< January 7 January 9 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Speedy close wrong forum, moved to mfd. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kalajan/John Cradle and User:Kalajan/BWW[edit]

User:Kalajan/John Cradle (edit | [[Talk:User:Kalajan/John Cradle|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) View AFD
User:Kalajan/BWW (edit | [[Talk:User:Kalajan/BWW|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) View AFD

Search does not turn up anything. Obviously fake. See WP:NOTMYSPACE. ₰imonKSK 21:07, 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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4 by MastCell (talk · contribs). Previous discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Byron Marshall Hyde, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Byron Hyde. Non-admin closure. AnturiaethwrTalk 03:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Byron Marshall Hyde[edit]

Byron Marshall Hyde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article was deleted before, no reliable sources about subject, just one self pubhlished book. I think this person is revered from a group of patient activists for an illness but there are not good sources for it. RetroS1mone talk 00:21, 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. — Aitias // discussion 20:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adelleda[edit]

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

Hoax. Duffbeerforme (talk) 09:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are part of the hoax:

The Footsteps Die Out Forever (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A Reasonable Explanation For Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Adelleda (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Soviet Reunion: The Early Years (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Maguire II and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magnum Opus (album)Duffbeerforme (talk) 09:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philip J. Cutrone[edit]

Philip J. Cutrone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Actor with tenuous claims to notability at best. Articles on this person have been speedied six times and deleted by prod once under various titles. Author says he's made his best effort to find references--is it enough? --Finngall talk 23:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: looks like TANYS is an association of non-professional theaters[1]. Not sure what this means as far a notability.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Can you point to specific articles turned up by the search that support notability? The NY Times review is only a brief mention, and as as far as I can tell, that's the best source that can be found. All the others are his name in a cast list. That's not enough to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I second that question. If I missed something, I will be happy to revisit my "delete". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinneed (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 15:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Isley[edit]

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

Michael Isley is not noteworthy from an encyclopedic perspective. I cannot believe this super-lengthy article about somebody who is yet to be considered famous has managed to stay on Wikipedia for this long. I personally know Michael Isley, and in no way have his musical endeavors been as successful as this article implies. I've read articles about my favorite bands with far less text. Moreover, it's difficult to come across this article unless specifically searched for, so unchecked vandalism will no doubt ensue... especially when more Drexel students get word of it. The primary writer of the article appears to be a certain StevieJBrenstur. Well, that account contains no information about anybody and I feel this implies that it was created specifically for this article to be written. The most likely scenario is Mike wrote it himself. The quotes have no citations and the only references are links to the band's website and venue affiliates.

Sorry Mikey but you're not famous yet. tbone (talk) 23:32, 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. Kristen Eriksen (talk) 06:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rational_Response_Squad[edit]

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

This article is about a small online community, doesn't seem to have any encyclopedic relevance, and seems to be primarily maintained by members of its own community. For these reasons it should be reconsidered for deletion. Nathan Orth (talk) 22:46, 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. — Aitias // discussion 20:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Considine[edit]

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

Claims of notability (films showed on CNN/BBC.. "published extensively in numerous newspaper and journals across the globe") are not backed up by references.. BBC news clip is an interview (?). Google shows minor coverage from non-notable sources Omarcheeseboro (talk) 22:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When I saw the page creator summarised the creation as "This is notable because he is an up and coming film director and scholar affiliated with world renowed Islamic scholar Akbar Ahmed. if there's a problem, then i must be missing something. sorry!" I thought, "now there's not a good opening!". "Up and coming" usually equals non-notable (yet). May be some day. Not yet. I've looked at the beginning of the Noam Chomsky interview "Directed and edited by Craig Considine" posted on iReport and saw "iReport.com is a user-generated site. That means the stories submitted by users are not edited, fact-checked or screened before they post.". Self-published, in other words. And very amateurish camera work, to my mind. I didn't see any mention of him on the BBC clip, which stated "we" interviewed implying the BBC did it. Being viewable on YouTube doesn't exactly confer notability. To me, the article is puff. Peridon (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I thought that the claim of being published extensively in numerous newspapers and films showed on CNN/BBC got it past CSD. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 00:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't trust 'claims'.... Peridon (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My reasoning for not sending it to CSD is based on this from Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion: "A7 does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source." --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 16:52, 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 no consensus. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Braves-Mets rivalry[edit]

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

*Delete-The problem with comparing it to the Philils/Mets rivalry is this- That article is sourced, with multiple sources independent of either one. There's plenty of info in there, such as info regarding the statements by Jimmy Rollins and Carlos Beltran. The Mets/Braves article simply has no sources, and almost no content. If sourcing and content can be added to the article, i'm very willing to change my vote to keep. (Disclaimer: I'm a Phillies phan). Umbralcorax (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After the changes that have been made, my vote is changed to KEEP. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just added some quick text and references from the NYTimes, AJC, and NY Daily News. Pretty sure those are respectable sources to start with. SMSpivey (talk) 06:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[3] (oops, that's the Braves own website, not a newspaper) [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] Rlendog (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kristen Eriksen (talk) 06:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus massacre[edit]

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

An editor has blanked this and there seems to be a great deal of heat over whether this event occurred or not. I did a google book search on 1570 and Cyprus and one of the references I found indicates that it did not: Dictionary of Islamic Architecture. An extraordinary claim as made in this article should have extraordinary sourcing. Here, we have no sources. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:49, 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 speedy delete (A7) by Protonk. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The World Union (NS2)[edit]

The World Union (NS2) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. and Canadian cities by last major professional sports championship won[edit]

List of U.S. and Canadian cities by last major professional sports championship won (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Interesting list (last time a sports team from each major US/Canadian city won a championship), but IMHO WP:NOTDIR may apply in this case. I can't find a firm WP rule though. Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't really fit under WP:NOTDIR. I think there is some interest out there as to what cities have lacked a major sports championship the longest, which is why I created the list. -- Earl Andrew - talk 05:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The claim of "original synthesis" would apply to almost all lists, n'est-ce pas? As for utility, is the list of potential heirs to the British throne of much utility? Heck, how many lists are of great utility? Collect (talk) 13:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Ten Commandments and the Bill of Rights were pretty good. Mandsford (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 21:33, 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 00:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jax Money Crew[edit]

Jax Money Crew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is about a counterstrike team. They claim notability, but only have one secondary source - an interview in a counterstrike webzine. My sense is this entry serves to promote their team, rather than having encyclopedic value. Liberal Classic (talk) 04:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 21:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Hustle episodes. (non-admin closure) treelo radda 00:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hustle (series 5)[edit]

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Montana upcoming episode list[edit]

Hannah Montana upcoming episode list (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I originally prodded the article, but then realized that it had previously had a prod applied and was removed so here we are. This article, based on the title, is for upcoming episodes of Hannah Montana. Wikipedia is not a Television Guide. Additionally, the article's current content is about already aired episodes which are covered more appropriately in the season articles: List of Hannah Montana episodes (Season 1), List of Hannah Montana episodes (Season 2), and List of Hannah Montana episodes (Season 3). Whpq (talk) 21:24, 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. — Aitias // discussion 20:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Grave (Killswitch Engage Album)[edit]

The Grave (Killswitch Engage Album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A (new) user created an article that perhaps the new album of Killswitch Engage. But until then I did not find anything related to the fact, and the article contains no information, or a release date set, seems a case of crystal ball. Cannibaloki 21:19, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion/John Cradle and BWW

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

Vincent velez[edit]

The result was speedy delete by User:Iridescent as WP:CSD G2. Non-admin close. JulesH (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

—Archon Magnus(Talk | Home) 20:55, 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 speedy delete. G7, requested by creator. Elonka 21:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Current situation of the Republika Srpska[edit]

Current situation of the Republika Srpska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete under G11. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 22:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hucametrics[edit]

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

A Google search turns up nothing. Appears to fail WP:NEO Ecoleetage (talk) 20:45, 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 merge to Beanpot (ice hockey). –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Turner (ice hockey)[edit]

Wayne Turner (ice hockey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable amateur hockey player who fails to meet WP:ATHLETE and WP:N or the WP:HOCKEY notability requirements for hockey players. Djsasso (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. —Djsasso (talk) 20:43, 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 00:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Link, Brisbane[edit]

