certain types of articles are acceptable. We are glad that you would try and help us build our encyclopedia however you article is what we call original research. While it is evident that you have done quite a deal of good sleuthing, we cannot be sure that what you say is true (in the way that we can be sure what a newspaper or book says is factual) and as verifiability is one of out five pillars we must reject your article at the current time. You are welcome to come back once the episodes have aired and there are reliable sources reporting on them. In the mean time may I suggest a free hosting site for you to store your content, perhaps myWikiBiz or freewebs. Icewedge (talk) 07:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete plots of yet unreleased episodes, author claims some special insight into the behind the scenes production. His/Her diligence is commendable, but the article is entirely original research. Icewedge (talk) 06:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. either WP:OR or pure crystalballery, either way, delete. --Terrillja _talk 07:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but without prejudice to recreation from published sources. 2009 has begun, so there are plots for this show already published; we should therefore have an appropriate article summarising them (and, of course, describing media reactions to them). JulesH (talk) 09:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Wikipedia is neither a publisher of original research nor a crystal ball. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C16:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOT and WP:OR. This is an encyclopedia not a fan site or blog. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--OR, and entirely unencyclopedic in tone. Drmies (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Add:
- Neighbours 2009 plots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violates WP:NOT and WP:BALL. Little Mountain 5 23:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ultravox!. MBisanz ^talk 02:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dangerous Rhythm (single)[edit]

Non-charting single, unsourced. Unlikely choice for redirect given the "single" in the title, which goes against naming conventions anyway. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 05:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable single that fails WP:NSONGS. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I created the article. There are many articles about uncharted albums and singles, and i can't understand why this may be deleleted. I think it's abuse. Francodamned

Fran, time and time again the creators of articles are steamrolled over by veteran editors who know a lot of acronyms.

Based on the Articles for deletion history of other singles like this, unless this single was on the pop charts, it will be deleted. The best you can hope for is that the article is redirected to the band, then the article history is not delete too. travb (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to artist. As WP:MUSIC#Song states: "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist prominently performed the song." Delete editors are only quoting some of the WP:NSONGS/WP:MUSIC#Song policy, not all of it.travb (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable song WP:NSONGS. JamesBurns (talk) 07:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Public Relations Exercise. MBisanz ^talk 02:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Catalyst (single)[edit]

Non-notable song, no sources, didn't chart. Seems unlikely redirect given the "(single)" at the end, which goes against naming conventions anyway. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 05:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable song WP:NSONGS. JamesBurns (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to artist. As WP:MUSIC#Song states: "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist prominently performed the song." Delete editors are only quoting some of the WP:NSONGS/WP:MUSIC#Song policy, not all of it.travb (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 01:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St. Joseph the Betrothed Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church[edit]

There is no particular assertion or evidence of notability here. The closest we come is a statement that the church exterior is "known", but given no citation to back that up. The rest of the article deals with fairly routine events in the life of the parish (the various priests, the painting of the walls, the church societies) without anything special coming to light - say, third-party references establishing notability. And of course, it's all given a very positive spin ("a young energetic priest", "this dedicated group of women worked tirelessly", "Now it is time to create a new history for the next fifty years"). But really, this parish seems no different from its thousands of counterparts across Christendom, and thus the article should be deleted. Biruitorul ^Talk 05:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I am inclined to save the article, if only for the church's structure, which apparently is unlike any other in the world. (I have also gone in and done a ton of cleanup on this article, trimming 1/2 to 2/3 of the material from it; it looks much better now than when it was nominated. Of course, whether it is good enough to save is up to the AfD community.) Un school 08:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for the architecture, though I think perhaps it needs even more cutting down to what can be reliably referenced. Alternately, if that ends up being basically a paragraph worth of content, I wouldn't be opposed to merging it into a more comprehensive article, Ecclesiastical architecture of Chicago or something, akin to the Encyclopedia of Chicago article that this article cites. --Delirium (talk) 09:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I commend the work done since my nomination, making the article at least potentially salvageable. However, I should point out that the villageofjoy.com and oddee.com links are both self-published blogs (reliant on this very article, no less), and thus fail WP:RS. I also find Delirium's idea for an Ecclesiastical architecture of Chicago article intriguing - while several Chicago churches are notable enough to have their own article (actually close to 50 at present), it seems prudent to give a broader view of the subject and fold in some of the more minor ones (such as, I submit, this one) with just an image and a few sentences. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and develop a more comprehensive article as suggested above.Biophys (talk) 04:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a major church. Some churches of this sort will be notable, & the current state of the article shows it. DGG (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, but do multiple, reliable, independent, third-party sources establish notability? The article itself can't do that; we need outside confirmation. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You won't find (m)any third-party sources to establish notability but the the church has at least marginal notability. --Stormbay (talk) 03:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Menlo Park City School District#Elementary schools . MBisanz ^talk 02:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oak Knoll School (K-5)[edit]

This page is an apparent recreation of the previously deleted Oak Knoll School, now a redirect. The elementary school appears to be non-notable. —W. Flake (talk) 04:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete, Oak Knoll is a good and highly educational school. Oak Knoll is the coolest school ever, also! 68.166.189.43 (talk) 03:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Editing Necessary/Do not delete/Comment, Some of you would like me to clean up and add references to my page. W. Flake, please untag this article for deletion and I will do so. When I'm done, if it is not to your satisfaction, please notify me immediately. Thank you. Bubba Chilukuri (talk) 03:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)--Article Creator[reply]
- Comment/do not delete, apparently, no one granted me permission to edit the page yet, so I guess the deal is off. Bubba Chilukuri (talk) 02:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)-Article Creator[reply]
delete - not notable as is. changed to merge/redirect as per Terriers Fan below. Could probably be speedy deleted as recreation of deleted content? Might be able to saved with some cleanup and referenced notability statements. (John User:Jwy talk) 05:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I did not nominate the article for speedy deletion for I wasn't completely sure if the content was a recreation, as I never saw the original page. However, the timing of the deletion/creation and other factors led to me to believe it was recreated. —W. Flake (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment/Do not delete/Reply, Article was deleted only because I went on vacation right after typing two sentences. Deleted by Jerry. I recreated it, thinking I had accidentally not saved when I came back. Bubba Chilukuri (talk) 02:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)--Article Creator[reply]
  - Comment - this was never a recreation which only applies to pages deleted by way of an AfD whereas this page was previously speedied. TerriersFan (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Menlo Park City School District as per general consensus on elementary schools without specific notability. --Terrillja_talk 07:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Protest/Do not Redirect/Comment, needs specific notability.Bubba Chilukuri (talk) 03:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)-Article Creator[reply]
Delete, unnotable school. Tavix (talk) 07:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/Do not delete/Reply, not unnotable. won district's best school 11 years ago. Won California's Highly Educational School Award in 1997. Won national blue ribbon award in 2004. Won Best Project of Menlo Park Award in 1963.Bubba Chilukuri (talk) 02:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)--Article Creator[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Menlo Park City School District#Elementary schools per normal practice. TerriersFan (talk) 16:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not delete/Comment/Reply, Already part of Menlo Park City School District#Elementary schools. I Think Oak Knoll School (K-5) should not be deleted, as more detail is needed besides a link to the school website. School Website gives only brief summary of school and lists teachers and their info. Bubba Chilukuri (talk) 00:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)-Article Creator[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swing For The Fences[edit]

Contested prod. Novel with no assertion of notability for either itself or its author. This search returns only primary sources. Possible conflict of interest in the creation of this article. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BK. Schuym1 (talk) 04:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:BK. Apparently a self-published book with zero secondary or tertiary sources. A possible WP:VSCA. ^LeaveSleaves 17:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
""Save"" The editors of Wikipedia should stop deleting things that are real. An author has published a book. It's tangible and a literary work. The reference is valid. One day, if you editors are ever capable of writing a book for yourselves, perhaps you'd understand. Until then, your arrogant attitude to deleting valid content decreases the value of wikipedia exponentially. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.40.2 (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)Randy Frid[reply]
- The reliable source doesn't show notability. Wikipedia isn't for all things that exist, it's an encyclopedia and all topics in an encyclopedia need to be notable. Also, read WP:CIVIL. Schuym1 (talk) 00:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, you'll be interested to know that I am precisely in the process of writing a novel. I have no intention of starting the Wikipedia article on that novel myself, nor commission anyone to do it for me. As was said above, Wikipedia is not for things that are real so much as it is about things that are notable. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-published book that fails to meet notability guidelines for books. Abecedare (talk) 04:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no credible assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 05:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Aikins[edit]

Article has an assertion of notability, but it's almost certainly a hoax - no google hits supporting the person or event. Listing here to be on the safe side, but I anticipate an early close.--Kubigula (talk) 04:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was G3 as misinformation by Garden. Non admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Cruze[edit]

Artist is barely shown notability, website does not mention artist, Google search does not mention this specific artist Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 04:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cash Money Cholo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cruze Wit Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cruze Control (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Including artist's albums
G3 all. Blatant misinformation. Anyone who's collaborated with Lil Wayne would turn up at least one reliable source even if they don't meet WP:MUSIC themselves; there is absolutely bupkis on this guy. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Discussion to merge should take place at the talk page –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 15:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Allen (Adventures in Odyssey)[edit]

[For the avoidance of doubt, I am nominating these pages for deletion, though am open to compromise per Addendum below] Part of a host of unsourced and unnotable subsidiary articles related to Adventures in Odyssey, a radio show whose own article does little to establish notability and contains virtually no verifiable information. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

