The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 00:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Dark Wheel[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:BK. Schuym1 (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: It has been here since 2005... Why wouldn't of this been deleted earlier? K50 Dude ROCKS! 00:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because no one bothered to or thought that it was notable. Just because it existed since 2005 doesn't mean that it is notable. Schuym1 (talk) 00:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep The author appears very highly notable, and from the material in his article in would appear this book is also. Needs expansion, with reviews and the like. Many of the older articles of science fiction were written here essentially on the basis of personal knowledge, and now need upgrading. DGG (talk) 04:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Elite (computer game). The inclusion of a sci-fi novella with a video game is a fascinating quirk of the early PC video game era. This content fits perfectly well as a section of the main Elite article. —Noah
• Strong keep. I've just added a reference that shows that this was the first time a novella was distributed with a computer game, which surely makes this a notable work of fiction. JulesH (talk) 09:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:33, 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 Bariatrics. Stifle (talk) 00:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Medical weight loss[edit]

This request has been blanked as a courtesy

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pilot G-2 mini[edit]

Pilot G-2 mini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Describes in detail a decidedly unimportant variant of a single pen product from Pilot. Dcoetzee 23:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete fails notability. Seems like an ad. We don't have an article on the Pilot G-2 either, which I don't think is notable either. Danski14^(talk) 00:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:SNOW. This is obviously non-notable -- come on, it's a pen! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantumobserver (talk • contribs) 00:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: n/n on its own. Merge into Pilot (pen company). --Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 00:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per G11 in my book. It is a pen and the Pilot G-2 doesn't exist either. And if it's kept (hopefully it won't be), it needs to be really wikified and expanded. K50 Dude ROCKS! 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 Speedy delete a7, webcontent with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WLMGP[edit]

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

Discusses a peculiar chain e-mail related to the font color in Windows Live Messenger. Of limited reach ("500 people" it claims) and unlikely to have any long-term significance. Dcoetzee 23:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 23:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, non-notable internet phenomena : no independent references or coverage by media. Danski14^(talk) 00:02, 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. Already wiped. seicer | talk | contribs 05:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John List (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Unnecessary dab. Only two names, can be handled with a hatnote in each article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:39, 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 22:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia Robinson[edit]

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

Only notable for appearing in a video. No other sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 23:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article is not notable.--Ped Admi (talk) 01:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notability is not established in any way. DiverseMentality 20:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not meet the general notability guideline. Cannibaloki 01:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:53, 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 23:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quentin koromete[edit]

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

The person exists, but there appears to be very little material available about him online. The sites www.utnz.org.nz (currently down) and www.homerescue.org.nz appear to be controlled by him or his organisation. If he was instrumental in the challenge to the Seabed and Foreshore legislation as claimed, there should be a lot more material available on him. Delete gadfium 23:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Can't find material justifying this article. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 23:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not notable, no results from the NZ Herald or Stuff websites, one trivial mention from NZLII. XLerate (talk) 01:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Collectively, his activities seem to hint at notability, possibly as an activist. But there is still insufficient coverage in secondary sources, for either "Quentin Koromete" or "Quentin Goldsmith", to meet notability guidelines for a Wikipedia biography. Unless greater coverage on his activities emerges, the article should probably be deleted. – Liveste (talk • edits) 03:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:BLP/WP:N requirements not met from the article sources. Searches online have turned up zip and, as User:gadfium notes, the claims made would have reasonably been expected to generate some. As a suggestion though, the author may instead consider whether the organisation that Koromete is involved with has the required notability (with necessary sources etc) for an article, rather than focussing on an individual. Plutonium27 (talk) 23:04, 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. — Aitias // discussion 22:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry (Family Guy)[edit]

Jerry (Family Guy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A Family Guy character so non-notable that he's never actually appeared on the show.

Sam (Family Guy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Another minor Family Guy who has only appeared in one episode. Consensus on Talk:List of characters in Family Guy is that single episode characters aren't notable for inclusion in List of characters in Family Guy, let alone their own article.

TheMile (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both, absolutely no hope of sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both who cares. JuJube (talk) 02:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete perfect example of non-notable. ReverendG (talk) 02:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Giggity Giggity Delete Non-notable, just non-notable. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but some comments first. To start, I do not see how one can say "no hope of sources" until one has examined every possible review & discussion of the series. Then, I think that every individual named character with a spoken part in a notable series is appropriate for a sentence in a combination article. But this depends on consensus, and, examining the talk page, I do not see the least consensus that such characters should be removed. In fact, examining the discussion in the talk p. Archive, I see that the point was never raised --except to say that there should be a separate list of one time characters. The discussion seemed to be more about which one time characters should not be in the main list of recurring characters & I think reached sensible guidelines about that. I suggest the nom re-read the discussion,; I'll assume he is making the common mistake of thinking that the established consensus happens to be the way he would like it to be personally. I read it as saying that most actual one time characters not in single cutaway gags do get mentioned.

That said, this character does not appear in the show, but is just referred to. It's not even a non-speaking character, it's a non-appearing character. That is below any possible inclusion outside of a fan wiki. This might well have been said explicitly, but I don't see how anyone could actually disagree. There is a limit to what should even be mentioned, and this is outside it. DGG (talk) 05:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both per nom and DGG. Tavix (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, DGG said it all. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into list of characters article. -- Banjeboi 14:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both: An interesting side note; this AFD is longer than both the articles put together ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No usable content, and not needed at this time. Can be recreated if necessary. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:18, 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 deleted by KnightLago (CSD A7). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jobtac[edit]

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

Advert for recently created recruitment system. Written by user:Jobtac. -- Sgroupace (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - since being tagged, the article has been rewritten in a less promotional style, but there is a clear COI and no evidence that the subject is notable - which is anyway unlikely as it was only launched this month. Wikipedia is not here to promote new businesses. JohnCD (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that COI and POV are not reasons for deletion in themselves; an article written with a clear COI but which meets notability guidelines would be rewritten and de-POVed, rather than exterminated! haz (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; but COI is worth commenting on, as it causes one to look more critically at the evidence for notability. JohnCD (talk) 19:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There ought to be a rule that a business has to last two or three months before it has a shot at being notable. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - neither evidence nor assertion of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as failing WP:ORG. (Although Orangemike's tagged for SD anyway, so adding this comment may prove to have been an exercise in futility...) haz (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I tagged it, but did not delete it, in an effort to respect consensus. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:21, 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. Tone 14:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benjaman Kyle[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

Subject does not seem to be "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." Only defining characteristics are amnesia and a single appearance on Dr. Phil. Goodnightmush^Talk 22:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems pretty unusual to me. He has the defining characteristic of being unidentifiable, yet still alive and well. Shadowblade (talk) 23:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting enough to me as well for the same reasons, I read the whole article and would like to see more. --Tsaylor (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above two replies. This is a very interesting person who I would like to know a lot more about. --Kenjamin80 (talk) 06:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete Seems to be WP:BLP1E but I could be wrong. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment At the very least, it needs to be cleaned up. Where did the picture with this caption comes from? "Beard darkened - how Benjaman may have looked in prior years" I could be wrong, but it seems to me that at least one editor is using this article as a joke. Rm999 (talk) 23:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the Discovery blog [1] via Google cache as it appeared on 3 Jan 2009 20:58:0 [2] "Round and round we went and Project EDAN ended up doing an age regression for the case upon request of Dr Phil. Two artists created a variety of age regressed images to various ages -- both hand sketched and digital". One square on the chessboard (talk) 02:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. Rm999 (talk) 05:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Here are a couple other articles on this guy... http://savannahnow.com/node/364434 http://www.11alive.com/news/article_news.aspx?storyid=104800 Let's leave this page up in the hopes that it helps someone recognize him. AngledLuffa
• Must not be deleted ! This could be the man's only hope of reuniting with his real life !! Whoever suggested the deletion must be a truly cruel hearted person. Is this what wikipedia has become? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.240.155 (talk)

• Wikipedia isn't meant to promote anyone or anything. We're not being cruel at all; he just doesn't seem to meet the notability guidelines. And please don't attack other editors. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of far less interesting or relevant personal biographies on Wikipedia. Why not give this one a chance for a while longer? --Uyvsdi —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