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

Seems to not merit an article yet due to WP:CRYSTAL. This is a proposed project, one that has not yet been approved. If it gets approved and is notable itself, such as Boston's Big Dig construction project, then it can be given an article at a later time. Firestorm (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Firestorm (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Given that the tunnel is "currently in the planning stage" it is certainly not "almost certain". WWGB (talk) 23:00, 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 keep, it's snowing. (NAC) --J.Mundo (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Memorial City Hall and Auditorium[edit]

Lynn Memorial City Hall and Auditorium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'm pretty sure that a city's City Hall is not notable in and of itself. Lynn's City Hall appears to be a historical location, though, so i'm not sure. Opinions? Firestorm (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Firestorm (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, so that should justify its notability. Swampyank (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment It very well may be notable because of that, I just don't know what the current consensus is on historical locations and city halls. I'm not voting on this AFD; I just listed it to get a consensus. If it appears that its historical status is enough to justify an article, I have no problem keeping it. Firestorm (talk) 20:17, 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. Kristen Eriksen (talk) 06:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inherently funny word[edit]

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

There have been two previous AfD discusssions on this, in 2004 (here) and 2006 (here), both of which resolved to keep the article. Given that over two years have passed and community consensus may have changed in that time, I'm re-nominating it for deletion. I don't have a view on its inclusion-worthiness myself, so I'm taking a neutral stance. SP-KP (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think a change of name would be a good idea. The title as is does seem to suggest that the article talks about words that are inherently funny rather than words which people have suggested are inherently funny. Basement12 (T.C) 00:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Objection overruled, motion for summary judgment denied" I'm afraid we don't have a res judicata rule in Wikipedia. In law, one of the requirements is that the parties are the same as they had been in the prior litigation. Mandsford (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Gnostic Church[edit]

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

Non-notable movement/organization. Speedy was declined due to "removed speedy, notability asserted per the founder of this movement (Aleister Crowley) having an article; in addition, religious movements do not qualify under A7", but the group was not founded by crowley as the article itself states, plus I considered it an organization and I think they call themselves one. They are listed here and called an organization [10] Anyway, not notable, a few brief mentions in WP:RS, nothing more, most of these 7 mentions [11] are not even about this org, but just happen to use the phrase, others are by the group themselves, or a passing mention in poems, [12] this is the best WP:RS which we can definitely be sure is about them, [13] the mention is one sentence saying the year they were founded. Sticky Parkin 19:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Sticky Parkin 19:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • A one-line sentence in an encyclopedia (titled Witchcraft Today: An Encyclopedia of Wiccan and Neopagan Traditions) does not show enough notability to merit inclusion. The nom clearly sums up the lack of notability. Online sources and Google Books only give this movement a passing mention. The movement is not the subject of an article in the encyclopedia; it is only part of an outline. When I came to this AfD, I really wanted to support the inclusion of this article, but after looking at the nom's rationale and doing my own search for sources, I can only conclude that American Gnostic Church doesn't pass the notability guidelines. Cunard (talk) 23:58, 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. Kristen Eriksen (talk) 05:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jewell Towne Vineyards[edit]

Jewell Towne Vineyards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article fails WP:NN and WP:CORP.

Claims "oldest winery" when it started in 1982. Emphasizes number of medals won, which is meaningless especially when the medals list reveals that they were not for international competitions and predominate in silver and bronze, nothing to brag about, achievable by amateur winemakers. Numerous reliable sources discuss gimmicks and marketing ploys of medal factory competitions.

In spite of the sources referenced, this is a non-notable winery. Sources such as Boston Globe look respectable at first glance, but are actually local-interest coverage. Other sources are minor local papers.

Please also review the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wine#Jewell Towne Vineyards before adding your comments. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:59, 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 speedy delete. CSD A7 - subject fails WP:BIO —Travistalk 01:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RJ Garbowicz[edit]

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

No evidence of WP:BIO notability; associated company has also been nominated for deletion. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:14, 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. — Aitias // discussion 15:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme Enterprises, Inc.[edit]

Extreme Enterprises, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No sources indicating notability of this company; does not appear to meet WP:CORP standards. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is notable information about the company from 2nd and 3rd party sources. The information is limited but that does not make them not applicable for a wiki article. I would recommend some edits on the article though. (Ynights09|talk) 11:50 (EST), 9 January 2009 — Ynights09 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment: I would like to point out to you the very first line of WP:COMPANY, which reads, "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." Nothing you have pointed out can be considered a reliable, independent secondary source. —Travistalk 20:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Thelemic Studies[edit]

Journal of Thelemic Studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Journal published on the internet, and self published on lulu.com, founded only in 2007. No mentions in any WP:RS that I can find. [14] Sticky Parkin 18:39, 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. — Aitias // discussion 15:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St. Clements Caves[edit]

St. Clements Caves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article fails to establish the notability of the subject, and I was unable to find any reliable sources to establish its notability. Oo7565 (talk) 18:29, 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. — Aitias // discussion 00:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Kosu[edit]

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

NN fighting move, couldn't find any google hits[15], Would normally PROD, but the user has been removing speedy templates, and I don't see this falling easily into any of the speedy criteria. Terrillja talk 18:27, 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. — Aitias // discussion 00:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Foxfeather[edit]

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

Contested PROD. The reason given for the proposed deletion was:Probable autobiography with no claim in article of meeting WP:BIO. Gsearch turns up a number of its, but no independent, reliable sources that show notability; zero gnews, gbook, or gscholar hits. Call me Bubba (talk) 18:13, 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. MBisanz talk 02:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woollyback[edit]

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

Was an expired WP:PROD. Restored per request. — Aitias // discussion 17:53, 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. — Aitias // discussion 15:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Leigh[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. This actor has only appeared in three television productions in minor roles, does not have a large fan base or "cult" following, and has not made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. A Google search for "'Jonathan Leigh' actor" returns only 891 results, most of which are unrelated to the article's subject; searches using Google News, Google Books, and Google Scholar return nothing relevant whatsoever. As such, no reliable sources have been found that can demonstrate notability. Unscented (talk) 17:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Morrell[edit]

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

Appears to be a self-promotion article written by individual named in article.

The page Brian Morrell is and should be a notable page, Morrell still continues to be involved in the Fight game ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianrmorrell (talk • contribs) 14:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Verified ???clik/chek any of the other fights, the main event was real as the entire fight card, BoxRec.com is in conjunction with Wikipedia themselves, a sort of brother (sister) site...

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  16:50, 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) 11:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vereniging Basisinkomen[edit]

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

Vereniging Basisinkomen is about a not notable Dutch organization, it is from Dutch language sources and unverifiable to English readers. It is a not notable organization, most every thing in the article is about basic income, and that has it's own article all ready. The article was selfpromotion by a community banned editor the organizations officer. Its deletion was blocked by the officer before he was community banned RetroS1mone talk 03:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: Blogs are only unreliable when they're created by hobbyists or people of whom the identity cannot be determined. Since Trouw itself is a notable and reliable source, it should follow that its website and blog are too. Textbook example of a blog that can be considered a reliable source. - Mgm|(talk) 09:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if that blog is reliable, it doesn't help much, in my opinion. The problem for me is that none of the newspapers have EVER written about this club, as far as I can tell. That confirms my suspicions--it's a fringe organization with laudable goals, but fringe. Not notable. And while I created Basic income in the Netherlands for this purpose, I don't see much in this article that can be merged. I'll be glad, if "merge" is the outcome, to do so, of course. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be opposed to that; if it is condensed to one paragraph, it could fit under the 'advocates' heading, esp. since Saar Boerlage is mentioned in there, and her name comes up in this article too. But esp. some of the references need to be cut, I think, or moved--it would be best, in my opinion, to merge it into an article 'Basic Income in the Netherlands,' since it's a bit too much for 'Basic Income' and not enough to stand on its own. Besides, these references might actually make it fairly easy to hammer out a stub for 'Basic Income in NL.' Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Basic Income in the Netherlands: done. Drmies (talk) 04:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  16:47, 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stanky legg[edit]