Moved to seperate AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugene Sings!, per recommendation below. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: while my preference is for simple deletion (the main AiO article is already chock full of unsourced material, and adding more such from mergers doesn't seem that good an idea), I would be willing to accept Deor's proposal to mainly redirect/merge (but keep List of Adventures in Odyssey characters & delete List of Adventures in Odyssey voice actors) as a compromise. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as most are main characters of a major, published, worldwide radio, television and other media program. Eugene Sings! is an album, released as any other notable album. You've basically listed everything related to it. For the characters, it is nearly impossible to provide sources for them, as they aren't in news or the such, they are fictional. ✼ American Eagle (talk) 04:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." (WP:V) By admitting that "it is nearly impossible to provide sources for them", you have admitted that these articles should be deleted. Your claim that Adventures in Odyssey is "major" & "worldwide" is just so much unsubstantiated hyperbole. That Eugene Sings! has been released as an album does not establish any notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be adding a source or two in a moment. ✼ American Eagle (talk) 05:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I added three sources to Adventures in Odyssey, and there are hundreds more with Google News, but that would take me hours, and I must be off to bed now. Good night. ✼ American Eagle (talk) 05:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of those sources was grossly unreliable (a "PR Newswire") and the other two give the radio show (or its spinoff video games) only slight mention, and little notability -- and confer no notability whatsoever on this host of articles riding on its very slim coattails. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles aren't created overnight, it takes time to source every one. However, they are all verifiable, but it will take time to add sources to them all. ✼ American Eagle (talk) 05:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The title-article (Jack Allen (Adventures in Odyssey)) for this AfD has been in existence for over three years (and I would expect that many on the list are of similar age). How much more time should Wikipedia be expected to give? WP:Verifiability requires WP:CITEs to WP:RSes -- which currently don't exist for any of the articles in this AfD. To claim that "they are all verifiable" is therefore fallacious. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Looks up fallacious) I don't know about Allen, he was here before I was. Another thing, lists generally don't have sources (i.e. List of dogs, List of eponymous diseases, etc.), so they do not fall under the same category. ✼ American Eagle (talk) 06:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of dogs has 83 citations (you obviously didn't read the dictionary entry you 'looked up' on fallacious sufficiently carefully). While it is possible that the WP:CONSENSUS interprets WP:NOTE somewhat differently for lists than for articles, I see no indication that this would work sufficiently in the two listed lists favour, that they would be considered notable. (Sidebar question to the community: is there a notability policy/guideline specifically for lists?) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest splitting this article into two AfDs - one for the albums and one for everything else. The music stuff goes by a different notability criteria, and seem to at least have a weak claim on notability. The other stuff, though, is clearly OR and info about non-notable characters that could go into the main AIO article. Graymornings_(talk) 07:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as per American Eagle. travb (talk) 12:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This looks vaguely like a case of the pokemon problem, but on a much smaller scale. Not that that's hard. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not sure to what extent the Pokemon 'precedent' applies as (i) there seems to be considerable difference in underlying notability of the base media topic compared to AiO & (ii) the Pokemon characters were apparently merged in the end, not 'kept' as separate articles. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here goes: Keep List of Adventures in Odyssey characters, and redirect all of the character articles thereto (if editors think that any of the content of the articles is so essential that it needs to be merged to the list article, they're free to use the redirects' histories to do so). Redirect (again with possible merge of essential information) the "saga" articles, Imagination Station, Odyssey (fictional town), Adventures in Odyssey video series, and Whit's End to the corresponding sections of Adventures in Odyssey. Delete List of Adventures in Odyssey voice actors, since the voice actors are already named in List of Adventures in Odyssey characters. My rationale is that information derived solely from a fictional source, with no third-party sources, may be allowable in an article about the fiction and in certain types of list articles but cannot meet WP:N in stand-alone articles. (And, yes, I'm aware that this interpretation of policy is contentious.) The show has its own wiki, and fans should be nudged—as fans of other fictional series have been nudged—to consider what of the mass of possible things that can be said about the program is suitable for a general encyclopedia that requires reliable secondary sourcing, and what belongs elsewhere. Deor (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge per Deor. Tgreach (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have given this a lot of thought. I'll be happy to merge to useful content (much is trivial) of the character articles into List of Adventures in Odyssey characters at redirect them to it, similar to List of Toy Story characters. I'm also planning on doing work to several other pages relating to AIO, but I can only work so fast. ✼ American Eagle (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge per Deor's rationale. Drmies (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal

I am will to put my time into this. Here is my proposal:

All character pages are merged (over time, it may take a while) into List of Adventures in Odyssey characters at redirect to it, similar to List of Toy Story characters.
The sagas are merged into Adventures in Odyssey sagas, and redirected.
~~Eugene Sings!/Christmas is merged into Adventures in Odyssey music, or a music section of Adventures in Odyssey.~~[Not part of this AfD, since before "proposal" was made]
List of Adventures in Odyssey voice actors, Whit's End, Odyssey (fictional town), and Adventures in Odyssey video series are kept, expanded and sourced.

I am willing to do all of this, though it may take days to complete. Comments are welcome. ✼ American Eagle (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to endorse Deor's merge proposal. Redirecting character pages, merging the sagas, and deleting the voice actors seems the most sensible route, and doesn't entail creating any unnecessary new pages. Good plan. Graymornings_(talk) 13:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for video series, merge/delete as appropriate. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 20:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge per Deor. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Adventures in Odyssey characters or Adventures in Odyssey for now. If that list itself cannot be sourced using secondary reliable sources, it should also be deleted. Abecedare (talk) 04:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 into Folk metal. I've actually gone ahead and redirected the page to "Folk metal". Those wishing to merge the content can view it here. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oriental metal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This is the deletion proposal of the oriental metal page. Reasoning three-fold: lack of sources, lack of bands, lack of necessary info to warrant an article separate from parent article folk metal. Lack of bands should be self-explanatory from a quick glance at the article itself. In fact, it's worse than the article appears: the article lists 6 bands. Two of those are not reliably sourced, leaving us with four (and two of those are from blabbermouth, also a bit iffy as a true RS). 2-4 bands doesn't make a genre.

Regarding the sources, take a look at the sources on the page. Now, when we remove all sources that are not considered professional, reliable sources, and all sources that never use the term “oriental metal”, we’re left with two: Kahn-Harris’ book and two reviews on Metal Observer by one author. This isn’t really enough to justify a true genre’s existence.

Even if it is taken as such, there’s the question of the need for a separate article. We need a separate article when there is too much info for the parent article. Granted, as it is, Bardin has added more than enough into the oriental metal article to get past this, but for a moment take a look and consider what is actually needed and not replicated elsewhere.

Most of it is information regarding the handful of bands that could be termed “oriental metal”, which is better placed on their own pages. It’s easy enough to put together lots of info on a few bands, the question is what it actually adds to the article about this genre. And the answer is, not much. Most of it is just general info about those bands, not the formation or characteristics of this genre itself.

Let’s look at the “development” section, for example, when we cut the parts that add nothing to the notion of an oriental metal article itself:

Since the middle of the 1990s, other bands in Israel have pursued an oriental metal direction. In explaining the use of oriental sound in her band's music, the former lead singer of Distorted, Miri Milman notes that Israel is known for its Middle-Eastern culture and that "it is very hard to ignore it if you are born here".

That’s it. The rest is just general blurb about the bands in question, nothing to do with the development of this genre. Let’s take a look at the “Origins” section too, cut down to what is needed and not already in the “oriental metal” section of the folk metal page:

Mark LeVine cites the Israeli band Orphaned Land as the founder of oriental metal "in that they were one of the first bands anywhere in the region to mix oriental, Arabic sounds into metal.” Predating both Orphaned Land and Melechesh, Salem was formed as far back as 1985 with their first album Creating Our Sins released in 1992. The album Kaddish featured a Hebrew cover version of a traditional Yiddish song S'Brent ("Haayara Boeret") originally written by the Polish Jewish poet Mordechai Gebirtig. The band has made use of non-traditional instruments like the darbuka.

Again, this isn’t the sort of thing that warrants a full article. The “Beyond Israel” section can be cut in it’s entirety, it mentions some bands from the region and bands with members from such regions, but with no indications given of why this makes them “oriental metal” this is rendered pretty much meaningless.

As an article on “metal bands from the middle-eastern region”, it’s very good. As an article on a genre, “oriental metal”, it’s distinctly lacking. The qualify a genre's existence you need more than just a number of bands from a particular region: you need a good number of reliable sources using the term and identifying it as a genre. There are metal bands from that region, and no doubt a number of them utilise characteristics of oriental music in their sound. But you need more than that to qualify a genre article.

Also note for any considering voting “merge”, that this has already been suggested, but Bardin removed the merge proposal tag, refusing to accept the suggestion. Prophaniti (talk) 19:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article is probably oversized in comparison to the notability of the genre (and might do with a look-over) but the genre appears established enough to warrant an article. Also suspecting bad faith nomination of an aritcle which has already been through two AfD nominations (speedy keep?). Usrnme h8er (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How precisely is a genre with, at most, one or two real sources and about 4 bands "established enough to warrant an article"?

In regards to the previous discussions, take a look at them: you'll find neither was in any way conclusive, nor backed up with good logic. Prophaniti (talk) 22:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Folk metal. JamesBurns (talk) 08:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an underground genre that is situated almost entirely within the middle east. Unsurprisingly, there is not much available sources about it within the Western media. You won't find it mentioned on Allmusic or the Rolling Stones magazine. Yet its existence has been recognized by at least two academic authors: Mark LeVine, in his book Heavy Metal Islam and in interviews like this one quoted in the article; and Keith Harris Kahn. One of them is a professor at the University of California while the other is an associate lecturer at the Open University. The nominator seems to feel that more is required to establish the genre's existence but I feel the weight of these two academics, along with all the critics, journalists and band members that use the term, is more than enough. The article might not be perfect but it is better than average with every point made verified by reliable sources. I personally feel that the nominator's expectations for this genre is out of place with reality and a prime example of systematic bias. Why should a fairly decent article that focuses specifically on an underground middle-eastern genre be relegated to a mere paragraph or two in a broader article on its parent genre that is mostly European based? Oriental metal might not be well-known but it has already been mentioned in the New York Times. Yes, it is only mentioned in passing but that at least means the genre is earning more attention. As for the merger proposal, I will note that it was I that insisted the nominator brought this matter to AFD as it was painfully clear that any discussion between the two of us alone was not going to resolve anything. --Bardin (talk) 08:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LeVine's professorship is itself irrelevant to this discussion: his qualification has nothing to do with heavy metal music. So him being an academic is in this particular instance not meaningful. He has had a book published that concerns metal, but it's political/religious overtones call it's use into question (what I mean is, a published book is considered a good source because it is verified by the publishers. In this case, it could be questioned just how much the text is focused on study of heavy metal, and how much other factors led to it's publication). In addition, do these authors truly assert it as a genre, or are they simply using the term, potentially to describe metal bands from the region? After all, other authors will use terms like "Brazilian metal" without meaning it as an assertion of genre. Also, another point: "oriental metal" might be a very good descriptor of Orphaned Land's genre, and that of a couple of other bands, but even if it is it's not a genre. "Pirate metal" is a good genre term for bands like Running Wild, Alestorm and Swashbuckle. But that's not enough bands for a genre.

As to "all the critics, journalists and band members that use the term", this is made out to sound like much much more than it is. As I have said, I've gone through the sources you've given. Many of them are not reliable sources when it comes to genre classification, not by wikipedia's standards. Interviews with band members for example do not count, for just the same reason that we don't use a band's myspace page as a source. In truth, all those other citations contain -one- reliable journalist who uses the term as a genre.

"Why should a fairly decent article that focuses specifically on an underground middle-eastern genre be relegated to a mere paragraph or two in a broader article on its parent genre that is mostly European based?" - The answer to that is simple: there aren't enough bands/sources/info to back it all up. What we have only warrants a section within a parent article, in part because it is underground and a very small genre. This is not bias, it is not persecution, it's simply that if something is a very small genre, it doesn't need a whole article to itself. It's also got nothing to do with western bias. My reasoning never makes any reference to anything like that, the reasoning would apply just the same whatever part of the world it came from.