For what it's worth, there's a high probability that this is a fraud. True amnesics almost invariably lose recent memory and retain remote memory. The opposite pattern (as claimed here) is hardly ever seen outside TV shows. Note the absence of any reliable sources here. Looie496 (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a reliable source, The Augusta Chronicle [3]. One square on the chessboard (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers and TV shows have been following his story for quite some time and no mention of fraud has come up. After three years, if it was just a hoax, it would certainly be found out by now. --Uyvsdi —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Since he has been featured on secondary media sources, he should meet notability guidelines. FunkyDuffy (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Reference "Augusta Chronicle, Tuesday, September 25, 2007: Man with no memory tries to start new life" has been added to the article. One square on the chessboard (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notable. Do not delete.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 00:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral comment: For what it's worth it appears The Discovery Channel blogged about this after the Dr.Phil appearance. Original blog is down so here is the google cache. http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:vIONIRGc-A4J:blogs.discovery.com/sleuth_truth/2008/08/to-be-or-not-to.html AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 00:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stong delete - does not meet notability guidelines and has iffy "truthiness" @ best. Fluppy (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - this man is notable for being in need of the internet's help. Gordonjay (talk) 02:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I remember reading about this man in a weekly I buy. There may be more work needed in citing sources, but that doesn't mean the subject doesn't conform to WP:BIO. ephix (talk) 02:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Notable. May need more sources, but still notable. --Vicovico (talk) 02:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Non-notable, and it's too much like invading this guy's privacy: He's barely a public figure, assuming he is one at all, and here we have an article about some very difficult times in his life with only the barest fig leaf of external sources, none of them very good. --chbarts (talk) 04:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "It showed up on reddit! Hurry, we have to delete this article!" God, is that what an admin really does? Try to keep a good PR image for Wikipedia? Geez, go expand an article or something, or at least give up your tools if all you're going to do is come back every once in a while to 'revert' someone every other week rather than make even the slightest attempt to expand an 'encyclopedia'. Probably too busy spending time on reddit. 75.64.247.79 (talk) 05:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. Fail to see how this is not "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." Subject meets all these criteria. 1. It is significant enough to warrant relatively broad media coverage. 2. It is interesting to many people (thats why the guy was on Dr. Phil: Because people are interested, and it would not tank ratings.) and, 3. It is unusual. Come on, let's face it: how often do you hear about a guy waking up naked in the streets, claiming not to know anything anymore. So far, this only happened in 12 Monkeys and Terminator. That's right - unusual enough to make it as significant plot device in several major motion pictures. (this comment is only partly tongue in cheek - truth is, this is unusual to many people) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martijnd (talk • contribs) 06:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Subject is notable, as evidenced by his appearance on national television and the newspaper/magazine articles about him. Additionally, the case is unusual and interesting as an example of Retrograde amnesia. LK (talk) 08:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems sufficiently notable to me. ShardPhoenix (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I've cleaned up the article some, and the 5 sources currently on the page establish notability in my book.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  16:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep meets WP:BIO as per sources given in the article. The only possible reason I could see someone arguing for deletion that has not been brought up some possible risk of harm by having an article but that's clearly not the case in this situation (quite the opposite in fact). JoshuaZ (talk) 00:25, 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. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish family law[edit]

Scottish family law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Also nominating:

Scots property law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Scots administrative law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Scots contract law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Scots civil procedure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete until there is something there. This is a non-article posing as an article; if this is a keeper, we should have a bot creating these for the 200-odd countries, and the thousands of subdivisions that have law-making powers, and then create "family law", "property law", "criminal law", etc., and each possible combination of jurisdiction and type of law each saying that "Fooian XYZ law governs XYZ in Foo." Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Scots administrative law, Scots contract law, and Scots civil procedure, all created by the same editor, are equally bereft of information. Uncle G (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point, I've nominated them as well, along with another one I came across. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Ask the ed. to expand Why was not the editor notified? In a case like this, where it appears an article was intend but not actually started, it would appear not merely polite, but the obvious way to try to improve the encyclopedia. This is especially true as he's an experienced editor with a two-year history of contributing a long series of articles on legal topics User:Wikidea#Contributions, included at least one Featured Article, Law. Carlossuarez, this is an especially egregious case where it was really rude--not Biting the newbies, but showing discourtesy and lack of respect for the regulars. Not just a question of notifying about the deletion,which is rude enough, but of not attempting to communicate your concerns about the problem before placing the AfD. Uncle G, too, if you think it's a chronic problem why didn't you discuss it with him? But I don't think it's a problem at all: on his user page he says he starts by writing stubs and filling them out--and he certain does fill them out splendidly! His work is to be encouraged, not deprecated. DGG (talk) 06:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I see that you don't believe that WP:AGF applies to you. I don't post notifications to authors; it's not required and it seems like vote-seeking. Articles I have created have also been nominated for deletion without my being notified. Do I express indignation and call out anyone's egregiousness. No, I understand the rules of the process and assume good faith. You, don't, apparently. If you and the community think that articles of the ilk "Fooian XYZ law governs XYZ in Foo" is an OK stub, then we should and shall have more of them, since they seem to be what we want, they'll hardly be disruptive, now. Get over it, as other editors have expressed these are NON-articles. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This non-notification shows why it ought to be required, and shall certainly be used an argument for changing the guideline. How anyone can think it respectful of editor not to notify them when their articles are being listed for deletion escapes me. Even if you think that editors do not deserve respect as individuals, surely you do realize that inadequate articles are improvable, and the original editor is in a good position to improve them. The rule of the project is to seek alternatives to deletion, and the best alternative of all is an improved article. I've responded to some other aspects on my talk page. DGG (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to change policy, this is hardly the place to do so; notification is a strawman as the author has chimed in and !voted. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Editing can be terribly intimidating to new users, especially creating new articles. A stub, especially one that has all the bells and whistles such as this, invites the uninitiated to start editing because there is something there to edit. —Noah 06:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:DELETION states that articles that can be improved by editing should be so improved in preference to deletion. Articles on these subjects should clearly be included in wikipedia. Therefore it is no-brainer to keep these articles to allow time for them to be improved. JulesH (talk) 10:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep sorry I didn't expand anything, but you can see the template I created:

... and the articles were for that. The point is, so long as there's something there, someone hopefully will do something. Problem is, I'm not versed in Scots law. Perhaps you could post a message on the Scottish Wikiproject? It's not like there's a lack of hard drive space, anyway, is it? I understood that articles should be deleted when they never would be significant, etc: and of course these are all important subjects. I'll paste some extra material in some of them from Scots law for the sake of it, and provide some links. But you're just being a pain in the arse if you delete, because one day they'll be created again! Wikidea 10:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The subject is obviously worthy. This is a non-article that essentially says that Scottish family law is the family law of Scotland - no shit, Sherlock! The rationale of the nominator seems flawed; the family law of Tonga is also a worthy subject, awaiting someone who has access to the appropriate sources to write one.
  
  As an article that contains little more than a noninformative sentence and a template, it would appear to fall under several categories for speedy deletion. The question seems to boil down to whether a redlink to an encyclopedia subject is more encouraging to editors who want to start a new article there than a blue link to an empty article waiting to be filled. I think the redlink is the better option. A bluelink suggests that the rudiments of a subject have already been addressed, and here they have not been. The template looks fine and dandy. But if there are gaps in our coverage of these subjects, it should be obvious from looking at it. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Scots law The template created seems to be informative but this is not an article as currently constructed, it is not even a stub. It gives no indication as to what the article is about (or potentially will be about). If the editor can add even one or two sentences as to what the content of this article should be. If not, a user on wikipedia that searches for "Scottish family law" would be better served finding no article and perhaps spotting Scots law in the search results. |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 16:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AFD is premature. The subject is worthy of a full article; if it is properly expanded, it would be too much to include in the more general article on Scots law. Scottish lawyers very innovative and two-hundred-year old Scottish precedent is still relied upon today in U.S. and U.K. courts; I think this article would be a great way to give more historical detail. Further, I trust the author who created it will certainly provide valuable copy if given time, and I believe others will join. If it languishes for a longer time, I would reconsider, but I think these AfDs are premature. Non Curat Lex (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability: these articles could qualify for speedy deletion. jmcw (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