Stanky legg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Updated after revision: Still not a notable dance. --Terrillja talk 16:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Offchance (talk) 16:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You also attempted, in a second edit, to delete the AFD notice. Please don't do that again. Mayalld (talk) 16:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(I apologize for deleting the AFD notice after misinterpreting the wording. It will not happen again. --Offchance (talk) 21:43, 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Code (2009 film)[edit]

The Code (2009 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Article is about a future film. No reliable sources provided, none found. No bias against recreation once more info is known and there is less need for a crystal ball. TN‑X-Man 15:56, 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of funny animals in the media[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of "funny animals" in media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No place in an encylopedia. Brownsnout spookfish (talk) 15:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're not stupid. The arrangement of the list is stupid, but most of us figured out that this is a vague list of titles of shows that have talking animals, even if we don't normally use the phrase "funny animal" to describe the concept; it's kind of like calling the comics section of a newspaper the funny pages, something done by people who wear rubbers when it rains. The article is uninformative and useless, however. As the AOL Time Warner rabbit said, it took a wrong turn at Albuquerque. Mandsford (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Funny animals:"cartooning term for the genre of comics and animated cartoons in which the main characters are humanoid or talking animals."--Jmundo (talk) 20:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Fair enough. A confusing expression, then. Perhaps there should be two lists - or none? Peridon (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Capsule rmx[edit]

Capsule rmx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
That is a mere statement. Please expand on your reasoning. - Mgm|(talk) 09:01, 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 keep. Meets basic notability requirements; notable in films documented at IMDB, even if they are not in English seicer | talk | contribs 02:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yūko Itō[edit]

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

I think this person is some kind of actress; the page resembles a long line of credits in bulleted form, but the whole thing is a horrible mess, really quite spectacular. The whole "article" was added in a single edit back in July and has gone virtually without improvement since then despite desperately needing it. In my view, it's gibberish without a hint of context (and of COURSE there are no references) and I can't see how there's any value to keeping it around with the expectation that maybe, someday, someone might want to spend several hours or days cleaning this thing up into something usable. But the user who removed my speedy thinks it's fine as it is, so here we are. Propaniac (talk) 13:50, 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 Speedy delete g11, blatant advertising. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tigriss[edit]

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

(a) Article was created solely as spam and google-gaming - to improve rankings of the titlepage's own URL;
(b) the subject fails the notability guidelines Centrepull (talk) 10:26, 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. Stifle (talk) 11:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5 C's of Singapore[edit]

AfDs for this article:
5 C's of Singapore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The cited sources do not mention the concept which is the notional subject of the article and do not specifically present the conclusions drawn from them; as such it would appear to be a novel synthesis form those sources. Guy (Help!) 10:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. List cannot be adequately referenced or sourced, and borders on listcruft seicer | talk | contribs 02:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Football (soccer) song[edit]

Football (soccer) song (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Original concern was: "This article is completely unsourced and covers a topic that is extremely unlikely to have any third party coverage. The term "football song" is not a term used in common parlance. FA Cup Final song would be more appropriate, with a subsection of that article covering the phenomenon of national teams recording songs for major international tournaments" – PeeJay 09:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep - Rename to a List article I think there is a good idea here, there should be a list article of songs that were released to album/single, produced songs from world cup theme songs. Any song that had a release. The list should contain song names, release date, by whom and what it was associated with. I am sure citation could be found with that in mind. Govvy (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete then as we already have a list of songs in another article. Govvy (talk) 18:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, Keep per above reasoning. Or a very good merge if someone volunteers.JJJ999 (talk) 11:50, 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. Cirt (talk) 04:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pooktre[edit]

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

    cannot be written from a NPOV view because the primary page author is closely connected to the subject matter; and (by his own admission on the talk page) the method for bending the wood (which is the only real point of interest) is "secret" so cannot be turned into a good article. OTOH, the primary author has shown a respectable amount of Good Faith, as evidenced on the talk page. But it boils down to one thing: without a discussion of the method used for warping the trees, the article can have litte notability Robinh (talk) 09:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually I'm not 100% sure that I followed the instructions properly on the AFD Log. Could someone verify that it's right please? Robinh (talk) 09:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You initially messed up the capitalization of the page, but you fixed that properly. - Mgm|(talk) 11:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If a neutral name is used then yes, that would be better. There are other people in the field of shaping trees that would be part of helping if the name is neutral. Blackash (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, neural term is needed, plus some rewriting to give a historic overview & different methods developed. Rror (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have moved Arborsculpture to Tree Shaping, added in the informations from the Pooktre article, and done some edits. AfD hero (talk) 06:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hold on I disagree, where is the discussion on the move ? in the afd box of pooktre ? Perhaps a discussion at a afd box on arborsculpture ? or am I missing something ? Reames (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Verifiability is a core principle laid out by the foundation. How do you suggest we can keep this and still meet the rules? WP:IAR is supposed to be applied when following the rules stops us from improving Wikipedia. Adding unverifiable information doesn't improve WP. - Mgm|(talk) 11:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I originally started this page, so that it could be recorded somewhere in history about the first grown mirror standing on its own roots. It is from this perspective that I have been editing the page.


    :::* 1. Without a discussion of the method used for warping the trees, the article can have little notability

    • 2. Not as streaks of firsts
    • 3. Not so secret, and Complete isolation from the rest of the world
    • 4. Merge useful infos into arborsculpture.

    Here is my rebuttal of above points

    1. To suggest that this page would have little merit without the tree shaping methods is under rating the value of the historical achievements.

    What else is left then? Some guys are shaping trees and roots - the rest is an advertisment but no real content. Many others are also shaping trees. Rror (talk) 10:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Which leads us to the second point.

    2.

    Some guys are shaping trees into people trees. Is that WP:NOTABLE? I can't find any reliable independent sources. Rror (talk) 10:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    3. Axel N Erlandson never published, or told anyone how to shape his trees. Some people have attempted to back engineer how he did them but have not had the success that Axel N Erlandson did.

    • "Axel N Erlandson considered his methods "trade secrets."" the quote is from Axel N Erlandson page [[19]]
    • "Axel never told anyone much at all about how he accomplished it. He considered that his "trade secret," even refusing to tell my mother or me how it was done as he thought we might somehow give his secret away." Quote from My father "Talked to Trees" by Wilma Erlandson page 4

    So this knowledge was lost.

    • For the first 10 years of our shaping trees we didn't know of anyone else in the world who did it. This was an advantage because we didn't know it could be done, so we didn't try to back engineer someone else's work. We developed our own techniques.

    This is what I was referring to with the line in 'complete isolation from the rest of the world.

    How can I WP:VERIFY that? Stating that your method is different, but you won't tell is not very interesting for an article. Rror (talk) 10:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    4.

    • If you google Arborscuplture and then Pooktre, Pooktre actually rates a little bit higher.
    • As there is no consensus that Arborsculpture represents the art-form as a whole. I don't think it's appropriate to merge Pooktre with Arborscuplture. They are two very different techniques with two very different results.