And yet again, the whole point of a merger proposal, like a deletion one, is that it's not just about you and I, Bardin. Other people could have joined in. Prophaniti (talk) 09:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have come across numerous AFDs before but I can't recall any nominator writing such long paragraphs as you have repeatedly done here. I'm not going to respond to each of your points because we've been through this tango before and I'm not going to change your mind nor you change mine. But it does appear that your desire to see this article deleted or merge is because, in a nutshell, you feel that "if something is a very small genre, it doesn't need a whole article to itself." That, as far as I know, is not a wiki policy and while you might think your subjective views are facts, the reality is that what might seem unimportant to you might be important to others. I am also quite unaware that a genre requires a specific number of bands before it becomes official. How many bands exactly do you need? --Bardin (talk) 10:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have only just noticed that the nominator described Blabbermouth as a bit iffy as a true reliable source. This is a source that has routinely been found by fellow wikipedia editors to be one of the most reliable news source for heavy metal music. It is frequently cited in featured articles like Metallica, Motorhead and Slayer. Blabbermouth can also be found as a source of news content on Google news search. I think it speaks volumes that the nominator would contend it to be iffy rather than reliable, in contrast to many other wikipedia editors and Google itself. I strongly urge any other editors interested in this AFD to make their own evaluations on the quality and reliability of the sources. --Bardin (talk) 10:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines in question are the ones on notability. Random example: lists of characters in fictional works. Characters that have a lot of information on them, they really need an article to themselves because they would otherwise make a parent one too big, they warrant articles. Others get placed in a "List of characters" article. There is no need for a separate article for this, that's all there is to it really. As to blabermouth, I meant precisely what I said: that it's iffy. It's fairly useful for news, but whether it could be considered a true professional website on musical genres is a different matter entirely. Just because a source can be used for one thing, doesn't mean it can for everything. And the reason for my lengthy description is because there's such a significant case to be put forward. I fail to see how this has any bearing on the discussion, and currently it's coming across as a form of personal attack, trying to undermine matters on the basis of myself as an editor. Please cease any further such references. Prophaniti (talk) 11:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Bardin (talk) 10:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (maybe merge relevant parts to doom metal or death metal): Where are the reliable sources that discuss the topic (Oriental metal) in depth? This is a requirement of the general notability guidelines: significant coverage. A lot of the references on that page don't even mention "oriental metal", they refer to "death metal" or "doom metal" etc. Of the ones that do refer to oriental metal it is only in a passing trivial mention that doesn't discuss the topic in detail. --JD554 (talk) 11:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How exactly are Celtic metal or Post-metal more significant. Kakun (talk) 11:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not in any way shape or form a good argument for keeping it. This is not a discussion of those articles, and they have never entered into it. Saying "Well there are other articles without enough info, so we should keep this one too" doesn't justify it. An article should be able to warrant it's own existence, not have to rely on other inferior articles existing for it to hide behind. If you want to move for them to be deleted/merged, go for it. Prophaniti (talk) 11:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what I meant was that they're all relatively new underground metal movements with Wikipedia articles, and if the Wikipedia coverage of metal is wide enough for these ones, it must be wide enough for this one. For that matter I don't think there are over 5 real "post metal" bands eather. Kakun (talk) 06:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because those articles exist is no reason why this article should exist. It could be that those articles shouldn't exist either, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS --JD554 (talk) 08:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - subject adequately covered by Folk metal. PhilKnight (talk) 10:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Folk Metal: How can this be notable enough for it's own article? It should be merged into Folk Metal. – Jerry^teps 23:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note:This discussion was originally closed by me as no consensus, but was re-opened and relisted because of a request on my talk page. Cheers,--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as six bands do not make a genre. I would not be against merging of some parts to various articles (as suggested above). Tavix (talk) 07:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are obviously more than six bands so the above argument does not count. This article in an Egyptian magazine discuss at length the oriental metal band Odious, one of those many bands that do not (yet) have a wikipedia page. The genre is also defined in this book while this article on the Huffington Post describes the genre as "among the most innovative styles of music today." That's not including the sources already provided in the article by bardin. --Anarchodin (talk) 06:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some contesting points: the Huffington Post article is by Mark Levine, who is in the current Oriental metal page. He is one of the two authors who verifies it. And yes, the google book mentions it, but it doesn't appear to actually discuss the genre. That's the point here, we have sources that mention the term, but without a number of sources discussing it in detail it fails the notability criteria. Prophaniti (talk) 09:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Janne Corax[edit]

Non notable mountaineer. Only article is in National Geographic for one event only in tibet. Does not pass notability guidelines for athletes either (nothing won, no professional competition). Article reads like CV, contains no references. Google news search returns no reliable sources except for previous mentioned and user-written mountaineering blogs. 9 in total. Phil153 (talk) 04:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Other than the above cited NGS site (and that is as infinitessimal a mention as I've seen), I could find nothing that was not a mirror of either his website or of this Wikipedia article. Un school 05:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Corax has many first ascents. The mountains may not be well known, but they are independent 6000 m summits and are among the world's most remote and inaccessible. I have overhauled the article, removed some puffery and added new material and references, including independent references. I hope this will satisfy the above critics. The claim that the NGS mention is infinitessimal is incorrect, but subscription is needed to purchase the detail that was published in the magazine. Viewfinder (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient accomplishments to be notable. Sourcing is just adequate. DGG (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources in the article along with the National Geographic source linked above (the link is to the table of contents showing that a full article is available) are enough to show notability. There's a bit more coverage in a South African newspaper here. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stereotypes of African Americans[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Stereotypes of Africans/Blacks

Much like similar articles on white people and Jewish people, this article is nothing but a racist collection of everyone's favorite stereotypes. Any real, notable stereotypes should have their own article. (For example, Magical negro already does.) Racism_in_the_United_States#Racism_against_African_Americans partially overlaps this topic and if it needs to be expanded, Racism against African Americans can be spawned off into its own topic ... but of the worthwhile content here, there is nothing that should not be handled either as a category or in the other racism article. Having this article is just a POV fork for promoting racial stereotypes. B (talk) 03:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All of these stereotype articles feel like POV forks. They all boil down to racism in some form, and can easily be handled in a broader topic about racism involving whichever ethnicity is at issue. AniMate^talk 03:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't forks. What they are are splits. Here's an interesting fact to consider: This article isn't GFDL-compliant. Over 1 year's worth of author attribution (which is quite a number of authors, looking at the deleted revisions) has been lost because of the deletion of Ethnic stereotypes in American media (AfD discussion) (more AFD discusion), whose content was split into this and several other articles (including Stereotypes of Arabs and Muslims (AfD discussion) by Drenched (talk · contribs) in July 2006 (not that one could know from the bad edit summaries that xe used).
So we might have to delete it for the very unusual reason of not being able to bring it into adherence to our copyright policy. Uncle G (talk) 04:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, that's a red herring. Any admin can get the edit history from the deleted articles and paste them into the current article's talk page. I'm very surprised this wasn't done at the time of the split. It should be done soon. If it's not done within a day or so, please post on WP:ANI asking that it be done. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC) Note: Per my remarks elsewhere on this page, I may be wrong about the GFDL. Please ask an expert before deleting on GFDL grounds. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 06:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Kiddo, I am an administrator, and I know about histories on talk pages, and the somewhat shaky GFDL compliance that that provides. My 'bot was doing that before your account even existed. It's an approach that is problematic, for Wikipedia mirrors (that don't mirror talk pages) for page moves (when the talk page isn't brought along with the article), and for ordinary talk page use. It was the best approach that we could use years ago, which is why we used it, but it wasn't perfect, and we knew that. Why do you think that Special:Import was invented? Uncle G (talk) 04:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - If copying to talk pages does not comply with the GFDL, then documentation that mentions it needs to be updated. As for this specific case, before deleting an article on a copyvio, I'd like to hear from an actual copyright law expert that this is the only solution, particularly one well-versed in the GFDL. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 06:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's the best compliance that we could get with MediaWiki as it was back then. (See m:Help talk:Transwiki.) But we now have transwikification mechanisms that transfer the document history and retain it as history. Ironically, they aren't enabled for this project. If they were, one (albeit somewhat extreme) solution here that I believe would be possible (although it's never been done to my knowledge) would be to export the page, and then import it multiple times to create multiple histories, each of which are then history merged into the relevant split articles. But the facilities are not enabled here (and there are concerns with import, on a wiki this size, that will probably prevent the feature ever being enabled to the requisite full extent necessary for this solution). A developer could still arrange this, of course. Developer time is scarce, however.
        We could of course decide to undelete the source article, and mark the split in its and the destination articles' edit histories. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 08:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there is nothing wrong with this that can't be addressed through normal editing. B's comments that this is "nothing but a racist collection of everyone's favorite stereotypes" can be fixed by editing out any POV. Animate's comment that "can easily be handled in a broader topic about racism involving whichever ethnicity is at issue" is true but the process for that is WP:MERGE not WP:AFD. Uncle G's comment about splits needs administrator attention to add the GFDL history to this article's talk page, but is not relevant to this AFD. It might be relevant to an AFD whose intent was to force a re-consolodation of the split articles and deleting of the rest, but that's not what this AFD is, this AFD is a typical delete/don't delete AFD. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Any reason for deletion under deletion policy, which includes violation of Wikipedia:Copyright policy, is relevant. This isn't a debating society, where one is constrained solely to discuss some specific "motion". The question at issue is whether Wikipedia:Deletion policy applies, and the possibility that we cannot bring this article into GFDL compliance is one part of that question, even if it is one that is exceedingly rarely encountered. Uncle G (talk) 04:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Agreed, any reason is valid, including the possibility that it's an irreparable GFDL violation. ~~But it's not irreparable. Barring corruption of the database without recoverable backups, the possibility of not being able to come into GFDL compliance is zero.~~ davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 06:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC) updated/struck, see above - need legal-expert input before declaring that article is or is not repairable. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 06:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is functionally a directory to more specific stereotype articles, interwoven with bizarre chestnuts like "many people are surprised to learn that criminality among African-American youth is significantly lower when it comes to the use of tobacco, alcohol or some illicit drugs." Huh? Exactly. Townlake (talk) 04:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per davidwr — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't get to vote away the GFDL. Some method of addressing this, for all of the several split articles, has to be invented here. Uncle G (talk) 04:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Questions. I'm relatively inexperienced at AfD, so if you'll help me along here:

I know that the fact that most of the material in this article is offensive to most intelligent people, on Wikipedia, we do not censor for the person who might be offended, correct? And is this principle not further demonstrated by the existence of Stereotypes of East and Southeast Asians in the United States, Stereotypes of Hispanic and Latino Americans, Western stereotypes of West and Central Asians, etc? Is the editor proposing deletion saying that all of these need to be deleted?
Although the article does have citations, it also looks to me like a lot of it is OR. Might this be a reason for deletion?
I have to admit, my understanding of copyright issues is very, very limited, so what Uncle G is talking about is way beyond me. What I do understand, however, is that sometimes some issues having nothing to do with everyday editing (such as BLP and copyright), can sometimes override "consensus". Could someone else besides Uncle G speak to these issues? Because I think I get what he's saying, all of our other concerns are moot if this copyright issue holds. Un school 05:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If someone from WP:OFFICE says "sorry, there's no way to comply with copyright short of deletion" then it's game over. If some other expert comes in and says the same thing, then the only challenge is to counter with another equally-qualified expert to say otherwise. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 06:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although the article is far from perfect, it does have a lot of useful information about the topic. Please consider that it would be almost impossible to get a professional writer to write a neutral article on this subject. He or she would have the choice to stick strictly to the "politically correct" line or destroy his or her career and reputation if he or she said something in the wrong way. Remember what happened to Nick the Greek? What I am saying is that this is the kind of topic where WP is especially valuable. Borock (talk) 07:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you mean Jimmy the Greek. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 07:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course. Thank you. I guess all Greeks look alike to me. :-) Borock (talk) 08:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete for the lot The entire string of Stereotypes of (whomever) articles bring discredit on the project. They all boil down to "(group) has been characterized as (list of insults)" where the insults never are based in fact even if a WP:RS can be found to record that the insult has been used. Why promulgate this crap?LeadSongDog (talk) 08:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Wikipedia is not censored. travb (talk) 09:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete this garbage. There are a variety of articles discussing racism in all its wonderful contexts. These are all cases of false beliefs that these articles dignify.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Delete all the stereotype pages. Do not support hatred and bigotry against anyone. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is an encyclopedia. Pages on stereotypes do not "support hatred and bigotry", they simply inform on the matter. Interestingly, not all stereotypes against a race are racist or hateful. Steretypes are by definition neutral, and only there correctness and usage draws any conclusions. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a perfectly valid article about stereotypes directed at African Americans. The only irony being the titular use of the term African American, in itself an American stereotype. I was going to make the case for delete as a surplus list, but then I noticed all the other delete votes and didn't want to align myself with such anti-Wikipedia reasoning. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. —Juzhong (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — As Inclusionist put it bluntly, Wikipedia is not censored. Nearly all the information in the article is verifiable, and the concept of African-American stereotypes is easily notable. ~~Now, if you excuse me, I'm going to steal a bike and head downtown for some fried chicken (Note: cannot get any watermelon this time of the year, sorry to say).~~ MuZemike (talk) 01:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly suggest deleting the last sentence, I know it was made in jest, but it destroyed the rest of your argument. You can delete these two sentences of mine too. travb (talk) 04:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So stricken. I suppose humor does not belong in Wikipedia anymore. Apologies. MuZemike (talk) 15:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable and sourced.Biophys (talk) 04:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand; notable topic; sourced. Wikipedia is not censored. Badagnani (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a distinct topic, not suitable for merging as a section of a more general article. It's sourced. We are doing this for all ethnic groups -- we are an encyclopedia of the world as it is. DGG (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As with the article on Jews, the subject matter easily passes WP:V and WP:N. It's not our fault that this sort of material is notable and verifiable, but it is our duty to include it when it is. Themfromspace (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - like most non-FA articles it could use improvement, but it is a notable topic for which we have (currently a limited number of) reliable sources, but for which there are numerous reliable sources that exist which could easily be added to the article if someone were interested in tackling the job. (roughly 37,000 potential sources in just books alone, [36] not to mention what might be found in academic journals) -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Why you cracka-ass bitches be hatin' on dis ahticle? It be well-sourced an' everthin'. Y'all jus' think it dun apply to you, so you call it "cruft". Well, guess what, whitey? We've had enough of The Man, an' we be keepin' dis ahticle, y'hear? Now, ima go get me sum chitlins an' a smokin' hot piece o' sum white wimmen's boo-tay. Hallelujah! (P.S. I'm truly ~~not~~ sorry if my humor has offended you. I know, I know, Wikipedia is a no-fun zone. And I'm just a puny IP address, anyways.)--24.129.100.84 (talk) 01:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG's reasoning. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a serious social issue. This and the other AFD's of "Sterotypes of X", if it's a nontrivial article, smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unless the copyright issue (which I'd rather not even try to understand) is a show stopper. As with the Stereotypes of Jews article this one is not in any way saying that there is any truth in these stereotypes, but simply saying that they exist as stereotypes. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above "keep" arguments. The way to fix the GFDL compliance problem is to restore Ethnic stereotypes in popular culture and/or Ethnic stereotypes in American media or any other article from which content in this article was split or merged; to make each restored article either into a redirect to this or some other suitable page, or into a disambiguation page pointing to all the pages to which the content was split; and to make a dummy edit in each destination page indicating in the edit summary that "Some content in this article was derived from material found in the edit history of Ethnic stereotypes in popular culture and/or Ethnic stereotypes in American media", or some other appropriate wording. DHowell (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tuff Monks[edit]

Very short lived group. Less than two links to this stub. Released only one single on indie label, which did not chart, before band folded. Whether this is enough here for it's own seperate article, let alone a stub is questionable NorthShoreJames (talk) 03:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, while they do technically pass WP:MUSIC#C6, and it is true that they exist, [37], I can find no reliable, third party sources to establish any sort of notability. No WP:RS means therefore nothing to merge, and redirect not possible due to the sheer numbers of members involved. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Marked for Speedy Delete A7. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: has allmusic.com entry but it's completely blank of any information bar the name of the single (which appears to be two sides of the same song), no longer in print. No indication of any chart activity on ARIA. JamesBurns (talk) 00:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It took me thirty seconds to find four reliable book sources. I have added substantial material, all cited. Checking Google books should be added to your collective repertoires:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: a short lived band that released one indie single that bombed. TheClashFan (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It's not even a band. It appears to be a project to use up remaining booked studio time from another artist ie. it lasted less than aweek. Even members of this project were unaware the single was ever going to be released. JamesBurns (talk) 02:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yep. That's exactly what I have verified through citation to a reliable independent secondary source significantly treating the subject.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Err no you didn't. You claim in the article that it's a band. I would disagree on that account since it never actually got out of the studio to tour, promote, or perform. JamesBurns (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - You misunderstand. Couch the nature of the project, its transitory and ephemeral makeup however you want. The point is that whatever it is, I was able to find independent, reliable, secondary sources substantively treating the subject to add detail and I barely looked, which usually means there's more out there. That meets Wikipedia's general notability standard, which standard is the bulwark of every one of the subject-specific notability pages as well. If we look at WP:MUSIC we see that the standard is stated as "A musician or ensemble... is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria 1. "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." (there is no need to look at the secondary basis duffbeerforme cites below, needed only where the primary standard is in question). Certainly this is not the most notable subject imaginable (to use notability in the vernacular sense, which we long ago departed from for our use here), but it does meet our standards for inclusion. I am fairly uninterested in the subject; I was just passing by doing newpages patrol when I came across the invalid speedy tag and declined, but I bet I could source this further If I had a mind to.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Some nice sophistry there, however notability is handled on a case by case basis - because X might be notable does not mean Y is automatically notable. Expanding this article would be like wringing water from a dry sponge - we're talking here a discography of one single (of one song twice) from a group that lasted as long as the remaining booked studio session. I still believe there is not enough justification for having it kept. JamesBurns (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        We do analyze on a case-by-case basis. That is not a mandate to ignore the express language of guidelines. As for the second part of that sentence, it's a strawman statement. I invoked no WP:WAX-like argument to which you appear to be responding. As for dry sponges, I agree that in many cases a single from a very short-lived band with only one reliable source substantively treating it is not sure or likely to have more for expansion purposes. Here we have Nick Cave, The Birthday Party, the Go-Betweens involved—not quite the Beatles and Pink Floyd collaborating for one single, but we are still talking about superstars whose every peppercorn is enshrined. With that context. I am sure there's more out there and, lo and behold, see User:The-Pope's post below.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Still not a notable topic, even in those publications. Many people outside of Australia wouldn't know who The Birthday Party or the Go-Betweens were, so calling them superstars is a stretch. Wikipedia is not an Australia-only encyclopaedia. JamesBurns (talk) 03:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Whether the subject is notable or not is what we're here debating; baldly stating they're not just begs the question. Do you really want to argue the exact level of fame involved? Superstar may be hyperbolic for some of them, probably not for Nick Cave, but changing the sentence to read quite famous does no damage to the actual point. By the way, I've never been to Australia though I hear it's nice.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The AFD is on Tuff Monks not Nick Cave. I'm not commenting on the Nick Cave article or the others, those articles are not up for AfD. This article is, and being a single studio session, with no tours, and one non-notable single, whichever spin whoever places on it, is simply not notable. JamesBurns (talk) 05:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You're way far afield and have lost the thread, completely misconstruing my post. I'll recapitulate. I made a point about that where you find one reliable source, you often find more; I then agreed with you in a sense, stating that a one off single, coupled with only a single reliable source, might not imply that there are more sources to be found but that in the context here, where great fame of the associated persons is involved and thus figures who garner much interest, the sources for a lowly side project probably are out there; you then quibbled about the use of superstar; and I pointed out that that was beside the point, but that changing the wording meant little— that the relative degree of fame was off topic. You have now apparenlty interpreted that to be a WP:INHERITED argument, when that has nothing to do with what I was saying.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        This has gone from being an AfD about Tuff Monks to a discussion on what was said. I'm not going to bite into this other than stating what I've already said in my previous post. And for the record I am a Nick Cave fan but I don't believe everything he does is necessarily notable - case in point, the Tuff Monks article, which is a footnote in his history and not notable. That's all I have to say further on this matter. Have a nice day everyone. JamesBurns (talk) 08:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        A footnote in history that has recieved significant coverage in reliable sources independant of the subject. The basic requirement of notability. Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Significant? It doesn't even have an allmusic.com description bar a note on the single. Two books.. half pages.. I would say that's not significant. JamesBurns (talk) 04:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        You say "I'm not commenting on the Nick Cave article or the others" after you said "Many people outside of Australia wouldn't know who The Birthday Party or the Go-Betweens were, so calling them superstars is a stretch" Which is it? Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Both. Note the first comment I'm referring to the wikipedia articles, the second is the artists in general. Next time please sign your post and stick to the topic at hand - this is an AfD on Tuff Monks. JamesBurns (talk) 04:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I apologise for the lacking signature. I made multiple comments in different places at once and only signed in one spot. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        N.B.:"It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." - name me one book in which Tuff Monks is the main subject of discussion. All the sources (two, with one only making a one sentence entry) you list make only passing mention of the project. Also it states "whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself" - just how is it an "independent from the source" when Nichols has simply quoted what the members told him? JamesBurns (talk) 04:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Significant treatment is not limited to being the exclusive subject of a book (talk about sophistry). It is the counterpoint to trivial/passing mention. The book pages I cite treat the subject in detail. As for secondary sources, they synthesize, interpret, analyze, etc. primary source material, by definition. And stating that the book only quotes what the members told the author is simply factually incorrect, as anyone can check for themselves. Independence excludes works produced by the subject themselves. The interest secondary sources take in primary source material by quoting it, presenting it, interpreting it, etc. shows that the world at large has taken note; independence does not mean secondary sources live in a cave getting their material from watching the shadows on the wall.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I should point out that the author Nichols didn't interpret what was said, he simply reprinted what was said to him in quotes. That's not interpretation. JamesBurns (talk) 03:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        And I'd counter that you're making that up out of whole cloth; that neither you nor I have a clue as to how much analysis, interpretation, judgement and synthesis went into the multiple facts listed in the page which aren't included in any of the quotes on the page; and that the point is irrelevant anyway because a secondary source providing quotations is still a secondary source and still independent.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I doubt that it's whole cloth. The book clearly indicates quotes, used in the article, not Nichols interpretation. JamesBurns (talk) 05:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The book clearly indicate quotes. The book also has significant mention that is clearly not quotes. If there is no analysis, interpretation, judgement or synthesis were do these non quotes sections come from? Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly passes WP:MUSIC#C6 and people and bands involved are VERY notable. A redirect to any only of these people would be inappropriate and you can't redirect it to all. While at least one member claims to have been unaware of the upcoming release, at least one was reported to have been aware and may have suggested the name for the band, coined by his girlfriend. Both bands involved included at least one of these tracks of their cd reissues of Drunk On The Pope's Blood [38] and Send Me A Lullaby [39]. User:Fuhghettaboutit has added reliable sources. Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: "not every organization to which a notable person belongs (or which a notable person leads) is itself notable." - Wikipedia:NOTINHERITED. JamesBurns (talk) 07:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some are. Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some are but not this one. We're talking here an assembly of musicians whose entire life span for the one-off project was the remaining hours left over of studio time, from another artist's session, recording a single which didn't chart. JamesBurns (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: agree with User:Esradekan. Appears to be nothing more than a studio session with only one non-notable song recorded. A-Kartoffel (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: has half a page on it (p317) in Ian Johnston's book Bad Seed. (Will add to the article later tonight). Notable musicians, notable record label, it's worth more than the options of duplication into both the side-projects section of both the Birthday Party and Go-Between articles or a redirect to 'flip a coin' one or the other. The-Pope (talk) 12:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —The-Pope (talk) 14:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —The-Pope (talk) 14:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While I can understand some of the arguments for deletion, my personal feeling is that WP:MUSIC#1 is met here. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 20:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage means it meets the primary notability guideline. It makes sense to have this article in one place, and cover the single released by them, rather than duplicating the content across several articles. the wub "?!" 21:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Short-lived collaborations of famous musicians can be interesting, informative and notable, such as A Toot and a Snore in '74. WWGB (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's nothing more than a one-off session with a non-charting non-notable song. Only passing less-than-a-page mentions in only two books. Iam (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - inclined to agree with most of the above. Non-notable session. JoannaMinogue (talk) 09:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, what are you people thinking? This is a one off unnotable recording. It seems some people have got their love of their bands in the way of logic. ZhaoHong (talk) 00:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: You can read what we were thinking - it is what we wrote down. But what are you thinking not assuming good faith about other editors - please stick to the topic and not (even mildly) attack other editors. Back on topic I have also found that the NME think it's important enough to warrant a line (but not the correct spelling!) in their brief profile of the Birthday Party. And ZhaoHong - this isn't just (or even) about the "unnotable recording" - it's about the band that made it and how it was released. It's a clear match of criteria C6 of WP:BAND - it contains notable musicians. The note that normally early or side projects should be redirected is unable to be done sensibly here, as you can't redirect to both of the contributing bands, and neither band was the lead contributor. Hence there is no need to worry about whether it charted (I'm not going to pay $83 to [40]) or if it meets any of the other criteria. The-Pope (talk) 05:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 00:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Lea Thompson Show[edit]