considering that every individual legislative Act is capable of being a base for an article, and every individual case that goes before a court of final appellate jurisdiction, it seems a little nonsensical to say that at general article on a whole subject of law of any national system is non notable. Anyway, speedy as non notable does not apply except to people, groups, and web content. One of the reasons it is limited is to prevent its misuse in situtions like this.) DGG (talk) 03:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article might be salvagable a one liner that says nothing isn't. If you think all appellate cases are worthy of articles, you'd abide the creation and retention of thousands of Paintiff vs. Defendant articles where the entire text is "Plaintiff vs. Defendant is a case where plaintiff sued defendant." That'll get us to the next million articles quickly. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I said not "appellate cases", but "final appellate jurisdiction", i.e. the US Supreme Court or the UK House of Lords. Such articles have been once in a while challenged here, but always or almost always upheld. For the US Supreme court ones at least, they are PD, so a bot could extract the introductory paragraphs & then they wouldnt be empty. As for US State Supreme courts, or the US Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals or the UK Court of Appeal, I think in practice one ought to show some particular notability. . DGG (talk) 16:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep some and delete some. Scottish family law and Scots property law are fairly unique and notable - Scotland is the birthplace of common law marriage and the feu respectively. These are two very important concepts in the common law system used today in virtually every English speaking country including the United States. While many, if not most, state laws no longer use common law marriage, the historical background is useful for college students doing research. So those must be kept. Per Uncle G and Carlossuarez46 above, I'm not so sure of Scots administrative law, Scots contract law, and Scots civil procedure, which can be deleted if need be. Bearian (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC) I have added tags and information in the ledes to establish notability, and tags on the talk pages, for Scottish family law and Scots property law. I'm not making an effort to save the other three dicdefs. Bearian (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Whilst these are more placeholders than articles, one could argue that they serve the purpose of allowing contributions by unregistered editors to topics that we ought to cover but currently do not. Since anonymous page creation is disabled, I think that a necessary condition of deletion of placeholder articles ought to be that the topic is not notable enough for future coverage. In this specific case the topic appears to warrant an article and thus this stub should be kept; the same may not be true of other similar articles. CIreland (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Scots property law and Scots contract law, as both now contain significant amounts of content worth keeping; redirect the other three to Scots law. All these subjects are (potentially) worthy of their own articles, but the sub-stub ones would be better served by redirects for the time being until someone is willing to write them. Terraxos (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks like a stub. There are adequate sources on the subject as twenty seconds with Google would confirm. We don't delete stubs, we expand them. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Scottish family law and Scots property law now. Enough non-obvious information has been added to these articles to make it a slight but valid stub. Question: some of these articles are about Scottish law and others about Scots law. Is there a reason for this that I'm not grasping? or should they be standardized with redirects? My personal preference is for Scottish if it relates to Scotland generally, as law articles probably do; and to keep Scots only for subjects that relate to the Scots language. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I believe that the nominator fundamentally misunderstands the AFD process. We are not here to pass judgement on the quality of any article as it currently exists. We are here to asses if the topic the article aims to cover is notable enough to merit an article. Is it an encyclopaedic topic? The answer is a crystal clear yes. There are textbooks and learnèd papers on this topic. Just because Trinidad & Tobago family law does not have a Wikipedia article is utterly irrelevant (be WP:BOLD and create one if you like). If Jordanhill railway station (a trivial topic in my opinion) deserves a Wikipedia article, then Scottish family law most certainly does. --Mais oui! (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. In fairness to the nominator, at least some measure of quality or at least pertinence is indeed taken into account, and the original versions of these articles may well have failed them. It's easy to imagine articles on encyclopedic subjects that would qualify for speedy deletion. (Albert Einstein was a German professor with funny hair and a big mustache.) - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Scots law is a peculiar and very interesting subject. The articles are encyclopedic, and at worst need to be improved. Stifle (talk) 00:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No redirect until more is known. When/if released, the article can be recreated. Tone 22:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me Myself & Mary[edit]

Me Myself & Mary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:NM and WP:V, no sources backing up release of album. DiverseMentality 22:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Boldly redirect to Mary J. Blige.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 14:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I would have, but because the title hasn't been verified, I didn't. DiverseMentality 17:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: WP:CRYSTAL. JamesBurns (talk) 05:46, 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. Tone 14:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jid sames[edit]

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

• Delete not notable Mayalld (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non-notable, fails WP:MUSIC and WP:RS. I was prodding as this was nominated, please consider prodding in future. — neuro^(talk) 22:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:59, 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 Withdrawn by nominator —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayalld (talk • contribs) 13:51, January 7, 2009

David L. Adams (Game Developer)[edit]

David L. Adams (Game Developer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

• Delete nn bio Mayalld (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:BIO, could have just been prodded though. — neuro^(talk) 22:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ignore me, failed miserably at searching. — neuro^(talk) 07:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep David Adams is a game developer who has published one game, founder of 3 game companies, one of which is currently producing 2 major titles (Warhammer 40k Online, and Darksiders). Granted he's lesser known, but he is significant, IMO. --Thabin (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whilst people should know that Google hits are not a good way to measure notability a search (and another) reveal little correlation or evidence of notability. — neuro^(talk) 22:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • this, this, and this however do yield significant results. --Thabin (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crush! Deluxe his first title is a "top dog" on the underdogs. Trade Wars while never released generated lots of interest. --Thabin (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This does seem to be more of a biography than an encylopaedia entry Astral highway (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just curious, isn't biography part of an encyclopedia? --Thabin (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • David Adams (businessman) is "encyclopedia" worthy, why not David L. Adams (Game Developer)? --Thabin (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I get roughly 1500 hits that somehow correlate David Adams with Vigil Games, the studio he partly founded. There are five articles at Gamasutra alone. I'm sure there's enough info spread around those links to scrabble together an article. I think that qualifies as "significant coverage". SharkD (talk) 23:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I very rarely get inclusionist tendencies, but frankly, this nomination is ridiculously quick. The article was created by an inexperienced editor on 6 January at 21:57. At 21:59, the article's second edit, it has been nominated for deletion with a rationale of two abbreviations. Do we have no tolerance for stub articles any more? Articles rarely start out at a high quality. To me, this represents a shocking breakdown in assuming good faith (in a different sense than the usual one of slinging insults at each other), the article has not been given any time whatsoever to develop. I'd say don't demolish the house whilst its being built, but this is more akin to taking potshots at the builders as they arrive to lay the foundations. -- Sabre (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just started putting the article together, when it got marked for deletion ... should I continue it, or wait for the decision on if its going to be deleted before finishing it?--Thabin (talk) 00:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd continue editing. If you can improve the article by fleshing it out a bit more and adding a rough list of references, it helps strenthen its position in this AfD. SharkD's links should give some sources to help give some more meat on the bones. -- Sabre (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep: Seems to be notable for me, plus the original nominator should take a gander at WP:BITE. This article deserves a chance and after looking at the various links posted here I can see there should be enough referable information to put together a short but solid article. In it's current state its very weak but I'd say give it a week to develop and you'll have something that should fail an AfD. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign!)} 01:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — Give the article a chance. The sources are there; let the author improve it. MuZemike (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If Warhammer 40K Online gets off the ground, it has the potential to be a major game worldwide (based on the interest generated by Warhammer Online). Developers of such games often have detailed WP articles. Deleting this stub before it has a chance to get off the ground would seem at best premature. Basie (talk) 07:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"IF" we work on what is, not on what might be Mayalld (talk) 07:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shaping up nicely. I'm switching to a keep nomination on this new evidenceAstral highway (talk) 13:49, 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 delete. — Aitias // discussion 22:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Gloryhunter[edit]

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

This has been tagged as a hoax: I don't think it's that, but I don't think it's notable either. The guy decided to pick a football team at random and support them till they lost a game, when he would transfer his loyalty to the winners. That's all. Sources are two blogs and Facebook; from the first blog it seems he has hopes of selling a book about his "epic journey". Delete as not notable. JohnCD (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Might not be a hoax, but not notable in any case. Looie496 (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article is clearly not notable.--Ped Admi (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 01:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This certainly isn't a hoax but at the moment this subject just isn't notable, it's just a football blog. However, according to the ITV website a book is being released at the end of the season, so MAYBE this subject will become notable in the future. Maybe... Bettia (rawr!) 09:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not notable. Appears to be self created page looking at author name and contributions, bit WP:ONEEVENTish, unlikely to stand the test of time per Notability is not temporary. Another case of 15 minutes of fame. --ClubOranje^Talk 11:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as currently non-notable. However, if a book is published, TV show made etc., IN THE FUTURE then it could be notable THEN. GiantSnowman 12:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - if the problem is sourcing, I'm pretty sure I've seen an article on this on FourFourTwo. I reckon I still have that issue and will try to bring more details. Unsure if it is considered enough to warrant notability here or if we should wait for other publications, if and when they arrive. Kaizeler (talk) 13:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. Govvy (talk) 18:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Maybe if we'd heard something about his quest other than the original news article and his blog... You just can't force something to become notable. It either is or it isn't. GreyWyvern (talk) 15:01, 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. Tone 14:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malina Dimitrova[edit]