    Blackash (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That doesn't necessarily make something notable. Rror (talk) 10:02, 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 00:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wiivolution[edit]

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

    The most reliable source the article cites is a youtube video, Google doesn't give anything better, and this seems like pure crystalballing anyway. (|-- UlTiMuS 08:40, 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 merge to List of D.N.Angel characters. MBisanz talk 02:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Krad[edit]

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

    Delete. Fails the general notability guideline for fiction, lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable third party sources and all that. JBsupreme (talk) 08:22, 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. Kristen Eriksen (talk) 06:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Graphical Identification and Authentication[edit]

    Graphical Identification and Authentication (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non notable and poorly written, wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of DLL articles (WP:NOT), etc. If a single reference can be added pertaining to some kind of notability then I'll be more than satisfied. Verbal chat 08:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think you misunderstood my (probably too short) proposal. The poor quality of the article is not why I thought it should be deleted, but is not a good reason for keeping. The reason for deletion I proposed is notability, and I don't see why a secure logon process is inherently notable. The reference to WP:NOT was to the fact that wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information - we don't have articles on all DLLs. Now, if I4m wrong and this DLL is notable then I have no problem with it having an article - but since it apparently is no longer used in Vista and Win7 I think it's unlikely. I could easily be swayed to a keep if any references to notability are presented. Thanks! Verbal chat 16:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The page seems to have been substantially re-written from the version that was nominated. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:56, 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. Kristen Eriksen (talk) 05:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Pearl necklace (sexuality)[edit]

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

    Delete. Just to make it clear, Wikipedia is not censored and I fully respect that. It is also not a dictionary, and this "article" is just a dictionary definition of a sexual term poorly disguised as an encyclopedia article with a bonus dumping ground for trivia ad nauseum. Hopefully we can finally obtain a consensus this time around and do the right thing. JBsupreme (talk) 07:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    **Mammary intercourse has slang definitions included too; tit fuck, titty fuck, French fuck...should these be taken out? Thor Malmjursson (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC) Struck my comments, realised I was using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS again. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 01:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    1. Davis, Peter, ed. (1996). Intimate Details and Vital Statistics: AIDS, Sexuality and the Social Order in New Zealand. Auckland University Press. pp. 125, 127. ISBN 978-1869401399. Retrieved 2009-01-09. From Enric Naval's post above. University press source, need we say any more?
    2. Eric Partridge; Tom Dalzell; Terry Victor, eds. (2005). The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English. Taylor & Francis. p. 1455. ISBN 978-0415259385. Retrieved 2009-01-09. Partridge is a well regarded dictionary. From Benji's list.
    3. Morrissey, Gabrielle (2006). A Year of Spicy Sex. Marlowe & Company. p. 39. ISBN 978-1569242629. Retrieved 2009-01-09. Another from Benji's list.

    The subject is clearly notable. — Becksguy (talk) 15:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was keep. Kristen Eriksen (talk) 05:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Carol Cox[edit]

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

    There's no assertion of notability and while I don't deal with PORNBIO very often, she does not seem to meet the guidelines listed there. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:24, 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 19:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Simon Pulsifer[edit]

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

    As Wikipedia's popularity grew, more and more newspapers and other media outlets wanted to write pieces about the site. Using a common tool, the profile piece, they picked a random "high profile" editor on the site and talked not only about Wikipedia but also focused on the editor himself, to give the article a more "personal touch." This is a pretty standard journalism practice.

    Subsequently, editors created an entry on the editor, claiming that he is notable due to his coverage in various newspapers for being a Wikipedia editor. Quite simply, this article does not meet our accepted standards for inclusion. The subject is notable for one item: editing Wikipedia. He wasn't a founder of Wikipedia or a member of the Board or anything like that, he was just a regular editor / admin who was featured in news stories during Wikipedia's growth.

    Similar to the recent David Gerrard article debate, this article doesn't cut the mustard due to its surrounding facts. For background, Gerrard acts as Wikimedia's spokesperson and has frequently been cited in the press in articles about Wikipedia / Wikimedia. Like Pulsifer, that does not mean that Gerrard himself is notable.

    I believe it is time that we delete this article and I hope that the community agrees. After eight years, it's time to start re-examining some of our entries to determine whether they truly meet our inclusion guidelines and whether we want to be creating a free online encyclopedia that contain entries like this. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • To be fair, he wasn't profiled just for being an administrator. At the time, he was the most prolific editor on the entire site. Zagalejo^^^ 20:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sound like speculation when you say that the article "will be unchanged in 40 years" and there will never be no sources to update it.--Jmundo (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I said "the chances are". The point stands, due to the lack of continuing sources, some of the information currently in the article may well be wrong already, and we have no way of checking or maintaining the article.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • We can always date the problematic statements. (E.g., As of 2006, Pulsifer's mother...) Or just remove anything that seems like it might be out of date. I think most of the article can stay as it is, though. Pulsifer was in Time - that's always going to be true. He was born in Canada - that's always going to be true, too. Zagalejo^^^ 18:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two facts which can go nicely in an article on wikipedia in the media, without the spurious biography.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:26, 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 00:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    GokulNath Babu Manoharan[edit]

    GokulNath Babu Manoharan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Possible Autobiographical article of a non-notable person -- Tinu Cherian - 05:49, 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. PhilKnight (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sean MacLeod[edit]

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

    Likely hoax. rootology (C)(T) 04:23, 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. The copyright status of these stubs is dubious. Rücker and Artel don't actually assert any notability, making them eligible for CSD A7 also.  Sandstein  12:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Karl Gustaf Hjalmar Armfeldt[edit]

    Karl Gustaf Hjalmar Armfeldt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Housekeeping nomination of Faberge "workmasters" per the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johan Victor Aarne. All of these articles were created by the same user, Bramo (talk · contribs), who apparently created a bunch of copyvio articles. I don't have any proof that these articles are copyvios so I didn't CSD them, but you can read the previous AfD for more information regarding this. Besides being potential copyvios, delete per WP:N as they are not notable. Tavix (talk) 04:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Henrik Wigström (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Julius Rappoport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Avenir Ivanovitch Sumin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Rückert, Feodor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    1st Silver- Artel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Tavix (talk) 04:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Note. Four articles have been speedily deleted because of incontrovertible evidence of copyvios. The deletion of the remaining articles remains under discussion.

    • I agreed with the CSD of the cited article because of the creation date of the article in relation to the supposed source. Often it's not clear which came first. In this case it was crystal clear. - Mgm|(talk) 09:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The the odd one out is Henrik Wigström. To me this all strongly indicates that there is another source from wich both the WP articles and the blog were copied. Bongomatic 09:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In case it's not obvious, delete Henrik Wigström. The circumstantial evidence that this (despite being created prior to the blog entries) is copied from (as-yet unidentified) common sources is overwhelming.
    It is too bad that the person who copied these items into the blog and into Wikipedia doesn't identify the source. While each individual is probably not notable, the Fabergé workmaster article could be expanded including some of these colorful details. Bongomatic 07:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As previously stated, there is specific evidence of blatant copyright violation for three of the articles:
    and an overwhelmingly strong inference for a fourth, Julius Rappoport.
    Bongomatic 14:49, 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 nomination withdrawn by nominator. On its own merits, this discussion is no consensus leaning towards a keep, and appears to be header further in that direction. lifebaka++ 03:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Nordine_Zouareg[edit]