This unsourced article is virtually unchanged since its creation in 2007 -- except that "set to premier in 2008" now reads "set to premier in 2010": a good example of why WP:CRYSTAL exists. Jfire (talk) 02:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CRYSTAL. Couldn't find any reliable sources through Google that the show is even happening. Matt (Talk) 02:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Matt. Johnfos (talk) 02:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~I think I heard about this in 2007, but it likely got shelved because very few stations picked it up.~~ It's WP:CRYSTAL now though and definitely not among those coming in the next year or so. Nate • (chatter) 03:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment Never mind; look at the creaating editor's talkpage and their contribs; just someone with an obsession for 80's pop culture and the people involved with it. This might meet WP:HOAX. Nate • (chatter) 03:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as clear WP:HOAX. Can we speedy this? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. "The Talk Show Will Be Taped Before A Live Audience In Los Angeles, In The Near Future". But not before she appears in Back to the Future Part IV which, if made, will be filmed on a closed set at nearby Universal City. However, science fiction projects are required to take place in the "not too distant future" rather than the "near future". Mandsford (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haggle (game)[edit]

A non-notable game that appeared as one game in a book of games. Step hen 23:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Note: Splitting game from a bundled discussion. Tavix (talk) 00:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with A Gamut of Games —Preceding unsigned comment added by Empire3131 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 26 December 2008 (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 22:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence that it has achieved widespread notability. - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a vote, but a request for clarification; all of the individual games in the article A Gamut of Games have unwritten entry links. For consistency, if they are not acceptable topics for entries, they shouldn't have red links inviting people to write entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyphz (talk • contribs) 2009-01-01 22:02:19
- Some might have been independently documented enough for an entry. Patterns II (game) (AfD discussion) has been, for example. Some might have no independent documentation at all. Human knowledge is uneven. If one is compiling an accurate compendium of human knowledge, it has to be uneven in the same ways. Determining which games deserve articles involves looking for independent in-depth sources documenting each game, individually. You are welcome, and indeed encouraged, to do that research if you wish. Uncle G (talk) 04:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 01:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reptile71[edit]

I first tagged this for speedy, but I decided this was perhaps more suitable for AfD. The artist in question has released one album, but to my understanding this is by his own record label. Had some plays on internet/local radio. I'd say not notable enough yet. — Twinzor ^{Say hi!} 01:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 03:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable artist WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 04:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails to meet WP:MUSIC. Same with his collaborator Justin Curfman. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand where you are all coming from, i had a discussion with a dutch moderator on the dutch wiki, and he said that to be encyclopedic, i would first have to make an article about the person behind reptile71, about his work as a singer, record label, distributor etc. I have decided to wait a while so that the album and reptile can get some 3rd party reviews, airplay, and therefore notability. I have the entire article saved so if i cannot change the info before the deadline then it will be okay. Thank you for your info Twinzor. I have to object to the opinion of User Esradekan who says that Justin Curfman doesn't meet the wiki standards, if you check his website you can see that he is an award winning multimedia-artist with two albums out, books, movies etc. (LinS32 (talk) 10:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)) Oh, and besides being very understanding to your opinions I do hope that there are other people who agree with me and want the article to stay of course ;). How long will we have the time to adjust the article before it might be removed? (LinS32 (talk) 10:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Comment: This AfD discussion will last up to 5 days (from when it was started), or until consensus is reached. If it does get deleted, you can request a copy be e-mail to you. — Twinzor ^{Say hi!} 13:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NoDelete : Artist released his first album on January 1st, 2009. --Sheplays (talk) 11:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sport-tsonh[edit]

Not notable, unverifiable. Article created by a single-purpose drive-by account. --Latebird (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Right you are--Google gives nothing either. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. —Latebird (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm partial to keeping well established news media, but I couldn't find anything on this subject. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: for the Mongolian "Спортын цонх" (= "Sport Window"), Google finds around 50 links, but most of those are from blogs and other unreliable sources. So the thing clearly exists, but it must be rather new. They don't even seem to have a web site (www.sport-tsonh.net redirects to a forum). --Latebird (talk) 02:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above comments. Johnfos (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Why wouldn't this be a Speedy Delete? There's nothing indicating it's real, is there? Un school 06:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Left Behind (series). (non-admin closure) — neuro^(talk) 23:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Blod[edit]

Non-notable fictional character appearing in only one work of a long series. No external references, insufficiently long to prevent inclusion in other articles. Bongo matic 01:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the series' page; rds are cheap. JJL (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect without precedent/prejudice This particular character is pretty minor in the series. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Insufficient notability for article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect such an obvious redirect that it could have been done without coming here. I do these as a matter of course when i encounter such minimal articles on minimal characters. DGG (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Garrett hamman[edit]

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

The result was Speedy Delete unsourced negative BLP. The so called source matches nothing that was in the article. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 01:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article asserts notability and thus doesn't qualify under A7 with this reliable source but this person fails WP:BIO. The tone and language of this article as seen in this version lead me to believe that this is likely an autobiography. A Google News Archive search returns only 2 other sources, which are only passing mentions in the local paper. Cunard (talk) 00:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--not notable; the references establish he got an Eagle Scout award (he and 1.7 million others). Drmies (talk) 00:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 into Health care in Pakistan. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sexually transmitted infections in Pakistan[edit]

While this doesn't really meet any of the CSD criteria, it is little more than a personal essay and attempt to reach out to other organisations. Not Wikipedia material. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 03:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Personal essay that is unencyclopedic. Good luck to the author with the project, though. Drmies (talk) 03:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has significant coverage in reliable sources. Just needs expansion and sourcing. Juzhong (talk) 04:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Health care in Pakistan. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fold into Health care in Pakistan per the suggestion of SWik78 above. First of all, all of the links in the article, with the exception of this one, are complete unhelpful; they only go to home pages of various organizations which may or may not have information relevant to this article. Yet the one source that is good (dealing with the truckers), is very interesting. I see this as an example of what I am finding to be a classic disagreement amongst AfD afficianados: Do we delete the article that is currently crap (which this one is, both in terms of content and mechanics), or keep it because, with enough work, it has the potential to be a good article? I see the potential, but I know that I am not going to devote the days or weeks it would take to salvage this, so I say just take the interesting tidbit here about the truckers and add it to the more general article. Un school 06:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Unschool. --Crusio (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Building a future[edit]

Was an expired WP:PROD. After deletion an IP came to my talk page and asked me to restore it. — Aitias // discussion 04:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ - I'm not clear on notability/inclusion criteria for NPOs but this one seems pretty marginal. A google search for "Building a future" Tegucigalpa nets a bunch of hits but most of them seem coincidental. Above and beyond the NPO website I see a facebook hit and a Digg hit that match but thats all... My mind can certainly be changed by good arguements. Usrnme h8er (talk) 13:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep per new sources and article rewrite. Usrnme h8er (talk) 10:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep [41] claims to be a 3rd party source (though copy is on the NGO's website) and [42] lists what appear to be further sources. I've not hunted them down to the original publications (which may not be on-line and are in Spanish (which I don't speak). Even with all that, coverage is mostly of one event (getting 1/2 million dollar check). Consider this a "pure" keep !vote if someone can verify at least one of the 3rd party sources. Hobit (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources seem acceptable now. Verifying that the sources _are_ what they claim to be, rather than a hoax, is difficult as they are hosted on the NGO's site. But given the other sources meet WP:V, I'm good. Hobit (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm the original author, and I'd like to build a case for keeping it. When I first created the page, I didn't have the references setup correctly. I have fixed that and added an external reference to The Battalion, the official campus newspaper from Texas A&M University, to explain how the project began. Would this along with the A&M Insight magazine article mentioned above (sourced from our website becuase the magazine is print only) suffice? I can add references to three articles in Spanish newspapers in Honduras, but those also would be links to scanned pictures of articles on our website.Robfurrball (talk) 23:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a next step I should follow to move this along? This is my first AfD discussion, and I haven't heard anything for the last few days. Thanks.Robfurrball (talk) 00:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wait. It should close after 5 days (or perhaps be relisted for another 5) by a admin. Given the holiday things are likely a bit behind and this one isn't exactly easy to close at this point. Hobit (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds like a well intentioned group doing good work, but it doesn't meet the inclusion guidelines for wp:notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep since the addition of Spanish sources.~~Delete~~--I don't see that this subject is notable. Spanish sources might help, but I can't find them, and so until then I am forced to vote against keeping it. As it is, the article does not establish notability, since the references given are not very independent or broader than regional (a student newspaper and a university magazine, the kind sent to alumni). Sorry, Drmies (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unaware of any problem with "regional" news sources. I also think a student paper covering a student is making the same editorial decision about notability any paper makes. Could you explain? Hobit (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't have WP:N memorized..."regional" isn't the right word, "local" is. I cite from WP:N, Organizations, Primary criteria: "attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability." A campus paper is local, and thus their inclusion is not a (strong) marker of notability. BTW, I'm not sure I agree with you on the sameness of the editorial decision. I've worked for and with campus newspapers, and without wanting to disparage them, decisions are sometimes made on different grounds (such as anything happening at all, like on my campus ;) for instance). Drmies (talk) 04:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I forget that WP:ORG has that in there. I still think the other sources listed (in other countries) make it not local (or local to two places I guess). But now I understand, thanks! Hobit (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and develop. Johnfos (talk) 03:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per creator. And I will remember to NEVER ask nominator for help. travb (talk) 12:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update from original author (Keep) - I added two additional references from newspapers in San Pedro Sula Tegucigalpa, Honduras. They are scans of the print articles hosted on the organization's website, because the newspapers' online archives do not reach back that far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robfurrball (talk • contribs) 22:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete local group of no substantial importance yet. DGG (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article has been improved beyond recognition during this process and is clearly now unsuitable for Wiktionary. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Late bloomer[edit]