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

This person fails to meet wikipedia's notability requirements. Extensive searches for references varifying the contents of this article have yielded nothing. The article was created by the subject's son (a user now blocked from editing the encyclopedia) and therefore COI does play a factor here. Nrswanson (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unverifiable. Looie496 (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The article is clearly not notable upon verification.--Ped Admi (talk) 01:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I too have searched extensively and found nothing. Her main career appears to have been as a répétiteur (vocal coach) and accompanist for opera rehearsals. As such she would only be notable if someone has actually written about her in that respect. The author of the article claims that she was an accompanist for various recordings, but again, it's unclear whether this meant coaching and rehearsing the singers for the recordings or actually performing on them. I can find no evidence of recordings where she is credited. The author has been repeatedly asked for at least the dates and places of any of her public performances, broadcasts etc. but has failed to supply them. A brief section about her could be added to the article on her husband, Stefan Dimitrov, who is notable. But given the complete lack of evidence for her independent notability, this should be deleted. Voceditenore (talk) 09:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Bulgaria and WikiProject Opera. - Voceditenore (talk) 09:41, 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. In fact, no need to create a redirect since this is an improbable search term Tone 14:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars 2003–2008[edit]

List of wars 2003–2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Redundant to List of wars 2003–current TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant to List of wars 2003–current.Gandygatt (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Why not just try redirecting the article to the target? Protonk (talk) 07:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a good idea--TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Redundant fork of existing pages on current wars. User:Jersay, the page's creator, has been making widespread unilateral unsourced edits to pages about contemporary warfare, and does not respond to civil approaches to discuss these changes before making them. This is a particularly obvious example. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nom. Ryan4314 (talk) 12:15, 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. Tone 14:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars 2009–current[edit]

List of wars 2009–current (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Redundant to List of wars 2003–current. No need for splitting, maybe after 2023 :) TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Redundant fork of existing pages on current wars. User:Jersay, the page's creator, has been making widespread unilateral unsourced edits to pages about contemporary warfare, and does not respond to civil approaches to discuss these changes before making them. This is a particularly obvious example. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this isn't even correct. The current Gaza War started a bit before 2009 ;) --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 09:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all the above. Ryan4314 (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Reasons above. --121.72.177.241 (talk) 08:52, 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. — Aitias // discussion 22:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Lost Legend[edit]

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

No notability asserted. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This poorly written thing is barely a stub. Shoester (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Sub-stub on film by non-notable company. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per WP:NFF. Schuym1 (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 00:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:MADEUP... no independent notability established. —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The article is clearly not notable and it should be deleted.--Ped Admi (talk) 04:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your assessment, and I recommend that you bold "deleted" in your message. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 04:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete in agreement with the nom. If/when this film is released and gets coverage of some sort... maybe then. But as of now? No way to source notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:11, 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 22:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro DasCola[edit]

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

• Delete. Non notable kickboxer (Marty Rockatansky (talk) 08:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete, unless additional reliable sources can be found. The subject doesn't appear to be notable. Ketsuekigata (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cannot find any sources to establish notability. - FlyingToaster 11:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per comments above. --Knowzilla 14:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Shoester (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The article is clearly not notable upon verification.--Ped Admi (talk) 04:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:01, 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. While the number of users on each side of the debate is roughly equal, the delete opinions are stronger and more refer to Wikipedia policies. Stifle (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adolescentilism[edit]

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

Essentially a dictionary-like disambiguation to articles that are sometimes incorrectly referred to by that name, at least according to the present state. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's disambiguation with use. There's nothing wrong with "dictionary-like" information to help a disambig page make more sense. Even if the second is incorrect usage, the fact that anyone uses it that way still means the distinction is needed. Shoester (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the word does not appear in either of the articles referenced. JohnCD (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep--No harm is done by keeping this disambiguation page. It may be helpful for somebody searching for the term. --Jmundo (talk) 04:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No harm, but no use - it won't help someone searching for the term, because neither of the articles it points to mentions it. JohnCD (talk) 11:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per above: WP:NOHARM. Per wikipedia policies: WP:NEOLOGISM, WP:V, WP:N. Put in Define:adolescentilism into google: no hits (that means nothing on a prominent dictionary, or better yet: NOT A WORD.), WP:MADEUP. Furthermore, there's WP:DICTDEF. Wikipedia is not a spellchecker, the search feature already looks for similar words. (coincidentally, how do you tag a article on wikitionary on a word that doesn't exist?figured it out) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The term may not appear on a prominent dictionary but the word does exist: Google Books.--Jmundo (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, it does exist. But it doesn't exist in either target article, so each of the "disambiguation" links should not point to an article. That would make it a dictdef without pointers, which is exactly what I said it was. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, disambiguation with some use. Power.corrupts (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and possibly Redirect to ageplay (as an alternate spelling?). Disambiguation page with no use. No mention of term on Ephebophilia. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:01, 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. John254 00:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hayatullah Khan Durrani[edit]

Hayatullah Khan Durrani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

incorrectly listed, deletion requested by User:Jasy jatere Jac16888 (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistani caver who runs a cave exploration company.

"Cave exploration Adventure Sports in Pakistan and pioneer of the Mountaineering, Rowing / Canoeing / Kayaking & Sailing Sports in Balochistan."

Also organised some walks and hoists flags on national holidays. That does not seem notable in itself. On the other hand

On 14th August 2005, in recognition of his life long services to Caving, Mountain Adventure and water Sports in Pakistan, the honorable President Islamic Republic of Pakistan, conferred "President's Award for Pride of Performance" on him."

Does anyone have an idea of the quality of this award? Does that confer him notability, or is it a run-of-the-mill award?Jasy jatere (talk) 12:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment See our article Pride of Performance". Hard to find a reliable source for him getting it though. dougweller (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• after reading about the award, I think he should be notable because of that. If a reliable source can be given, I will withdraw the AfD. Jasy jatere (talk) 14:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This may be what is required for the article - [4] Paste ^Talk 15:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rewrite. That should do it. This seems formatted wrong, by the way. I let Twinkle do it for me. dougweller (talk) 16:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and clean up. Shoester (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:02, 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. — Aitias // discussion 22:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gch government colleges hostel[edit]

Gch government colleges hostel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completing unfinished nom. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no indication of notability. (See No.4 in the List of bad article ideas). JohnCD (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 00:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per JohnCD. - Power.corrupts (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as NN. While several hostels are notable as landmarks, curiousities, etc., this is not one of them. Bearian (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Same reason as given by Bearian.--GDibyendu (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article is an unwanted duplicate of Government Colleges Hostel, Mumbai. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:07, 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 00:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of malls in Pennsylvania[edit]

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

Delete, we have a category that adequately covers the subject; this rather poor start of an article illustrates the fundamental unmaintainability of the undertaking. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- I've said it before, and it appears I have to say it again: being redundant to a category is not a reason for deletion. This list can be expanded within reason, and it can certainly be sourced. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are other lists that overlap the categories, such as Shopping malls in New Jersey and List of shopping malls in Michigan. I can help to expand and source the list; it is maintainable and verifiable, and being redundant to a category is not a reason for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Lists can be redundant to categories. Some things could be cats only and some lists only, but more reason is needed to cut one or the other. Not every mall deserves its own Wikipedia article, but could be worth including in this list. Shoester (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• There's a sale at Penney's? Oh, Keep Seriously, as per the previous comments -- redundancy is not synonymous with non-notability. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a category can only contain articles about notable malls while this list can hold information about all of the shopping centers in the Keystone state, the existence of a category is not a valid reason to delete a list, and there were steps that should have been taken per WP:FIRST before this was brought to AfD just one week after it was created. - Dravecky (talk) 18:36, 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 delete. — Aitias // discussion 22:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Twelve noon[edit]