    Nordine_Zouareg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) –

    I wasn't completely sure about this one, but it looks like the vanity/publicity page for a NN bodybuilder/coach. The biggest problem is in the sourcing-- claims are made that this guy won Mr. France, Mr. Universe, etc., but these all link back to a web site that happens to contain some rankings-- and only one is even vaguely close to the claim (the "Mr. Universe" claim does connect to a winning rank in the 1986 W.A.B.B.A. World Championship). It would be an obvious delete, except I was wondering about the importance of a positive review of his book in Publisher's Weekly. Jlg4104 (talk) 03:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Publishers Weekly (note lack of punctuation) is certainly a prestigious trade magazine, but at 7,000 reviews a year, being reviewed there is hardly a guarantee of notability. Bongomatic 09:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would respectfully disagree on that. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Entrepreneur.com is the online site for Entrepreneur Magazine, which is a rather prominent U.S. business magazine. Monsters and Critics is a highly regarded U.S. popular culture site. Bodybuilding is considered a sport and it has very distinctive requirements regarding who can advance to the professional rankings. And getting a book reviewed in Publishers Weekly is no mean feat! Ecoleetage (talk) 04:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, just what prize did he win exactly? I do not see him listed for Universe Championships, which seems to be the main one, or for [[World Amateur Bodybuilding Championships], nor do I find him on their web pages. I remain skeptical of how well this sport is organized. I ask for considerably more than these reviews for notability for the author of a single book. I see it is listed in worldCat as present in 258 libraries, but again, its only a single book. There are some claimed professions where I am very skeptical about notability, and "life coach" is one of them. for notabiity in that profession, I think it wise to require multiple mainstream sources. DGG (talk) 08:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My response above has been challenged a number of times on my talk page, but examining the further discussion, I continue to see no evidence that I consider reliable for the prizes. But I'm not exactly an expert in this subject. I do however know that one can claim whatever one cares to on a book jacket, and uncritical media sources copy it. Even news sources if based entirely on such material or press releases should be discounted. The prior bios of authors of books is not a field in which I consider most newspapers at all reliable. DGG (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    CommentHe won the 1986 World Championships for the WABBA, among other titles. I assume you are not familiar with bodybuilding (it is a niche sport, admittedly). In that sport, not unlike boxing, has several different leagues. Arnold Schwarzenegger, arguably the most famous bodybuilder, was the champion in the IFBB (where Mr. Zouareg participated towards the end of his sports career). The sport has been around, in its current state, since the end of World War II -- the notion it is not well-organised is not supported in the real world (nearly every country has at least one bodybuilding league -- as an example, check out the article Afghan Muscles to learn about about both the Afghanistan and pan-Asian bodybuilding competitions). And don't rely on Wikipedia for bodybuilding information -- I am part of WikiProject Bodybuilding and it is probably the flabbiest place on the project (the articles need a major overhaul). As for Mr. Zouareg authoring a single book -- yes, and it was published and distributed by a major publishing company. "Life coach" is a euphemism for personal trainer -- nothing unusual about that (it helps sell books, too). Ecoleetage (talk) 14:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    When there are 172,000 books published in the US alone a year, being one of the 7,000 is pretty prestigious. travb (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, Travb, please...Bongomatic rocks in my book. Just because we have a difference of opinion here doesn't mean his views don't carry value. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I refactored the comments out. travb (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think the book refs are in as much dispute as the complete lack of third party, non self published refs about his body building career. If he won all these titles, particularly Mr Universe in 1986 as claimed in the article, why is he not listedin World_Amateur_Bodybuilding_Championships or the ref that supports that article. I am not saying for one moment that he did not win the title of Mr Universe somewhere, its just odd that there are no refs to support it, nor have there been since this article was flagged ages ago and this really needs clarifying as this is a WP:BLP. Mfield (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Answer As stated earlier -- he won a WABBA title. The article in question is about the IFBB competition. That's a different bodybuilding league. Ecoleetage (talk)
    Well, Googling WABBA Mr Universe gets zero results, except for to mention that the IFBB was renamed to WABBA, something that appears to have happened in 1976, well before he supposedly won so he should be in that one. All other Mr Universe results seem to come up as NABBA, that would be Universe_Championships which he also isn't listed in. Why does [29] this search produce not one single listing from an official site of any sort? Mfield (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Try putting quotation marks around Mr. Z's name when you do a Google search, like this: [30]. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you see the four citations? Three books and a magazine article?
    WP:INTROTODELETE states that "Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article." We are now talking about some content issues, which can be resolved with cleaning up the article. I suggest the nominator close the AfD.
    travb (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are hardly books on bodybuilding! (To put it another way, I have little faith in them.) Ecoleetage's Google for the WABBA title gives references that I don't put much stock in, and despite travb's derogatory comment on Bongomatic's remark, I'm personally with Bongo on this one. A short paragraph in a trade journal doesn't cut it for me. Call me a self-appointed deletionist if you will, but if one wants to keep everything, referenced or not, it's almost disingenuous to look for references. I'll shed no tears if this article is kept, and MQS (always good at finding a reference for an obscure celebrity! good work!) may tip the scale for some of you--that's fine. Drmies (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    They are nevertheless published books that verify that claim and that are also found on amazon.com. If something is covered in multiple published books, it is worthy of inclusion in some manner or other. Do magazines like Flex or Muscle & Fitness have online archives, because if they do, that's where we should also look. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The only title that third party refs support is 1986 WABBA "Overall Winner". The "Mr Universe" (and "Mr. France, Mr. Europe, Mr. World") claim is entirely supported by his own books and website or sites affiliated to him. That's the odd part. These would seem to be big titles that would merit some kind of mention by someone else. Mfield (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    These three books call him a a Two-Time Mr. Universe winner. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And that is precisely one of my problems with them. First, I simply don't put that much stock in that type of publication (which aren't known, let's face it, for their body-building expertise) to do that kind of verification. Note also that those books have him as "a two-time Mr. Universe bodybuilding champion"--that's not what the WP article claims, or even the MuscleMemory site. Then, the author of the first title Dr. Dharma Singh Khalsa states Zouareg is his "own personal trainer," and Khalsa is also the author of the second, where he says Zouareg is his "good friend." The third book has the exact same phrase, "my good friend and two-time Mr. Universe winner"--so really, I don't put that much stock in any of these books in that regard, given what looks like collusion. Drmies (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Exacty - only the NABBA competition claims the title Mr Universe, and he never competed in that. It is very odd that the only sources that use the term are his own book, or reviews of his own book or are written by his "close friends". If that term was ever used by the WABBA, there would be a mention of it somewhere else. Mfield (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact still remains that the subject of this article is covered in multiple published books. Whether these books are ideal or not doesn't chance the fact that multiple books and as indicated elsewhere other publications have covered this man in some manner or other. References in multiple non-self-published books meets our notability criteria. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 20:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    One thing I found which cannot be included in the article, is a soloflex blog on the official Soloflex webpage, which also mentions his Mr. Universe title. travb (talk) 00:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 02:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    O. P. Schnabel Park[edit]

    O. P. Schnabel Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Article does not assert notability and does not cite any sources. Unless there are separate criteria for city-run parks that I don't know about, I don't think this belongs here. Firestorm (talk) 03:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Firestorm (talk) 03:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. Chances are that it was named after that person because, like most namings of buildings or parks, etc, he donated a significant amount of money to its creation, or donated the land. That doesn't make any claim of being notable - thousands of buildings and parks have been named after the people who paid for them. Firestorm (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I agree the notability of the person the park was named after may be questionable, but a ~200 acre area of any city is something notable. Nearby residents will certainly view this page at some time or another. This article could be expanded with coordinates, images, and a more detailed history. That being said, my position is fairly neutral. I'll add what I can to it for now. Tevonic (talk) 23:18, 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. — Aitias // discussion 20:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    American Pie: Book of Love[edit]

    American Pie: Book of Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Contested prod. Despite what the prod rationale said, the following text has been added in the same edit as the deprodding: Casting has not begun, thereby confirming that now is not the right time for an article on this movie. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:19, 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. MBisanz talk 02:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    List of InuYasha locations[edit]

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

    Unnotable list of fictional locations used in the manga and anime series InuYasha, however bulk of contents are very minor locations that are not particularly relevant to the series itself, much less having any real world notability. Their use/appearance in the series, such as it is, is already better covered in the episode and manga chapter summaries, while this list is primarily repeated plot from those, with a ton of added WP:OR and unsourced claims. Fails WP:N, WP:PLOT, WP:WAF, and WP:V. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    None of the contents are major at all. All of the locations are minor, with some being really minor. At best, the Bone Eater's Well is the only one that might be slightly less than minor, but even then it doesn't need more than a one sentence explanation: its a well that acts as a gateway between Kagome and InuYasha's world. The list is unnecessary, unnotable, and should be deleted. Nothing to discuss regarding the content at all, none of of it is appropriate nor important. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:26, 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 merge to Greenhouse gas. MBisanz talk 02:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    List of CO2 emitted per million Btu of energy from various fuels[edit]

    List of CO2 emitted per million Btu of energy from various fuels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    User took data from this table and made an article. The title is something that wont be searched for. Mblumber (talk) 02:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Not everything belongs on Wikipedia. If you can find it elsewhere, simply including an external link somewhere rather than copying the material would make for a better option. - Mgm|(talk) 12:23, 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. MBisanz talk 02:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Scramble-b![edit]