This article reads very much like an essay. Not only that but it is completely unsourced and POV. Essentially Original research. User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 06:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Looking through the history the articl seems to have degraded from earlier versions - I'm not enturely sure that something weird hasn't been going on. If the article is kept it might be worth reverting back to the best available version and starting out from there with future edits. Artw (talk) 07:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looking back through the history shows nothing but unreferenced material and lists of examples almost all the way back to the article's initial creation. Not a whole lot of encyclopedic material. Mikaey (talk) 07:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I could support the prospect of soft redirecting this to Wiktionary. Mikaey (talk) 03:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Might want to transwiki to Wiktionary... Otherwise, while the article needs work, there are ridiculous amounts of sources available online (Google books search, used often as shown by a Google news search, etc.). An article that can be improved should not be deleted. DARTH PANDA^duel 20:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Possibly stubbing it, finding sources fro the stub, and then keeping a close eye on any examples that are added would be the solution. Artw (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just needs development in accordance with our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to the Wiktionary aritcle. It seems to be nothing but original research that is not verifiable. MuZemike (talk) 06:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to Wiktionary. This is ripe for original research and there is not enough information on this subject for a legitimate encyclopedia article. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It does not yet give sources, but sources should be easy enough to find (I will take a shot). It reads like an essay, but I do not see that as a problem - appropriate for a light, general article. I see this as a subject of wide interest, one that will be useful to many readers and that will attract editors interested in describing other aspects of the subject. Definitely much more than a Wiktionary entry. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Added the first 20 independent refs. Sort of mechanical - may do more later. This is a very comprehensive, interesting and well-researched article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aymatth2 (talk • contribs) 2009-01-04 03:00:57
  - … except that it's not really a coherent subject in its own right.
    I also had a look for sources. In-depth sources that discuss the subject as a subject (as opposed to sources for simple statements that "Person X is a late bloomer.") are quite difficult to find. (I notice that all of the sources that you came up with merely sourced "X is a late bloomer who did Y at age Z." statements.)
    The problem is that the title is a metaphor. The only things that are literally late bloomers are plants. (See Gardening Basics For Dummies, ISBN 9780470037492, pp. 149.) And an article about late blooming plants (or a redirect to an article that covers early, mid-season, and late blooming all in one go) is what properly belongs at this title. The metaphor can be and is applied to anything that is "late" to "bloom". That covers a wide range of things, from people who join the peace corps at age 65 through business people adopting new techniques or ideas (late bloomers being the metaphorical opposites of early adopters) to the human race in general (see neoteny), that are better discussed in articles that are actually about them as specific subjects. This is why you've found it so difficult to find any sources at all supporting the analysis portion of the article, and easy to source the laundry list of individual examples of things being called a "late bloomer". ☺ Uncle G (talk) 03:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article is not incoherent or WP:TRIV. It discusses the most common use of the term 'late bloomer', a metaphor that describes people - see [Bloomer]. It could have a "see also" to an article on late-blooming plants if there were one, but there is not. Presumably there are learned books on the subject of what makes people late bloomers (Google books search) as noted by DARTH PANDA, but I did not look for refs on the abstract concept. The article makes the point well through examples. It shows that some peoples' true talent emerges only late in life. To many people that will be an interesting and comforting fact. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's not the prose that I said was incoherent. It's the subject. Please read more carefully. And you'll find that the books don't define a coherent subject. As I wrote, I've looked. All that you are doing is counting search engine hits, without actually reading the things that the search engine finds. As is often said, counting Google hits is not research. I've actually spent time doing the reading. The subjects of the books are things such as the mental development of infants, education, ageism, neoteny, business management, and the like. There isn't an abstract concept here because this title is a metaphor, applied to a whole range of dissimilar things whose sole connection to one another is that people use this metaphor to describe them. They "bloom" "late", in some manner or other. Yes, this article really is a list of examples with an unsourced novel analysis wrapped around them — an analysis that doesn't exist in sources because it isn't actually a coherent subject to be analysed. The actual subjects are the things with the non-metaphorical names — including late blooming plants. Uncle G (talk) 04:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        These are important points. I have tried to address them in the current revision, but am not at all satisfied with the result. Before you cast your vote, what major flaws remain to be corrected? Aymatth2 (talk) 01:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and develop. Citations look good. Johnfos (talk) 03:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; obviously notable – as a metaphor for all kinds of things; probably rates an article that's sort of like a disambig, dispatching to other articles as needed while mention all the ways people apply this concept. Dicklyon (talk) 04:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to wiktionary, this is original research on an un-encyclopedic topic. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep or redirect following improvements. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 07:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Redirect to Wiktionary per everything else above. It's a dictionary definition (if not WP:OR) K50 Dude ROCKS! 16:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have started doing some clean-up / expansion. See latest version. Very much work in progress, but there does seem to be potentially a fair amount of real content, theoretical work not covered elsewhere in Wikipedia. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on recent changes. Artw (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Much too extensive to be suitable for wikitionary. and it always was clear that there was enough potential discussion of the concept besides just the definition.DGG (talk) 19:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, mainly per the improvements made in the article since the nomination. It's definitely beyond a dictionary definition and all that good stuff. Good job to Aymatth2 in improving the article and making the AFD truly constructive. MuZemike (talk) 06:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has improved greatly since nomination into a well-rounded overview of the concept. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eric_Schechter[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Irrelevant article with content not relevant to the subject's status as a mathematician Larry blyden (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand the importance or relevance of this article. In this article I am not made aware of any significant results due to Schechter. Mathematicians with smaller Erdos numbers do not have Wikipedia pages and I do not understand why this author needs one.

Schechter's political views are totally irrelevant to his position as a mathematician and have no place in the article. The readers do not need to be informed of the political position of every person of prominence just as they do not need to be informed of the golf handicaps of politicians.

I disagree with this. For example, I'm fascinated to learn of Isaac Newton's religious beliefs. I also think they are relevant, because they shape the direction of his work. Or, for example, Marvin Gaye's views on the environment, because they shape his work as well. I think these sorts of things are always relevant and should be included in wikipedia whenever they can be referenced in reliable sources. In the example on this page, however, I haven't found a reliable source for Schecter's political views so I would agree with you that they should be removed from the page. Cazort (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The subsection "Important Works" lists works that may or may not be important. I am not convinced of their importance, nor would anyone be from simply reading the article. The importance of these works and/or the results of the author should be found out or the article should be deleted.

Mathematicians at Vanderbilt University who are more deserving of Wikipedia pages, if Wikipedia needs more pages of mathematicians, include Bisch, DiBenedetto, Olshanskii, and Yu.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Let me note first that some of the reasons for deletion put forward by the nominator are not convincing: thus it is irrelevant to the decision regarding deleting or keeping this article that some other more deserving mathematicians at Vanderbilt do not have Wikipedia articles about them yet. However, upon closer inspection, the subject of the article does not appear to pass WP:PROF. I checked both WebOfScience and MathSciNet and citability results for his papers (except for one book) are low, mostly in single digits. I've looked through most of the reviews of Schechter's papers in MathSciNet (he has 21 publications listed there), and they are mostly tepid, with nothing particularly standing out and with few other reviews in MathSciNet referring to his papers. The book Handbook of analysis and its foundations actually has a rather negative review there, by James Bell Cooper. I don't see anything else in the record (such as significant awards, journal editorsjips, prestigious lectures, etc) to indicate passing WP:PROF at this point. Nsk92 (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the textbooks are widely used, he's notable by WP:PROF. any evidence of that? It does not matter in the least whether they are intrinsically good or bad: our job is not to judge the quality of textbooks. . DGG (talk) 06:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While his research papers appear not to be highly cited, his textbook Handbook of Analysis and Its Foundations has 71 citations per Google Scholar[43]. I'm not sure whether or not this alone is sufficient to meet criterion 4 of WP:PROF? Espresso Addict (talk) 12:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly not, in my opinion as a mathematician. The number 71 is probably somewhat inflated (both WoS and MathSciNet give much smaller citation numbers for this book). But even if one accepts it as accurate, that is not particularly much for a math book or even for a math paper to signify, in and of itself, notability of the author. Regarding DGG's comment, I did not find any evidence of either of the two books being widely used as textbooks. I did some googlesearching but did not find any math course webpages claiming to use the book as a textbook; while I might have missed something, it is unlikely that I would have missed evidence of wide usage of the book as a textbook. In terms nominal library holdings, WorldCat shows Handbook of Analysis and Its Foundations held by 172 libraries[44]. That is good, but certainly nothing special by math book standards. Nsk92 (talk) 15:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just my 2 cents: while assessment notability based on Google Scholar citations is not always easy, and is contingent on the area and topic, my subjective thresholds for notability based on Google Scholar citations are 150 for the top two most widely cited publications, or 300 for the top ten. If one of these criteria is met, I generally believe the person then meets WP:PROF criterion #1, which is significant impact in a scholarly discipline. If not, I look for more evidence, and at the totality of it (as I did below), before making a recommendation.--Eric Yurken (talk) 04:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. While I do not disagree with the points made by Nsk92, I think he possibly meets WP:PROF criterion #4 (significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions). Take a look at this search, which suggests that his impact as an educator makes him notable (even after discounting false positives - e.g., his own comments on discussion boards etc.).--Eric Yurken (talk) 17:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The search you gave has as the majority of its results online syllabi from various courses at various institutions that link to Schechter's webpage "Common Mistakes of Calculus Students," which I do not think is considered an "academic work" as stated in WP:PROF criterion #4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larry blyden (talk • contribs) 04:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-- Meets WP:PROF, his work is widely cited, Google Scholar.--Jmundo (talk) 05:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Err, these googlescholar results do not in fact show high citability. Most papers have citations hits in single digits, and the only one with double-digit citability is the book Handbook of Analysis and Its Foundations, with 71 hits, which is not a particularly high number, especially for a textbook. H-index appears to be around 5, which is quite low, even for pure math. One can put forward arguments for satisfying WP:PROF on other grounds, as Eric Yurken does above, but high citability is not a convincing argument here. Nsk92 (talk) 06:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Prof doesn't define what is "high citability", your judgment is subjective.--Jmundo (talk) 06:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This notable. And Jmundo's argument on WP:PROF is spot on. Once you are cited in Google Scholar by independent third-party scholars, you are WP:PROF notable. It's basically automatic. This is a clear cut case on why we need a Criteria for Speedy Keep. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 15:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has written most of the text of the current WP:PROF and has participated in lots of academic-related AfDs, I assure you that you are incorrect. It has never been sufficient for establishing academic notability, under either WP:PROF or the de-factor consensus in previous academic-related AfDs, to simply have citations of one's work by independent third-party sources. Item 1 in Notes and Examples section of WP:PROF specifically says: "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work: either of several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or of a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates". That, and not simply having some citations of one's work, has been the standard of academic notability. Saying that somebody is notable one's their work has been cited by others, will actually make many graduate students notable already. Nsk92 (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. As shown by Nsk92, does not meet WP:PROF and some of the above "keep" votes are based on a misinterpretation of that guideline. My grad student has about as many citations as the subject of this article.... --Crusio (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable per WP:PROF for two significant textbooks; the Handbook was reviewed in SIAM Review. JJL (talk) 01:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Does that mean more than publication? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, for that journal. JJL (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless evidence of notability is included. The 71 Google Scholar hits are for the author's name, unrestricted. They are an order of magnitude smaller than the 596 hits on the title and authors of a genuinely notable book; and an order and a half less than the hits on Serge Lang, a man genuinely notable for his textbooks. I would accept an account of his activism, if it made him notable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment you're setting the bar quite high with the likes of G.H. Hardy and Serge Lang. How about picking someone of more "average" notability? JJL (talk) 05:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I'm setting the bar at a quarter of Hardy's book (please note that that search includes title), or a tenth of Lang. We do not want average professors; that's the job of the AAUP. For a somewhat less notable comparand, try Michael Spivak's Calculus, cited by 170 hits. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Actually the 71 citations I mentioned were specifically for the book; see: [45]. I'm still open as to whether or not that is sufficient to qualify as a notable educational mathematics text. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I just don't see how he meets WP:PROF. Someone said that they thought he "might" qualify under criterion #4. How? Please be specific. And frankly, the inclusion of his Erdos number, while it really is not a criterion for our decision here, does nothing to help his case. Probably more than half of the tenured math professors in the western world have a number as low or lower. And for pete's sake, he's not even a full professor (yet), how much of an "impact" is he likely to have made? (I can see the examples disproving that coming now, but I still feel he unlikely to be notable.) Unschool 06:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure whether or not it is my comment that you are referring to, but criterion 4 states The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. It might potentially be met by a textbook which has been widely cited, suggesting its wide adoption in higher education institutes. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I consider notability by counting GS hits almost as absurd as counting google hits. GScholar covers a wide range of significant and nonsignificant material, and enters many items more than once--just as google does. The only proper way to use it is to go through and evaluate hit by hit how many of them are actually separate citations from sources that matter. I really think EA should reconsider the use of this as a primary criterion--it's just a very preliminary indication.DGG (talk) 01:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find in general that Google Scholar is a pretty good quick & dirty indicator of probable notability versus total lack of notability for currently active academics, for those of us unlucky enough to lack access to specialised bibliographic databases. It certainly beats "I like it", which is pretty much the only other argument available to non-specialists. Perhaps non-specialists should refrain from commenting at all -- in which case we might as well delete AfD altogether and go with a project-specific determination of who is in and who is out, an option that has long appealed to me. As for this particular article, I would like to stress that I have refrained from making any judgement. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