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

Unreleased independent film. No sources, or claim to notability. — Twinzor ^{Say hi!} 19:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:NFF; nothing on IMDb. There is a film called "Twelve Noon Sharp" said to be "in development", but no detail, certainly not enough for an article, even if that is what is meant. JohnCD (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If nothing else, WP:CRYSTAL applies. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete A7, no assertion of notability. Also CRYSTAL, as above.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Films can't be speedied. Schuym1 (talk) 01:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. GregorB (talk) 21:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per WP:NFF. Schuym1 (talk) 01:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The article is clearly not notable upon verification.--Ped Admi (talk) 04:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 22:16, 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 delete. Tone 14:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest Hits: DisneyMania 7[edit]

Greatest Hits: DisneyMania 7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced future album fails WP:MUSIC. At least three prior articles have existed (and been deleted) claiming to be DisneyMania 7. Unable to verify if this tracklist is the same, so I don't feel comfortable personally adding a speedy tag. Disputed prod. SummerPhD (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete These albums don't usually come out until July. We've had too many problems with false Disneymania album articles, and this is no exception. No sources and likely incorrect track list and artists. Nate • (chatter) 06:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:04, 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. Tone 14:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Latin phrases (A–E)[edit]

List of Latin phrases (A–E) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

List of Latin phrases (F–O) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Latin phrases (P–Z) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete these articles are vestiges of a prior scheme of breaking down the rather large list, and are neither useful nor likely search terms (any more than A-D or A-F, which won't be found) - the problem with G6-ing these as ought to be done is that many articles have links to these clugey titles and a bot should clean those up, which can happen after deletion. Note: I am not proposing the deletion of any lists themselves, the community has already spoken to keep them, I am just trying to get rid of these non-useful "dab" pages Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. Shoester (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki I think to WikiQuote... maybe Wiktionary, probably wikiquote. I think they took all the proverbs... 76.66.198.171 (talk) 05:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand--they can most of them reasonably have an article here--there is enough to say in almost all cases. This is a good guide to the ones that need to be written. All of them are phrases one might well wish to browse, and browsing is enough of a justification for a list. DGG (talk) 06:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand this comment. The nominated pages are dab-only, and do not contain any actual phrases. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator, though who's going to take care of fixing the incoming links? DGG and the IP must not have looked at the actual articles that are proposed for deletion. The pages with the latin phrases themselves are not up for deletion, just these three disambiguation pages. Jfire (talk) 07:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Someone apparently made an ad hoc decision to split each of these lists into two sub-lists, since they got big. So, we should go through the pro forma process and delete these articles, which are basically supersets of the now split-off lists. We'll also need to clean up any incoming links to these lists, as well, and there are several. Caveat emptor. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this link page as per nom. Power.corrupts (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete these disambig pages but keep the pages with phrases in. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete these useless dab pages per nominator. Of course this doesn't include the pages with the actual phrases on them. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cludgy stuff, I just stumbled on it while searching for a phrase, and it only managed to confuse me and slow me. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:05, 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 deleted as a copyvio. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RIngitone[edit]

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

Article is a description of possibly nonexistant musical genre. Seems more like a report than an encyclopedia article. — Twinzor ^{Say hi!} 19:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete as a copyvio. It's here amongst many other places, but it looks lie it is a cut and paste from a newspaper article. -- Whpq (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete copyvio. Shoester (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy delete per above. ReverendG (talk) 02:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong speedy delete, per statement above. Cannibaloki 01:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy, so tagged.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:07, 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 per WP:SNOW. Non-admin close. Redfarmer (talk) 07:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

W.H. Morden Public School[edit]

W.H. Morden Public School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete nothing to indicate that this school is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to school district: Halton District School Board as is customary. meshach (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per custom. Redfarmer (talk) 20:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Halton District School Board - why are we here? TerriersFan (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. Shoester (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Riderect as cited above--Ped Admi (talk) 04:13, 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. Tone 14:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An Unforgiving Poem[edit]

An Unforgiving Poem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete unref'd article about a poem by redlink author with no claim to notability asserted. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete Maybe I should see if A9 should be extended to include other works only in cases where no notability is asserted. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment - A9 is only for music recordings and is very explicit in stating that it does not extend to other types of media. Also, the fact that the author is redlinked, may be indicative for lack of notability, but is not conclusive as the fact that it is a red-link means that nobody has written an article about the subject. Wikipedia is not complete. And in this particular case, after some searching, it appears the writer may in fact be notable, but just doesn't have an article. Her short story in a collection is mentioned in this book review. The poem itself has been published here although it is unclear in what context. so by no means is this something that should be put under speedy deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you see, I didn't speedy delete it; I brought it here. That said, I agree with TenPoundHammer's comments about extending A9. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extending A9 might very well be a good idea, but AFD is not the forum for discussing such a policy change. -- Whpq (talk) 00:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete without prejudice. All we learn from this article is the existence of a poem by this name by an author we know nothing about. The speedy deletion criteria about unimportant music recordings does not apply here. But several others do: this is a very brief article that tells us very little about the subject. The poem may be noteworthy; hard to say until we have an actual article about it. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:08, 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 deleted by Seicer (A7). Non-admin closure. BryanG (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moron Police[edit]

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

This article is about a band that does not meet notability for a music group. There are no reliable sources writing about the band. The best I could manage in my searches was this short review, but it is not clear what editorial oversight is exercised by the site, and the "submit news" button leads me to believe that much may be just user submitted content. The band is currently unsigned (and only formed in 2008). No hits or awards are in evidence. Whpq (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• A7 Only one dubious source, no notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:51, 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. Editors are welcome to redirect or merge (as always), or to open a discussion on the article talk page with the intention of doing either. Stifle (talk) 00:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Lorenzo[edit]

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

Non-notable artist. Only claim to fame is finishing 5th in the latest series of The X Factor. She is already covered here. Until she is signed, I don't see the need for her to have an independent article on Wikipedia. I'd be happy with either deletion or redirection with full page protection until notability can be established as a result here. John Sloan (view / chat) 18:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is not my area of expertise, but articles exist for US singers with the same level of notability (ie. came fifth or lower in American Idol). The same notability guidelines should apply to both countries. I will only support the deletion if it is expanded to cover American Idol finalists as well. --GW… 18:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there are articles on US American Idol finalists whose sole claim to notability is American Idol (i.e. little or no music career or media coverage afterwards), feel free to nominate them too. If this article doesn't survive the AfD, they won't either. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did, a year or two back, and if I recall correctly, all of the ones who were in the top twelve were kept. That is why I will only accept a dual UK-US nomination. --GW… 18:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • However, there has already been one AfD on another X Factor contestant from the same series which has gone to a redirect, so there will be inconsistency either way. I can see the case for a discussion on a consistent line with X factor etc. contestants, but we won't achieve it here. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I see where this could be coming from. But it's not Ruth's fault she came fifth. She has a great career ahead of her. Many people have already seen her at her gigs. She has an enormous fanbase all over the world so it's only fair that they know a good bit about her. She has had many record offers and is performing at a public awards ceremony so I think this page should stay. XF5000 18:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Redirect - This is a clear case of WP:BLP1E, and there's not really that much worth keeping in this article that isn't in the other X Factor articles anyway. (I'm not sure about page protection though - that is generally only done in cases of persistent vandalism). Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I suggest page protection is to stop the redirect from being repeatedly removed as has happend on a few Diana Vickers articles since her AfD closed as a redirect. Cheers! John Sloan (view / chat) 18:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I believe this article should stay. We already know Ruth is going to get a career out of The X Factor, she is performing at an Awards ceremony in Belfast and she is also going on the X Factor Tour aswell. Keep the article it will save us a lot of time when she gets a recording contract! RL1000 18:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Please don't vote stack with socks XF5000! John Sloan (view / chat) 18:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In case you don't already know: 1) WP:CRYSTAL is pretty clear that Wikipedia is not for articles for things that people think are going to be big but aren't yet (and, to be brutally honest, every X Factor contestant has a fanbase convinced that they are going to be massive, and half the time they sink without trace); 2) If she meets notability later, anyone can revert the redirect and start from where the article left off, so time will be wasted. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I understand where your coming from, but i don't have more than one account. Honestly what makes you think that. And as for the signature thing i didn't understand what was going on about it being unsigned. So i put mine and RL1000's names in bold. Sorry to SineBot who signed them. XF5000 19:15, 6 January 2009.