    Scramble-b! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    No reliable third-party sources could be found to establish notability. Also fails WP:BK. Original prod was disputed by an IP editor. Farix (Talk) 02:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I wouldn't gauge the notability of any article based on the existence of an article on another language Wikipedia, per WP:OSE and WP:ININ. For one, the English Wikipedia has much higher standards for inclusion then other languages. ---Farix (Talk) 04:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps, but if said international entry has solid references (I can't tell because of a lack of Japanese language skills) that would be a good reason to keep it. - Mgm|(talk) 12:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, not great referencing. Going by machine translation, the article on the first series has more plot summary than anything, and for the sequel series little more than a stub list of characters. This in addition to basic publication info, that is. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further research discovers that in addition to the 3-volume sequel, there's a second 1-volume sequel plus a 1-volume sidestory -- in total nine volumes of monthly serial numbers (in Ciao), which suggests ... something. Have not yet anything that fits the letter of the law, though. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there's evidence that demonstrates the letter of the law of notability, I'm not finding it. If I were finding hints aside from what I've already cataloged, I might argue for a keep anyway, but the above on its own isn't enough to make me confident the solid evidence exists. A reluctant delete without prejudice for recreation if reliable sources come to light. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:57, 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 merge to Inu Yasha. MBisanz talk 02:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jewel of Four Souls[edit]

    Jewel of Four Souls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Unnotable fictional jewel from the Inu Yasha manga and anime series. It isn't a character and article is almost entirely WP:OR and plot summary. The jewel has no significant coverage in reliable, third party sources and its relevant role in series already better covered by main article plot summary and individual episode and manga chapters summaries in their respective lists. Tagged for various issues since June 2008 with no major change at all. Fails WP:N, WP:PLOT, and WP:WAF. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it actually even called Jewel of the Four Souls anywhere in the English licensed versions? My recollection may be off, but in the anime dub, it is called the Shikon Jewel or The Sacred Jewel, not the "Jewel of the Four Souls". Ditto the manga. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest I'm not entirely sure. It was several years ago I watched it, and only for 26episodes. The japanese is actually more familiar to me then the english name, but Viz state "Jewel of Four Souls" on their web site [35] Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:01, 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. MBisanz talk 02:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    FreshMen[edit]

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

    No reliable third-party sources could be found to establish notability. Also fails WP:BK. I believe the only reason the article was created was because it was licensed for translation into English, which is not a notability criteria. Original prod was disputed by an IP editor. Farix (Talk) 02:41, 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. Cirt (talk) 04:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Nuiguru Mix[edit]

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

    No reliable third-party sources could be found to establish notability. Also fails WP:BK. Original prod was disputed by an IP editor. Farix (Talk) 02:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Does the ZH one give a source for the claimed licensing? So far, all I've seen for it are scanslations with no actual coverage, not even on ANN. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't gauge the notability of any article based on the existence of an article on another language Wikipedia, per WP:OSE and WP:ININ. For one, the English Wikipedia has much higher standards for inclusion then the other languages. --Farix (Talk) 04:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • They don't demonstrate notability, no, but they do suggest notability exists -- especially articles in languages outside the country of origin. Enough of a suggestion, that I hestitate to !vote straight out based on not finding anything in English, until further research has been done. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, according to WP:BK, substantial independent coverage is not the only way to demonstrate notability. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That sounds like desperate reasoning there. Besides, a books is not made notable based on the number of languages it has been officially translated into. --Farix (Talk) 20:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm looking at WP:MOS-AM#Notability. It's a criterion that creates an assumption of notability -- if it's popular enough to have won an award or be mulitply licensed, we can reasonably assume there's material out there about it, even if we don't have it on hand at the moment. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, a manual of style can't set criteria for notability. That is well outside of its scope. Second, that criteria does not have consensus back from other editors. If it did, it would be in WP:BK. --Farix (Talk) 23:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:BK claims to not apply to comic books. There was a long (and involved) discussion by WikiProject Anime and Manga editors that resulted in formally saying that WP:BK does indeed apply to manga with this additional possible criterion. (The discussion is somewhere in the WT:ANIME archives -- I'll have to search to find it.) It's documented in the AM MOS because, at the time, it seemed like the best place to put it. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • WikiProject's shouldn't come up with additional notability criteria. Instead, they can only interprate and apply the existing notability guidelines. If they did create additional notability criteria, then we would be in a real huge mess since all that is needed is a small group of editors to come to gather, form a project, and then state anything they create is notable under their "criteria". --Farix (Talk) 00:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Future Lovers (Manga)[edit]

    Future Lovers (Manga) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    No reliable third-party sources could be found to establish notability. Also fails WP:BK. I believe the only reason the article was created was because it was licenced for translation into English, which is not a notability criteria. Original prod was disputed by an IP editor. Farix (Talk) 02:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Given there's no article for it on the Japanese Wikipedia, what makes you think it's notable in Japan? Got any reviews from reliable sources for it? If so, please share. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You obviously didn't do much research. This yaoi manga is available in every major book store in English (and Japanese, of course). Just do a quick Amazon search and you'll find it.--24.129.100.84 (talk) 14:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Amazon does not constitute every major bookstore in English, and that does not make it notable. See WP:BK. And also WP:CIVIL. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Interestingly, it's not on the shelves of the Barnes & Noble around the corner from me -- I just checked. Either they're not major or you've got some facts wrong. In any case, being available does not mean notable or every book published would pass WP:BK (and they don't). Please show some evidence for your initial assertion that meets the relevant notability guideline. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note The IP editor above has a recent track-record of vandalism,engaging in random personal attacks, and general trolling. --Farix (Talk) 15:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Speedy delete a3, no meaningful, substantive content. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    ߄[edit]

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

    Unremarkable and non-notable unicode character Tagishsimon (talk) 02:31, 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. MBisanz talk 02:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The Romantic[edit]

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

    This movie is wp:nn with no source (beside the movie website) Mblumber (talk) 02:18, 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Millionaires (band)[edit]

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

    Non-notable band; fails WP:MUSIC. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 02:11, 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. MBisanz talk 02:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Dennis Danzik[edit]

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

    This article came with an impressive list of external links (see this earlier revision for the whole list). I noticed that one link was dead, and tidied it up. On inspection, all the rest of the external links were variously to dead links, press releases, mere mentions in passing, and database entries, none of which appeared to meet the WP:RS criteria, and I have removed these too. Without these, I can't see that what remains passes the WP:BIO criteria. The Anome (talk) 06:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • You're confusing verifiability criteria with notability criteria. Notability required multiple non-trivial sources. An article mentioning a subject in passing or in a database can still be reliable even if the coverage isn't indepth. -- Mgm|(talk) 12:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps I should rephrase that. The links removed were either dead, not RS, or did not meet the BIO criteria. The patent listings are clearly reliable primary sources, but do not meet the BIO requirements. Otherwise, we would need to have an article on every person who had ever filed a patent. Similarly, press releases are not sufficient; anyone can have a press release distributed by any of the many release distribution services; they are not, in general, then fact-checked by their republishers. The person in question sounds quite interesting, and I'd happily support keeping the article if third-party sources that meet the WP:BIO criteria were available. Unfortunately, I can't see any evidence that they are. -- The Anome (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Elena Usachova[edit]

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

    Promotion of a nonnotable dress designer Dzied Bulbash (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was redirect to Channel-stopper. Mgm|(talk) 12:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Channel stopper[edit]

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

    Has been shifted to Wiktionary; mere definition, not needed here. Orange Mike | Talk 01:05, 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. — Aitias // discussion 00:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Butterfly warrior[edit]

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

    Butterflies are free to fly, but neologisms should not be encouraged to nest here. Fails WP:NEO. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:57, 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    CleverTexting[edit]

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

    non-notable software Sceptre (talk) 16:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:54, 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. Kristen Eriksen (talk) 05:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jewell Towne Vineyards[edit]

    Jewell Towne Vineyards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This article fails WP:NN and WP:CORP.

    Claims "oldest winery" when it started in 1982. Emphasizes number of medals won, which is meaningless especially when the medals list reveals that they were not for international competitions and predominate in silver and bronze, nothing to brag about, achievable by amateur winemakers. Numerous reliable sources discuss gimmicks and marketing ploys of medal factory competitions.

    In spite of the sources referenced, this is a non-notable winery. Sources such as Boston Globe look respectable at first glance, but are actually local-interest coverage. Other sources are minor local papers.