used roughly, for comparison between people in the same field at he same level in the same period, yes. If one finds academic researcher in the same subject in the 1990-2000s with 15 GS records as compared to 300, it's indicative of a difference between them that will probably hold in detailed analysis. if one compares a mathematician with an historian, or, as applies in this particular case, a research mathematician with a person who is primarily a teacher, I consider it worthless. Most colleges nowadays will have either GScholar or Scopus, which at present for 1995+ are roughly equivalent--its worth looking for. In my experience, neither of them covers education in college subjects very well, or are particularly relevant for evaluating teachers--nor does any other database at all. ERIC, which is free, covers research in education well enough, but is quite erratic for measuring contributions to practice. . GS is useful, yes, but as a source for materials to look at more exactly. And I , like EA, also refrain from making a judgment here. The more I learn about metrics in evaluation, the more I realize on the need to interpret them with human judgment. DGG (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete.~~Strong delete. Eric who? -- DanielPenfield (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not having heard of a given individual, or any topic on wikipedia, is not a valid justification for deleting a page. On a separate note, however, I would suggest checking out Handbook of Analysis and its Foundations. I checked out your user page and it seems like the type of book you might eat right up. Cazort (talk) 01:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem confused here. As the author of the article, it is your obligation to demonstrate notability in a verifiable manner per Wikipedia:Verifiability. The fact that the article lacks any sources for either the subject or his work (as afforded under WP:PROF) after two months, let alone ones that are reliable, secondary, and independent of the subject means that it absolutely should be deleted per Wikipedia:Notability. And looking at the comments above, I'm apparently not the first to suggest that the article should be sourced or summarily deleted. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:BIO#Creative_professionals states: "The person has created...a significant or well-known work...which has been the subject...of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Schecter's Handbook of Analysis and its Foundations has at least 71 references in the scholarly literature, as shown here: [46] and it has been reviewed by S.I.A.M. Review, Math Reviews, and Topological Commentary, among others. He also has a very positive review by Robert G. Bartle, who is well-known for his analysis book, which ought to count for something. I think this single work alone warrants Schechter's inclusion in wikipedia. He has also published a bunch of other things, including some stuff which has a fair number of references. What is lost for wikipedia by including a page on him? I also think, and this is my key point, that while Schechter is someone who is of only modest importance when it comes to advancing cutting-edge research in mathematics, he is someone who has advanced mathematics a great deal in the form of presentation. It would make sense that research-focused professors would not have heard of him; ask students, especially his target audience. Within the sample of people I know, young professors and students, Schechter is well known, solely because of his book I mentioned above. The standards of notability for wikipedia are not the same standards of recognition within academia--Academia values advancing cutting-edge research more, and values less the works that make new material accessible at a more elementary level. Wikipedia values both. Cazort (talk) 01:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with the points made by cazort. I have heard of Eric Schechter through his book Handbook of Analysis and its Foundations, and am an undergraduate math student. SNFitz (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC) — Snfitz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment It would seem to me that just as not having heard of someone is not a valid reason for deletion (even though I think DanielPenfield's comment was meant ironically), having heard of someone is a valid reason for inclusion. There are many people that I have heard off that are not notable otherwise. As for the 71 citations, as Nsk91 shtated above, this is likely an overestimate, many will be just mentions in passing, and even if correct 71 is nothing out of the ordinary for a mathematics book or paper. His book is held by 172 libraries, again, this is good but not really outstanding. --Crusio (talk) 08:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we ought to consider reviews, such as the ones mentioned above, more than counting references or library stockings. But I still don't understand what is gained by deleting this page. If a topic isn't terribly important, then a small page is appropriate. Cazort (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you perhaps tell us where these reviews can be found? Just a journal title and the name of a reviewer are not very helpful in localizing them. Thanks. As for counting citations, as you started your keep argument by saying that the book had received 71 citations, I thought it might be helpful to put that number in perspective. --Crusio (talk) 16:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SIAM Review, Volume 40, Number 2, June 1998. Topology Commentary, Vol. 2, No. 3, July 1997, you can find multiple copies of the full texts of both of these online with a google search. The publisher reviews, including the Bartle review, can be found at amazon here: [47]. Cazort (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the references. The Amazon link does not work for me, but in any case, Amazon is not a reliable source of book reviews. Many of the "publisher reviews" are just blurbs. Amazon info can be used to search for reviews, but Amazon itself cannot be considered an independent source (after all, their business is selling books...:-) --Crusio (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The reviews cited by Cazort, especially Bartle's, swing this one for me, showing notability as textbook author. (Irrelevant comment: Part of Lang's notability as a textbook author (mentioned above) is because he wrote one on a weekend to win a bet! :-)).John Z (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's examine the Amazon "reviews":

The Cain "review" consists of four sentences in which Cain admits only to having read the table of contents and the "sample chapters". Why would the "reviewer" base his "review" on "sample chapters"? Perhaps because the "reviewer" didn't actually read the complete work in its final form?
The Bartle "review" also consists of four sentences in which Bartle admits only to having read the preface. Furthermore Bartle couches his "review": I admire him even more for what appears to me to be a very successful completion of this task. It only "appears" to be successfully complete? Was Bartle distancing himself because he hadn't examined (or only examined in passing) the work he purportedly "reviewed"?

While the review in SIAM Review is what you'd expect a thorough review to look like, it's buried in 41 pages of reviews for other books as well. How does that establish notability? I'm also uncertain as to how the Topology Commentary review demonstrates "work [that] has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions."

-- DanielPenfield (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While there is some evidence of notability here, I'm just not convinced it's enough to demonstrate that this man is more notable than the average mathematical academic. Terraxos (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rima Morrell[edit]

AfDs for this article:

May not meet the inclusion criteria for academics or authors. Not well referenced for verifiability. Some RS coverage but probably not enough to prove notability. A previous article was deleted at AfD. This is not the same text. DanielRigal (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The Daily Record source would seem to be substantially about the subject, and another source has been given in the article (Tooth and Claw). There is also this review in MBR Bookwatch, which, apparently, is a "monthly publication of book reviews for community and academic library systems in California, Wisconsin, and the Midwest". It's not much but taken together these sources would seem to just about satisfy notability criteria. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The MBR review is only a one paragraph. You can read it in full here: http://www.midwestbookreview.com/mbw/nov_05.htm (scroll down or search the page for "huna"). Mid West Book Review seems to be an organisation that will cheerfully give almost any book a chance of a very short review, even self-published material. The reviews are written by volunteers. See http://www.midwestbookreview.com/get_rev.htm and http://www.midwestbookreview.com/revinfo.htm. It is a perfectly reasonable undertaking and I certainly don't think that it is a PR/advertising service but I don't see it as a source that confers any degree of notability either. It seems to be comparable to a blog or a Wiki.

The Daily Record review is a full size article, although it seems to come from a glossy lifestyle supplement rather than the main body of the paper. There is a scan of it here: http://www.hunalight.com/images/tm.pdf .