• Redirect - until her career actually does take-off, then any actual success is just crystal balling. When her career does take off as some editor's have weighed in as being almost a cerrtainty, then there will be plenty of coverage in reliable sources to create the article. But until that time arrives, then the appropriate action is a redirect. -- Whpq (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. Too many of the keep arguments are based on crystalballing. Shoester (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect BLP1E Sceptre ^(talk) 09:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is borderline, but I think it just about passes WP:MUSICBIO criteria #2 (with others, for "Hero") and #9 (depending on interpretation of a "place"). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eoghan Quigg for another recent debate. DWaterson (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For me, placed means on the podium (First, Second or Third). Ruth was only fifth and fourth placed Diana Vickers' article was (IMO rightfully) redirected via this deletion discussion. Cheers! John Sloan (view / chat) 01:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect: until her career takes off she isn't notable enough to have her own article. JamesBurns (talk) 05:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I know she's not officially a recording artist or anything like that yet, but I would like to see this article kept. But then again do what you have to do. --Titanictaker (talk) 15:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:ILIKEIT isn't a very strong argument for keeping an article. -- Whpq (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: OK, I get your point. (Sorry) Do what you have feel is best. --Titanictaker (talk) 20:24, 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. Stifle (talk) 00:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of climate scientists[edit]

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

This recreated article was previously speedily deleted. It is a list of scientists loosely falling under the rubric of "climatologists," "climate scientists," a discipline which covers so many disparate research areas as to be close to meaningless. It also appears to violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY. It is vastly incomplete, which leads me to question its utility in any case. This material is already available in far more readable form on the website it was copied from. (The article's author previously claimed to have permission to reproduce this explicitly copyrighted material.) — RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 17:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page creator response: This a list of notable climate scientists (CS) - not "climatologists"; there is a distinction. It's not a directory. Nor is it disparate. As the intro states, many (most) of worked together on the seminal interdisciplinary scientific efforts of our age, the IPCC Assessment Report series. However, limiting the list to eg. just IPCC AR authors would lose the notable CS context by omitting non-IPCC notables. Excess red links are an issue, but are useful to indicate WP gaps. For example, it's extraordinary that there is no WP James Zachos page, while we have endless pages on completely obscure popular culture figures. Anti-listers might like to consider whether these other similar lists should be tagged for deletion: geneticists, ecologists, biologists, psychologists, chemists, astronomers, economists, geographers, linguists, zoologists, more? Earlier discussion is here. --Gergyl (talk) 00:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Fair enough with the distinction between climatologists and climate scientists. Nonetheless, there is no clear set of criteria for inclusion in this list, which makes it seem quite arbitrary. In other words, its members have no common well-defined shared characteristic. If you can fix this, significantly shortening it in the process, I'll withdraw the AfD nom.--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 07:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. Bit too much on the listcruft side. There may, however, be a case for including the link to the paper in the Climatology article. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but: a) limit to people with Wikipedia articles and b) reduce to name and a few words. Plenty of precedent at this level with the lists of: physicists, physicians, civil engineers, etc. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, cleanup, and trim to the most well-known. -Atmoz (talk) 03:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per page creator response Power.corrupts (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but with conditions. Notability of people in lists such as this can really only be demonstrated easily if the name links to an article on the person, which in itself shows the person must be notable but explains in the article why they are notable. All red links should be removed. This would bring it more into line with similar lists, although I suspect some of these need similar removal of red links. List of chemists is a good example. There are only 17 red links out of over 210. The current version could be copied to user space, to guide people who might want to write articles on the current red links. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, a list dealing with a topic that in theory could be notable, but the current article fails to demonstrate notability for each person listed. I'd suggest a table along the lines of List of biochemists with a short summary and reference for each entry explaining their notable contribution to the field. Otherwise this becomes an indiscriminate collection of information. If no improvement is made over a reasonable time, I have no prejudice against re-nomination and deletion of the current article. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not encyclopedic or notable, this is similar to having a list of my graduating high school class. --Theblog (talk) 06:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Week keep These list articles are mostly a bit rubbish; but a list with this title has as much right to exist as comparable scientist lists. That said, it needs massive correction. User:Bduke's point that the list in its current form (filled with red links) would be more useful out of mainspace is right. It seems to have been created as part of an argument over AGW, but a list like this shouldn't be there to make a point. The criteria of inclusion don't guarantee that the scholars are notable climate scientists (they may have achievements in other parts of physics and only unimportant climate science publications). Better to work out who has made important contributions to theory (like Svante Arrhenius, not on the list), preferably not limiting the question to AGW research. (Of course, I'm not planning to do the work myself, but that's how keep votes seem to go on AFD). N p holmes (talk) 08:13, 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. Tone 14:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holotecture[edit]

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

• Delete nn neologism Mayalld (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Appears to be a concept originated and promoted solely by Bruno Uhr, without gaining much traction. Google turns up no notice unconnected with Uhr or any discussions in wider media. Acroterion _(talk) 18:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No notability outside of a (presumably) non-notable book which I suspect this article is attempted to promote. If it's of any relevance, this page was repeatedly created and deleted in 2007, which isn't additional grounds for deletion, but makes me wonder. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Please Check google link.[5] There are plenty references of Holotecture. Use 'Urh' for search term not 'uhr' and also bear in mind that we talk about a Term that was created by Slovenian Architect and therefore majority of references are in Slovenian language (pedrieni)ArhiMan (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:NOTE if you haven't already. Notability is significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. Google hits don't count, especially when most or all of the hits appears to be written by the author of the book. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, term doesn't appear to have gained any notice in other authors' works (nothing really on Google Books or Google Scholar, for example). Bruno Urh himself may or may not be notable; if he is, then a brief mention of this concept could be merged into his biography. --Delirium (talk) 19:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Shoester (talk) 21:54, 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/keep. Stifle (talk) 00:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Flanagan (former Minister)[edit]

Michael Flanagan (former Minister) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An ex Minister? I can see no reason for inclusion Fails. WP:BIO Paste ^Talk 17:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article is supported by a newspaper article, http://www.thejewishweek.com/viewarticle/c343_a10164/News/New_York/Neighborhoods.html -- Eastmain (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I agree there is an article but what notability does it confer? Paste ^Talk 18:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Eastmain --Alpha166 (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• According to WP:BIO, "The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded.""

the article meets this criteria. --Alpha166 (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As the author Alpha166 I am sure that you do believe that the article should be kept, however WP:BIO states:- A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. This subject has only one article written in a specific subject paper. I can find many people with articles about them in local and national papers but they do not all warrant an article on Wikipedia. Paste ^Talk 19:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Paste. He's only been covered once in one paper. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You are forgetting the fact that he mentioned in several other sources, not just that newspaper--Alpha166 (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Furthermore, Herbert Bomzer, a professor of Talmud and Jewish studies at Yeshivah University and author of “The Chosen Road”, who teaches a class for converts, considers Flanagan's case particularly notable given Michael Flanagan's deep involvement in Christianity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpha166 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep This particular person is sufficiently notable, and the sourcing is jut enough to carry it. The Jewish Week is an accepted RS for this general subject field . DGG (talk) 06:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can accept the first reference as a RS, but not the others. I wouldn't call that single article significant coverage. Decltype (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because the nominator has it wrong, see reasons below. The article is new, created on 6 January 2009 [6] and like many new submissions does need polishing. A ((Cleanup)) tag would be more appropriate at this very early stage. Had the nominator looked further he would have seen that there is a disambiguation page for Michael Flanagan with each entry getting a "suffix" such as Mike Flanagan (American football) (he is not a "football" he is a US football player); Mike Flanagan (baseball) (he is not a "baseball" he is a baseball player); Mike Flanagan (footballer) (this one has it closer, he is an English soccer player); and Michael Patrick Flanagan who doesn't need a "(____)" suffix since he has "Patrick" as middle name. So now, one can clearly see how Michael Flanagan (former Minister) needs "(former Minister)" purely as a suffix in order to (a) distinguish him from the articles about the four other Michael Flanagans. (b) It must state what is unique about him, that he is by training a "minister", and (c) for the sake of accuracy and completion he is no longer a minister, hence the need for "former" because he left the Christian ministry and converted to Judaism. Very unusual and noteworthy indeed. Therefore, (d) it makes him all the more extraordinary and a clear case of qualifying for WP:N as well as (e) qualifying for WP:BIO and (f) there are definitely WP:RS to back this up. The article was only submitted a few days ago and instead of running to axe it, it is kindly requested that it be taken to WP:TALKJUDAISM where the resident experts on these kind of Judaic topics could and should be given more time to improve and review it and give input. Note also, (g) User Shirahadasha (talk · contribs) had once noted [7] in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaim Dov Keller that: "...Religious sources and media of notable religious organizations are perfectly acceptable reliable sources to establish notability of religious subjects and figures. Notability in the field, not notability in general media, is the standard, and that is met here. There is no problem I can see that can justify a delete vote..." and the same applies here. Finally, note (h) Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built: "An article too short to provide more than rudimentary information about a subject should be marked as a stub and edited, and expanded, rather than simply deleted." On the basis of points (a) - (h), The nominator is kindly requested to withdraw the nomination. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 09:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply I don't feel that I have it wrong at all. By putting 'An ex minister?' at the beginning of the nom' I was merely indicating that this is not a reason for the subject to have an article, it was in no way querying the title of the article which seems completely correct. If the consensus is that the article is kept or deleted I will have no issue but I do wish the AfD to run its course. My personal opinion is of course that the article should be deleted as the subject being non notable. Paste ^Talk 11:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:10, 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. Stifle (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back of the Van (song)[edit]