    Please also review the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wine#Jewell Towne Vineyards before adding your comments. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:59, 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Fly fm - Nottingham Trent University[edit]

    Fly fm - Nottingham Trent University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Campus radio station. Cannot locate evidence of it passing WP:NOTE. Nancy talk 18:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:51, 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. Notability has not been established. Photographing other famous individuals does not assert notability. seicer | talk | contribs 04:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Peter Hill (photographer)[edit]

    Peter Hill (photographer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    I removed the WP:prod on this because it has been done and contested in the past. However, I can't find any sources to help prove notability so I feel it should be deleted. Raven1977 (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    "keeeeeep" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.111.104 (talk) 12:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC) — 88.106.111.104 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:50, 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. — Aitias // discussion 01:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    AER Amplifiers[edit]

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

    No references, no claim to notability. Mikeblas (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:45, 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. MBisanz talk 02:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Aaron Nicholls[edit]

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

    Fails WP:BIO - unable to find significant coverage. Also WP:NOT#NEWS. —Snigbrook 14:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • The first two only contain one line or two that is relevant to this article, which is not enough, and the other two (both are the same url) are on a blog and appear to be about another person with a similar name. This article could be merged if there was an article about the crime he was convicted of (per WP:BLP1E) but there does not appear to be enough coverage in reliable sources. There is no inherent notability for criminals (e.g. Ian Huntley is redirected to Soham murders), so I don't think this meets the relevant guidelines. —Snigbrook 15:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a one sentence merge and redirect (to the appropriate section) might be the way to go. The possible suicide attempt and tape are already mentioned in the Soham murders article so mentioning that Aaron Nicholls was allegedly involved and what he was convicted of doesn't seem like a big deal. As he is somewhat notable for his own horrific crimes and his involvement in this other incident, I think including him in some fashion seems appropriate, but the whole thing is pretty awful, and so distasteful I don't want to have much to do with it. Too upsetting. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Shiraz Ahmed[edit]

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

    Journalist with questionable notability. Prod was contested by the creator (almost certainly Shiraz Ahmed himself), on the grounds that his employer is "one of the leading business newspapers of Pakistan," something that should not need to be mentioned. No sources, and googling that name (specifying that I'm looking for someone working at The Financial Daily) returns nothing of substance. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 13:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:36, 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Aslam Malik[edit]

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

    Unreferenced journalist who appears non-notable. Difficult to check as a (different) notablemore widely referenced person exists with the same name, but no claim in the article leads to a different conclusion. Bongomatic 13:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Probably not really notable (changed nom above). See http://people.forbes.com/profile/aslam-malik/4959.
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus. As ever, discussion on whether to merge or redirect the article somewhere can be taken up on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 11:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Tiles of the Hold[edit]

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

    List was previously deleted as nonnotable in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiles of the Hold in September 2008. As this list had a little more (in-universe) information than the AfDed list, I chose not to speedy it as WP:CSD#G4 and prodded it instead. Prod-tag was removed with some explanation at the article's talkpage (Talk:Tiles of the Hold), but I am (still) not convinced that his list should be included in wikipedia (nothing significant found on Google Books/Scholar/News), so here we are again. – sgeureka t•c 11:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    *Delete If there are forthcoming novels that will make this notable, then when the novels have been published and there is some comment on them, it should be possible to write an article. DGG (talk) 06:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC) I have analyzed this further, below. DGG (talk) 07:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, treelo radda 00:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The new editor removed the AfD tag[45] and Sgeureka replaced it. I did this the first time my article was put up for deletion too. The new editor had a mere 365 edits before they created the page.
    Since we are questioning good faith now, I think the question is whether this nomination was in good faith. The policy WP:PRESERVE states that "whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information, instead of removing" WP:INTROTODELETE and WP:POTENTIAL state that deletion of an article should be a last resort. In this case, deletion was the first resort. The article should be userfied or kept. travb (talk) 03:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note is taken that the creator of the article is a participant in the discussion. Dlohcierekim 03:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh and there is nothing to preserve. Userpages are not preserves for indiscriminate, nn info that dose not met notability. Wikipedia is not a plot summary. Useful is not an notability criterion. cheers, and happy editing. Dlohcierekim 19:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Inclusionist:
    Since we are questioning good faith now, I think the question is whether this nomination was in good faith. The policy WP:PRESERVE states that "whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information, instead of removing" WP:INTROTODELETE and WP:POTENTIAL state that deletion of an article should be a last resort. In this case, deletion was the first resort. The article should be userfied or kept.
    What harm is there to keeping this article alive. I have added to it, again. And believe there is still more to add. I have a busy life outside of this, so it takes some time to create a full article. Rome wasn't built in a day and neither are articles.Krmarshall (talk) 00:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. WP:SOAP is the first strong argument against this article. The second one is a previous AfD on the topic. And this is enough already. Tone 13:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Criticism of arabism[edit]

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

    Appears to be a list of reasons to dislike arabs, in extended essay format. To me, an unsalvagable collection of opinions. Tagishsimon (talk) 00:33, 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. — Aitias // discussion 01:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    "the city streets"[edit]

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

    I don't think this meets the music notability guidelines. Neutralitytalk 07:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:31, 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Illegal Alien (film)[edit]

    Illegal Alien (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Apparently fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:28, 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Cambridge University European Union Society[edit]

    Cambridge University European Union Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable Neutralitytalk 06:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Requested and required by members of various departments within Cambridge University, and necessary to raise awareness of society itself --RRowbottom (talk) 06:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:NOTADVERTISING. Neutralitytalk 07:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    *Delete per nom. Non-notable.--Mitigate & Satiate (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Struck comment by banned user. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to know what prompted the AfD? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: I added a section to the article with 'Possible References', which gives all the independent sources I could find. Very weak ... Aymatth2 (talk) 18:15, 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 speedy delete as a recreation of previously deleted material (G4). Similar material has been deleted in the past following discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Byron Hyde and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nightingale Research Foundation. The current page adds no new evidence of notability nor does it address the deletion rationales from the previous AfD discussions. Further recreations of this article which meet speedy-deletion criteria (see G4) can be tagged as such rather than going to AfD.

    If there is interest in recreating an article on this individual, then the proper process would be to go to deletion review and present evidence that he meets our notability requirements for individuals or academics. The prior discussions linked above have determined that he did not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, so an effective argument at deletion review would probably focus on new or previously unmentioned evidence of notability. MastCell Talk 17:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Byron Marshall Hyde[edit]

    Byron Marshall Hyde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    WP:RS, not notable, deleted before RetroS1mone talk 00:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Widely cited? A paper cited 47 times isn't that remarkable. Papers of truly notable people get cited hundreds of times. - Mgm|(talk) 11:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked into this in 2007; the histologic articles (including the one with 47 citations) appear to be by a different BM Hyde. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes i think you are right there is more then one BM Hyde. RetroS1mone talk 13:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck in light of comments. Poor judgment on my part. LeaveSleaves 14:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    When a person's opinion is accepted as that of an expert in multiple reliable sources, that does add to notability and indicates that the person is well regarded in the area. Plus that was just my secondary point. My primary support stems from the publications. LeaveSleaves 04:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your view LeaveSleaves. I thought " trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability," a report some one will speak at a YMCA is very trivial and the drug company thing was a press release so not reliable. Are there works about this Byron M. Hyde, that is how I see WP:NOTE? Google searches for publications can be mis-leading like when there is more then one BM Hyde and there is. Your list of five books has just three published books, one is a collection of poems so it is not for notability of a doctor, one has a three-page article from him and the third, he is one from three editors and it is self-pub. Your list of publications has also another BM Hyde who published in peer-review literature and also publications by this BM Hyde who did not publish medline peer-review articles. When it is enough for notability, then every that has publications can be on WP, i don't think that is intent? RetroS1mone talk 05:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    0.720

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

    The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 02:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Infamous Adventures[edit]

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

    The only independent references are from one source; Adventure Gamers site, and appear to be press releases, thus do not satisfy WP:N. Sources posted on the talk page are similarly press releases (and a YouTube clip which doesn't mention this company at all.) During a web search, I did turn up one possible source ([51]), not sure if this is sufficient on its own. Marasmusine (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then why not perform a merge? - Mgm|(talk) 12:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll try that if the concensus is to keep this (verifiable portion of) information. I'm still leaning on this side of delete. Marasmusine (talk) 13:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    http://www.joystiq.com/2006/06/19/kings-quest-iii-pimped-out-and-re-released/
    http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/news200606kingsquest3
    http://digg.com/gaming_news/King_s_Quest_3_(the_remake)_has_been_released_\
    http://uk.gamespot.com/pages/unions/read_article.php?topic_id=24729077&union_id=936
    http://uk.gamespot.com/pages/company/index.php?company=80226P
    http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/adventure/kingsquestiiitoheirishumanvga/index.html
    http://www.imdb.com/company/co0186724/
    http://www.gamefaqs.com/features/company/80226.html