--DanielRigal (talk) 17:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't have any evidence of meeting WP:ACADEMIC or WP:BIO, more specifically the guidelines for authors. Almost anyone can write a book or two and have someone else write about it these days; this alone doesn't make an author notable. NZ forever (talk) 02:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability and seems website links only promote her businesses —Preceding unsigned comment added by RSchmidt66 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be the first signed-in edit of this editor. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I can find no trace of her on Google Scholar and fellowship of the Royal Geographical Society is not an elected honour. However, her books have respectable sales rankings in Amazon.co.uk: Travelling Magically: How to Turn Your Journey into a Life-changing Experience 65,682[48]; The Sacred Power of Huna 139,183[49]; The Hawaiian Oracle 253,165[50], and have received a couple of independent reviews per Phil Bridger. The Hawaiian Oracle has been translated into French according to the author's website.[51] I think taken as a whole, this meets the guidelines for creative professionals, and the Daily Record article alone is sufficient for verifiability. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete no notable accomplishment in any one thing. Incidentally, I do not accept the simple use of Amazon ranks any more than of Google hits-- they can be used for comparing books of the same genre and intended readership and language and country of publication and year of publication, but not as an absolute measure. Translations are a sign of notability, but the single book here is marginal that way. DGG (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could not find enough to establish notability under WP:PROF. Does not seem to pass WP:BIO either. Bestselling general interest books would normally attract more media coverage than suggested by this search.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--International notability established by The Guardian and a book review by Planete Quebec. --Jmundo (talk) 05:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And Then There Were None (Band)[edit]

No notability asserted, no reliable sources. One of the albums was tagged for A9 (which I almost did myself) but that's clearly not the case as the band does have an article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ^{What I do}Xenocide^{Talk to me} 04:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, band is signed to Tooth and Nail Records. That being said, this article isn't going anywhere without more reliable sources. TheLetterM (talk) 07:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Some evidence of notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The signing to a notable label is a good claim to notability and it can be referenced "and+then+there+were+none"+"tooth+and+nail"&btnG=Search. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I created this article not knowing much about the band, but simply because they had been signed by a record label, and I assumed that that granted enough notability to make it worthy for inclusion. I am new to creating pages on wiki though, so whatever you guys feel is appropriate. Dudebri1 (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately many bands sing to a label and never release a single album and disappear into obscurity. So until album has been released they remain non notable. --neon white talk 01:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 02:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, while they maybe signed to a notable label, WP:MUSIC#C5 calls for multiple releases, so far there is 1. I can find bugger all outside self published sources to back up any of the claims. No prejudice against recreation of the article if they release a second album on Tooth & Nail though. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: insufficient notability WP:MUSIC#C5. JamesBurns (talk) 02:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - but only because they have toured around the Northeast. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 21:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet, if you've got some reliable sources to back that claim up, I'd be happy to change my vote. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wouyldnt matter anyway local tours arent a criteria. --neon white talk 01:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find anything that firmly establishes notability at the current time. --neon white talk 01:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete all, with creation protection (see And Then There Were None (band), yes click to see), until which someone find material in reliable sources to improve this. Wikipedia ≠ MySpace and similars Cannibaloki 01:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all (and salt if necessary) - no evidence of notability provided. Terraxos (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HIS - Hightech Information System Limited[edit]

probably incorrectly named borderline spam article on a company, whose compliance with WP:CORP may be suspect.The sources used in the article are all self-published and verification is proving difficult: 26 Ghits, most of which are directory listings of cards produced. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The naming issue can be fixed, but HIS appears several times in non-English news sources and in a few Hong Kong Industry directories. I'm pretty sure that it still doesn't pass WP:CORP, but I'm not 100% sure at this time. DARTH PANDA ^duel 20:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not sure how the nominator managed to form that Google search, but these searches find plenty of sources: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Search engine results are not evidence of notability. I cannot find significant coverage in english at least. Business directories cannot be used as they are neither independent nor significant. --neon white talk 01:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Secondary sources, per WP:CORP, for the company exist, but they are not in "first class" English sources such as PCWorld, News.com, etc. Some "2nd class" sources include PC Advisor UK, bit-tech.net, geek.com. —Noah 20:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the sources provided by Noah Salzman above, which are sufficient to show notability. Terraxos (talk) 01:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tanglewood Tales. MBisanz ^talk 02:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Tales of Tanglewood[edit]

Non-notable book from a non-notable author... fails Wikipedia:Notability (books)... Adolphus (talk) 07:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tanglewood Tales?SPNic (talk) 14:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That could be another option... - Adolphus (talk) 17:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question. I thought, upon first glance at the article in question, that the redirect was a good idea. But are they even related? Nothing I read in the two articles (The Tales of Tanglewood and Tanglewood Tales) indicates a connection. Am I missing something? Unschool 06:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume the suggestion for a redirect is simply on the basis that somebody looking for Tanglewood Tales might have misremembered the title and put it in this form. JulesH (talk) 10:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That was my thought... - Adolphus (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apparently non-notable small press book. JulesH (talk) 10:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Terraxos (talk) 01:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-fairy[edit]

Dab with no targets to point to. I can't see an article ever being written on either form of anti-fairy, so this dab is useless. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are two meanings; someone searching might be after one or the other. If there was only one meaning then a redirect would be appropriate to the parent topic - that is not the case so keep. Seems a good DAB. Springnuts (talk) 21:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There isn't even a single article for this term so i fail to see your reasoning here. --neon white talk 01:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We do not have an article on either topic, so no need for a DAB page. JulesH (talk) 16:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unneeded dab page. --neon white talk 01:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a thing known as an anti-fairy tale (Antimärchen), but it isn't abbreviated "anti-fairy". ☺ Uncle G (talk) 03:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a perfectly proper disambiguation between two things that are covered as sub-topics within larger articles, both of which are known as Anti-Fairies. We use redirects for such situations (see Wikipedia:Redirect#What do we use redirects for?), and where two such redirects clash at a single title we construct a disambiguation. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 03:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What is the harm in keeping this here? Nothing, as far as I can see. Both terms are equally insignificant, and this dab page will steer a person looking for this obscure term in the direction he or she wants. Unschool 06:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'm not changing my vote; I just wanted to say that I looked at the version of the article to which 10 lb. added the AfD tag, and now I can understand his thinking. But what Uncle G. has done I think makes a keep more obvious. Unschool 06:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ahem! Uncle G (talk) 09:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to keep in light of changes to the page since my last comment. JulesH (talk) 10:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as reworked since it serves to disambiguate two article sections (and move to Anti-Fairies if it survives the AfD). -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a useless dab. Tavix (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be used when a reader enters "anti-fairy" (or one of several variations) in the search box. Why do you think it's useless? -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful page for searching purposes. --Edcolins (talk) 13:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two is the minimal number for a disambiguation page. Having more than one way to navigate to articles is better than just one way. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here you're correct -- two is the minimum number when there is no primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial Visualization[edit]

I do not have any opinion on whether this article should be deleted. It had been prodded and I felt from the artist's apparent notability that a full deletion discussion was appropriate. I'm therefore neither for or against deletion of the article. The original prod was by 24.4.96.133 (talk · contribs · count), and the reason given was Not enough info to satisfy MUSIC criteria Cynical (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep- Assuming we're talking about the album, that is. The band itself does seem to at least have some notability, as the LA Times article would seem to indicate. The album then, it would follow (at least in my mind), would also be notable. I would love to see some sourcing on this though. I noticed other albums by this group have allmusic.com reviews on their pages, so that might be a place to start. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: article fails to establish notability. JamesBurns (talk) 01:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: Trivial and no independent references - no references at all. A list of tracks is like a list of chapters in a book. Take the list out, and there is one sentence giving no more information than the mention in the Infected Mushroom article. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. WP:MUSIC says "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia" (emphasis mine). I see nothing that indicates this specific album is notable. A google search for sources is turning up nothing. Simply because the artist is notable does not mean that this album is automatically notable. I do note, however, that the current poor state of the article is not a reason to delete, as it is a perfectly reasonable stub article in its current state. JulesH (talk) 10:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, informations not found, no reviews, no news, nothing! Cannibaloki 01:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 01:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vince Agwada[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: lacks substantial 3rd party verification. JamesBurns (talk) 03:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Speedy Keep Meets WP:BAND #1 and #4 Besides: Top 40 Blues artists under 40 in the country by Living Blues Magazine. Blues is not very notable music, but int he blues world, he is notable. All that matters. You don't need "substantial" anything, you need "multiple", as per WP:BAND. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 15:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#C4 for his international gigging, [52]. And WP:MUSIC#C1 for [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58]. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 09:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The page needs to be wikified, but he is WP:N.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quantec[edit]

This company appears to fail WP:CORP because it has not got substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Reyk _YO! 21:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I am always willing to err on the side of delete for WP:CORP, but this one meets the criteria. It was non-trivial to find notability info and third-party media coverage. Try German, and try European press. WP:BIAS and all that. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per overwhelmingly convincing argument. Separete COI issue should be handled.--Cerejota (talk) 10:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —Shortserve (talk) 04:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cerejota, what do you mean that it was "non-trivial" to find coverage? If you found some, where is it?
The products of this company seem to have gotten reviews in reliable sources, per the translations at the company's press site. Most of these have appeared in the German audio magazine Keys. One is available at Pro Audio Review, and then there's one at Mix Professional Audio and Music Production.
Nevertheless, I don't see that we have significant coverage of the company, or that the bits in those articles are enough to verify the facts from the article. It was also created by an SPA who might be affiliated with Quantec's founder Wolfgang Buchleitner, even though he denied wanting to promote the company when both the article on company and founder were deleted on the German Wikipedia following the discussion at de:WP:Löschkandidaten/9. Dezember 2007#Wolfgang Buchleitner (gelöscht).
All in all I say delete, fails WP:CORP and WP:V. --Amalthea 15:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete my first impression at looking at the article was - why was this not speedied as A7. Then I saw a previous G11 nomination which was averted by a rewrite. Agathoclea (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the research done by Amalthea above, showing this is not a notable company. Terraxos (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Peter Driscoll (disambiguation)[edit]

AIDAluna[edit]

Devrukhe Brahmins - List of Institutions founded by Devrukhes[edit]

Stanford Flipside[edit]

The Exception Magazine[edit]

Christine Barger[edit]

Inflation-protected Cash Savings Accounts[edit]

Holger F. Struer[edit]

Students and Workers for the Liberation of UCLA Primates[edit]

Noys[edit]

Paul Whitehouse (disambiguation)[edit]

Latham Circle[edit]

Rob Fyfe[edit]

Genevac[edit]

Atmospheric Jellyfish[edit]

Dr. Anne Drysdale[edit]

David Cleevely[edit]

Oak Bay Police Department[edit]

James Renshaw[edit]

Imma Be[edit]

Harptallica[edit]

Foothill Elementary School[edit]

Rocket Power (album)[edit]

High School Musical 4: College Years[edit]

Subprime Nation[edit]

Ohm Phanphiroj[edit]

You, Me & The Devil Makes 3[edit]

Matthew Langton[edit]

2008-09 Screen Actors Guild strike[edit]

Styic Entertainment Co.[edit]

Speyside Cooperage[edit]

David West (footballer)[edit]

Group Zuper Senior Year: Iquitos Youth[edit]

Le Llano en Flammes[edit]

Further reading for War on Terrorism[edit]

Gianna Maria Crane[edit]

Katie Pearson[edit]

Millie Binks[edit]

Denyse Tontz[edit]

Morganne Matis[edit]

Dalet School[edit]

Murtaza Shibli[edit]

Judgement Yard[edit]

Mehdi kargar[edit]

Giant Squid (band)[edit]

Geoffrey Eggleston[edit]

Yevgeni Nikolayev[edit]

Pepsi Wylde[edit]

Bed ball[edit]

Indian online DVD rental services comparision[edit]

Clow Cards[edit]

Rann (film)[edit]

Wes Burden[edit]

The Cry (film)[edit]

User:Pen!s is big[edit]

David Reilly (computer scientist)[edit]

Eugene Sings![edit]

David Zimmer (disambiguation)[edit]

GUI_Jon[edit]

Brad Meyers (disambiguation)[edit]

Black Saturday massacre[edit]

Centro Warringal[edit]

Centro Meadow Heights[edit]

2009 neighbours plots[edit]

Dangerous Rhythm (single)[edit]

Catalyst (single)[edit]

St. Joseph the Betrothed Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church[edit]

Oak Knoll School (K-5)[edit]

Swing For The Fences[edit]

Josh Aikins[edit]

Lil Cruze[edit]

Jack Allen (Adventures in Odyssey)[edit]

Oriental metal[edit]

Janne Corax[edit]

Stereotypes of African Americans[edit]

Tuff Monks[edit]

The Lea Thompson Show[edit]

Haggle (game)[edit]

Reptile71[edit]

Sport-tsonh[edit]