Back of the Van (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable single Mayalld (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I Think That It Is Notable As This Is The First Single Where She Has Got Her Fans Involved, Plus If Thats Not Proof Enough That It Is Notable It Might Became Notable In The Future So I Say Give It A Chance, Plus I Just Spent 45 Minutes Creating That When There Are Some Pages That Are Two Lines Long And Theres No Effort Put In And Have Not Been Deleted, Please Keep ChillaxNOW (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Why Are You Capitalizing The First Letter Of Every Word And Bunching Everything Into One Sentence? Seriously, though. Please read WP:SONGS, the notability criteria for songs. Saying "it will be notable in the future" is looking into a crystal ball which is not allowed. Wikipedia is for things that already are notable. This song hasn't charted and is unsourced, so there's no way it's notable now. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clear fail of WP:MUSIC. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The first single released by a notable artist seems like something we should document. There are reliable sources about this song: [8] [9]; I'm sure there are more (although they're hard to separate from the non-reliable ones which are extremely numerous). I think these two facts are enough to ignore the fact that the song hasn't (yet) charted. JulesH (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Are either of those reliable? They look borderline. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Both meet the specific requirements of WP:RS, i.e. they're third party sources published by organisations that exercise editorial control. How reliable they are, I'm not sure. I'm not a regular reader of either. But they definitely meet minimum standards. I also see brief mentions in much more notable sources, e.g. a one-sentence description of the song in the Guardian, a couple of lines in one of the major Australian papers (I forget which), etc. This is enough to convince me of notability. JulesH (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No chartage, no awards, no covers.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 14:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: non-notable song WP:NSONGS. JamesBurns (talk) 04:55, 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. — Aitias // discussion 22:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peril (magazine)[edit]

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

• Delete non notable web "magazine" Mayalld (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Seems to be non-notable per WP:WEB.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  19:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:WEB. Schuym1 (talk) 23:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The article is clearly not notable upon verification.--Ped Admi (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:13, 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. Tone 14:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Bartleby Project[edit]

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

This article is a reprint of the afterword to the book "Weapons of Mass Instruction". While the copyright notice indicates that it may be "circulated without cost on the Internet, but only if used uncut and cost free", it would be better served on a site like Wikisource or quoted on a topic like Standardized testing. Here, it does not have any encyclopedic purpose. TheLetterM (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Even though the book gives permission to be circulated, the license might not be GFDL-compatible. Also it could be understood that the requirement for the text to be uncut might mean a partial reproduction (as is the case here) of the text is not allowed. Subject does not seem notable in any case. — Twinzor ^{Say hi!} 17:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - copyvio; terms of license are definitely not GFDL compliant. JulesH (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Regardless of the copyright issue, the sources are not adequate to show notability, and a Google search for "The Bartleby Project" doesn't find hits relating to the topic of this article (as far as I followed it anyway). Looie496 (talk) 23:17, 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 speedy deleted as blatant and obvious misinformation (CSD G3). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Bennett[edit]

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

Article appears to be a hoax; references and web searches don't offer support, and page is a magnet for vandalism. JNW (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• G3 Clear misinformation, sources don't mention a Christian Bennett at all. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Edits appear to be coming from East High School in Salt Lake City; teen vandalism. JNW (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Place of birth given ("Exening, England") does not appear to exist. JulesH (talk) 20:09, 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. Tone 14:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mu Yao, The Leaving Days[edit]

Mu Yao, The Leaving Days (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No notability asserted, fails Wikipedia:NF. Tryptofeng (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable film, agree fails Wikipedia:NF. Paste ^Talk 18:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:NF. Schuym1 (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:13, 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 22:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fallout Vaults[edit]

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

List of vaults shows no notability outside of the game series, and effective is a game guide material, which is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Presumably mention of the general description of vaults should be present in a Fallout series article but save for those critical to the plot (eg Vault 13/101) an explicit list is unnecessary. MASEM 16:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree; we have lists containing information from video games all over Wikipedia. I think it qualifies simply for the fact that certain fans want to know the info.Saberwolf116 (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But this information is not of any use to the general reader; it is worth noting in the Fallout series article that the vaults were used for various forms of psychological experiments, but listing every single vault throughout the series is not helpful. This information can be linked in from the Fallout wiki which is presently there on the page. --MASEM 16:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete pure gamecruft. No indication of notability, no explanation as to why these are relevent (only Fallout fans would know just by looking at the article). The page is just a copy of info from http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Vault . I see no need to have it here too. TJ Spyke 16:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - interesting list, already well maintained at wikia. Here it's gamecruft, though. Marasmusine (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete: May be interesting to some readers, but inherently does not belong at Wikipedia. Fails WP:NOT and WP:VGSCOPE for going into exhaustive detail about the game world, verging on a game guide. Also fails WP:N, WP:V, and WP:OR because it is impossible for this article to rely on anything but the game itself for verification. Articles need to rely on reliable, independent secondary sources. Randomran (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Indiscriminate information fit more for a game guide than in an encyclopedia. MuZemike (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Cruft. SharkD (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - directory of locations mostly trivial in-game, certainly trivial out-of-game. --EEMIV (talk) 03:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The Wikia pages are better anyway.--_ZXCVBNM 22:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - While it is not of any general interest to a non-gamer and as mentioned by others above, information is available elsewhere, one of the benefits of Wikipedia is it is more likely to be available on the net for the long term than many small enthusiast sites. The notion of the purpose of the vaults is amusing and harmless. --Mattrix007 (talk) 01:59, 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 main article and redirect the rest to it. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle Film Critics[edit]

Seattle Film Critics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

• Seattle Film Critics Award for Best Actor
• Seattle Film Critics Award for Best Actress
• Seattle Film Critics Award for Best Animated Feature
• Seattle Film Critics Award for Best Cinematography
• Seattle Film Critics Award for Best Director
• Seattle Film Critics Award for Best Foreign Language Film
• Seattle Film Critics Award for Best Picture
• Seattle Film Critics Award for Best Adapted Screenplay
• Seattle Film Critics Award for Best Original Screenplay
• Seattle Film Critics Award for Best Supporting Actor
• Seattle Film Critics Award for Best Supporting Actress
• Seattle Film Critics Awards 2002
• Seattle Film Critics Awards 2003
• Seattle Film Critics Awards 2004

The Seattle Film Critics seem to have floated in and out of existence without leaving a huge mark. The main article has been tagged for expansion for almost two years: it consists of a one-line intro, a list of the award category articles, and a list of the three award ceremony articles. Delete all SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Keep main article, redirect rest per cleanup.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all No sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC) Weak keep seems sourced enough now. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all not notable. JuJube (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC) Withdrawing vote.[reply]
• Keep, the organization may have been dissolved, but this is no reason for not keeping a record of their work. Article apppears bona fide. Power.corrupts (talk) 20:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: unsourced listcruft. JamesBurns (talk) 05:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Took only a little digging. Pity the article was never sourced, but there is information out there... So I added these: Seattle Weekly" "Club Clash: it's not a circle per se, but an ad hoc group of 23 local critics invited to vote on annual awards". Early in 2008 it was thought the loose organization may be no more: seanax.com: "There is no more “Seattle Film Critics Awards,” and no formal body to put their stamp on the year in review as a group", but as late as May 2008 it was still around: seattle.gov: "Mike Caccioppoli of CinCity2000.com has acquired the interest of other local critics who have agreed to join the new Seattle Film Critics Association (SFCA)". I did find an announcement at "Women In Film" of its original creation and its founding members (near bottom of the page):"SEATTLE FILM CRITICS ASSOCIATION FORMED" with old phone number and email. It does seem to get press: seattlechannel.org: "An Evening With: Seattle Film Critics Wrap 2008". And it does get the word out: moviecitynews: "SEATTLE FILM CRITICS CIRCLE Complete 2004 List", altfg.com: "The 3rd Seattle Film Critics Award winners were announced on December 30, 2004", seattlepi.nwsource.com: "Local film critics find 'American Splendor' splendid". And more like it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seattle Film Critics per Schmidt and merge the rest. I'm satisfied by the notability of these awards, but it can all be quite comfortably contained within a single article. PC78 (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have just expanded the article a bit to assert and show the notability. I agree that a group merge is in order... but the master article is now a keeper. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• And with a couple edit conflicts, PC78 and I were both over at the article merging the awards list into the main baody. So the eleven "lists" can now be deleted after the main article is kept. I do think we should now inlude a Keep for the three sub-articles, Seattle Film Critics Awards 2002, Seattle Film Critics Awards 2003, and Seattle Film Critics Awards 2004. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

• I disagree, to be honest; those three articles don't say anything that isn't now covered in the main one. Redirect all, I say. PC78 (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You're right. I agree that redirects to the main article best serve Wiki. Good point. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:51, 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 per obvious consensus, or merge if anyone feels inclined and is bold enough to do so. (WP:NAC) flaminglawyer^c 23:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Maqadna Mosque strike[edit]

2009 Maqadna Mosque strike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There does not seem to be a reason for this page. Everything can be placed on the main conflict page, and a one paragraph page is not necessary. Yossiea ^(talk) 16:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep 1) The main conflict page is already too long. 2) Details will be added to this article when they become available. 3) Military attacks on civilians are notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trachys (talk • contribs) 17:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- Yossiea ^(talk) 16:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- Yossiea ^(talk) 16:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep--Events occurred on January 3, 2009 (WP:No deadline). Let's wait until we can figure out the international ramifications of this military strike against civilians.--Jmundo (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  It would help if this page, or the conflict page, had news articles that showed Hamas was using mosques in a military fashion. Otherwise, this can be a POV article as well.

The sources of this article are from the BBC and The Guardian. This was a military strike on a mosque covered by the international media, 1. If this is a case of POV, it can be fix by editing not deletion. I'm sure you can find sources. --Jmundo (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. I don't see any benefits to readers to breaking out this short paragraph. --Delirium (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. —Jmundo (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and perhaps delete, if this event is not seen to have an impact of the current fighting. Recentism. The mosque itself does not seem to be notable and this is only one event of many of this conflict. Delete does not belittle the deaths of non-combattant civilians. Perhaps if a page showing the notability of this mosque might add something or not. --Shuki (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• merge terrible tragedy, very sad. Info should be in the article on this conflict if not there already.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It seems like one of the battles of the conflicts, important. 98.119.177.171 (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Don't articles on wars and conflicts have sub-articles on specific incidents/battles? It is small, yes, but it could certainly be expanded. There is no justification for this article's deletion. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Was there any far-reaching effect of this incident? Has notability for this attack been established. Because this incident occured during conflict, something has to distinguish it from other strikes. Chesdovi (talk) 23:19, 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. Stifle (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PathSolutions[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTE, no outside references, sources, or anything resembling a link that would constitute notability. Fairly clear WP:ADVERT. Sammael 42 (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no evidence of notability offered. (Saying a product can handle a network of size N does not confer notability - explaining how that relates to other similar products might.)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I checked the definition of WP:ADVERT and it asks to be written in a neutral point of view. Can’t it be argued, since it has a neutral point of view (pointing out benefits, drawbacks, and competitors) that WP:ADVERT does not apply. On SarekOfVulcan's comments regarding notability, I am not sure I exactly understand you... there is a list at bottom of similar products each having an article, "other similar products". Goldenrowley (talk) 06:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC). One more comment: The talk page says this article is a stub supported by the WikiProject Software.Goldenrowley (talk) 06:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article doesn't point out any drawbacks, the whole thing is a pitch for their products. I don't think that listing off a few other products in the same field really balances out to what I'd call NPOV. As for your second comment, I don't see what you're saying. There's no "other similar products" section. Were you looking at the right article? Sammael 42 (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just did not understand all of Sarek's comment (no offense). There IS an external article reference - that's evidence of notability right, saying its a "first" of kind. Maybe this wasn't clear. I moved the reference from external links to a new reference section. Goldenrowley (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Weak Keep, not really convinced this article contains any notable and useful information, but Goldenrowley makes some good points. WP would be better served by having this article fleshed out rather than deleted. Kparsons08 (talk) 03:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to Delete -- I would agree with you, Goldenrowley, but check out that reference you're citing. They're not a third party, they're a site that republishes self-written 'press releases.' Their forum has been hacked for months now without remedy, probably because there's really nothing of substance there. I was on the fence before, but with the only two remaining 'legitimate' links being directed back at the subject's own site, there is nothing useful or notable left in this article. Kparsons08 (talk) 03:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok... I did not realize the Security Zone was a vanity publisher. Goldenrowley (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:ADVERT. Also, hilarious that the company's page links to a hacked forum... Are they even still in business? Meatychode (talk) 21:02, 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. Tone 14:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Open_EMS[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, no clear references or sources. Strong candidate for WP:ADVERT as well. The whole tone of the article is very spammish. Sammael 42 (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Does not seem to be notable. Most ghits for the name (other than those published by nokia) are talking about something completely different. JulesH (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - I think these sources may establish notability. Do you think they are reliable? [10], [11], [12]  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  19:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment Did you see the article? There are no reference links in the article itself. The "See Also" links are simply -- as the article puts it -- a list of "Competing Products" (does nothing to establish notability). The EL are just links back to the company's own site, and definitely not reliable. This whole thing reeks of COI and ADVERT. Lahnfeear (talk)

• • I'd say the first two may be reliable, although the second is on a site I'm starting to suspect will publish just about any press release you send to them. The third reads to me like an unedited copy of a press release, and is on a site I've never heard of despite having a strong interest in its subject area. Changing to weak keep JulesH (talk) 20:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I'm not sure I understand what you mean by 'first two may be reliable'. The first four links on this page ("competing products") all have nothing to do with the article's subject. The only two remaining links go directly back to the parent's site (Under ELs). Are we looking at the same page? Lahnfeear (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete for failing WP:NOTE Lahnfeear (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete or perhaps Redirect to Nokia Siemens Networks? Meatychode (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete in agreement with OP -- there's just nothing here. Kparsons08 (talk) 03:36, 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 delete. Stifle (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Breakin' Dishes (song)[edit]

Breakin' Dishes (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:Music#Songs. In particular, it was never released as a single, and the Portugese and Bulgarian charts are listed as unreliable at WP:BADCHARTS, which only leaves the Hot Dance Club Play chart position.
The article was forked from a late September version of Breakin' Dishes. The topic was previously discussed in early August and closed as a redirect to the album.
I believe the current version is substantally identical to the discussed version (diff), but an admin disagreed. None of the concerns from the previous AfD were adressed however, and only one additional review was added: " Billboard gave the song a positive review, stating: "With no signs of burn yet, a word to the label: "Breakin' Dishes" could break records as the next single." [13]. Amalthea 15:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Redirect and protect. Its only chart entry was on the Dance club charts, which are hardly major, and there are no sources for it besides a terse Billboard review. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: non-notable song WP:NSONGS. JamesBurns (talk) 07:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:15, 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.