    If you require more than leave a message underneath.
    —Preceding unsigned comment added by JMB1988 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm looking through the links now, let's see.
    • Joysiq.com -> Not significant coverage (press release)
    • Eurogamer -> to quote "And yes I did just rip that bit off Wikipedia..."; we can't reference a source that itself references us, or we get a walled garden.
    • Digg.com -> Not significant; merely links to the official website
    • uk.gamespot.com, imdb and gamefaqs -> "official press release", and basically empty directory entries; no significant coverage.
    Thanks for searching for sources, but these aren't usable. Marasmusine (talk) 14:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Weak keep: Just to clarify, though the Eurogamer source can not be used to cite the content, I believe it still qualifies as a reliable source making note of a subject. Though the rest of sources don't build a strong case. I say weak keep because this is not a work of fiction, but a real-life company. Otherwise, I'd say delete. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lazulilasher (talk) 04:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The Pen & Quill[edit]

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

    Completely self-referenced. Not notable. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - The book appears to be written by the same people who write or at least sponsor the newsletter. Only a trivial mention in newspapers, doesn't satisfy WP:N the article has to be about the subject in question. Good finds though! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 15:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In my experience newspapers and magazines rarely write much about other newspapers and magazines. So while I agree the coverage isn't very substantial, the coverage does seem to assert that this publication is an authority and well repected in its field. As such it seems reasonable to include it. How many well established decades old publications on autographs are there after all? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I have historical NYT archives. The publication is only mentioned because they talk to the editor of the magazine. The actual article doesn't talk about the publication at all. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 15:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jsadserver[edit]

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

    I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. There was barely any results on two Google searches and no results on two Google News searches and two Google Books searches. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 01:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was redirect to Miss World 1973. WP:V is not negotiable - no sources, no article. Especially for WP:BLPs.  Sandstein  17:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sylva Channessian[edit]

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

    Fails WP:N and WP:V. There are no non-trivial, third-party reliable sources from which a full, neutral biography could be written about this individual. I have searched both contemporary and modern sources in English, but have found nothing substantial. I grant that there could be some contemporary/modern sources in Arabic, but the onus of finding sources is on the individual who creates the article/adds the material. In this case, however, I would love to search for sources in Arabic - I can read enough that I could at least tell if there were sources available, even if I couldn't translate them fully. Unfortunately, the problem is that I have no idea how her name was transliterated in the 1970s and, because no sources have been provided for the article, I cannot search for her name in Arabic, highlighting the need for people who provide material to also provide sources rather than sending everyone else out on a hunt. As for WP:V, even if everything in the article is verifiable, there is nothing more than that; in its current form, the information is nothing more than would be present in a list of pageant winners. If this is the only verifiable information, then it does not merit its own article at this point. Cheers, CP 19:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 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. MBisanz talk 02:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Makebelieve Records[edit]

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

    I can't fidn any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because the label isn't notable enough for its own article on Wikipedia certainly doesn't mean they don't exist. It simply means they aren't notable. There is nothing in WP:CORP to support the position that a company is notable because they have had a notable band on their roster. --JD554 (talk) 10:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not talking about what WP:CORP says. Bearcat (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's obvious that JD554 knew that and just brought it up to show that your comments go against the guidelines. Schuym1 (talk) 03:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Guidelines specifically spell out that they're not inviolable, but are "best treated with common sense and the occasional exception". Both of which pertain here. Bearcat (talk) 10:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. Schuym1 (talk) 12:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability is not inherited. A famous person must have had both a mother and father, but that doesn't mean we need articles about those people just because their son/daughter became notable. No, the fact that the band is notable does NOT mean the label producing their music is also notable.Theseeker4 (talk) 14:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A person can become notable without their parents being directly involved in their careers. A record label, however, is inseparable from a band's notability, because the record label is the conduit by which the band became notable. It's like saying that a television show can become notable by airing on a non-notable television network: it's objectively impossible, because the television show's notability is wholly dependent on the network that airs it, just as a band's notability is wholly dependent on the record label that distributes its music. It isn't about "inherited" notability; it's about the fact that it's flatly impossible for a record label to be non-notable if its affiliated artists are notable, because the record label is the venue that made the artists' notability possible. Bearcat (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. It is non-notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. Schuym1 (talk) 01:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, film companies that produce notable films get deleted in AFD because there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. How is that any different? Schuym1 (talk) 01:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And the TV show and notable channel comparison is stupid because all notable channels has significant coverage in reliable sources unlike this record label. Schuym1 (talk) 05:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not so; it is possible, and in fact quite common, for a TV channel to have absolutely no significant coverage about it as a topic in its own right, but to get coverage only in the sense of being briefly mentioned in coverage about its individual programs. In fact, more television channels fall into that boat than not. Bearcat (talk) 00:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 01:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    InnovativeCommunities.Org Foundation[edit]

    InnovativeCommunities.Org Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    No evidence of notability. No news references (Google news admittedly, not Factiva) for the current or former name of the organization. Unable to locate "significant coverage" in the rest of the 'net. Bongomatic 19:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 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. — Aitias // discussion 01:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Morgan delle Piane[edit]

    Morgan delle Piane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Notability as an artist not established, nor is family enough to support significance. Unsourced, no Google hits. Both my initial speedy template and a separate prod tag have been deleted. Time for AFD. JNW (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 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 Speedy delete CSD G3 by Orangemike. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Slovenia's Next Top Model[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Slovenia's Next Top Model (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Possible hoax. I can't find any evidence on Google that this show existed. Epbr123 (talk) 00:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  17:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Karen Graham (Dietitian)‎[edit]

    Karen Graham (Dietitian)‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Being published does not quite mean that that author is neccesarially notable. PumeleonT 21:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It should be noted that there is a redirect to this page at Karen M. Graham. PumeleonT 22:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment uh... do you want to maybe read through this again? DGG's position was to delete the article, not keep it. Trusilver 15:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The only significant source in that Google News list was an interview on CBC where she was promoting her own book. DGG (talk) 05:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    She was giving her opinion as an expert in food irradiation. Can you cite the part where she was promoting the book? --Jmundo (talk) 05:58, 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Spirit of America Band[edit]

    Spirit of America Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable marching band. Prod deletion tag removed by author. Search only turns up ~500 GHits. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 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. — Aitias // discussion 01:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Atol (software)[edit]

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

    I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 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 merge to Springfield, Missouri#Education.  Sandstein  17:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The Summit Preparatory School[edit]

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

    Recently founded elementary/middle school, without its own grounds. Article has no secondary sources. There is no evidence of noteable alumni. The only points of notability seem to come from the school's own material without objective comment. Porturology (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 01:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    $700 Billion Bailout (book)[edit]

    $700 Billion Bailout (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Nothing at all to indicate that this book is particularly notable, much less that it meets Wikipedia:Notability (books). bd2412 T 23:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Deletion requested by creator. Elonka 04:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Social class and health in the US[edit]

    Social class and health in the US (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This is an essay not an encyclopedia article Mblumber (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, the creator of the article is asking for it to be deleted? rly? --Mblumber (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It was overly specific for Social class, so I dumped it to its own article, because I was cleaning up Social class. I didn't bother to assess the section for encyclopedic relevance. I'm not the author of the text in any way shape or form.Fifelfoo (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. MBisanz talk 02:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ryan Stanchek[edit]

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

    Non-notable. The creator of this page has a history of creating articles for every WVU athlete. While some are worthy of Wikipedia entries, this one is not. Timneu22 (talk) 12:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The article says he was "second-team All-American" his senior year. Doesn't seem to meet the guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure how being a second-team All-American isn't notable. If the rules say so, then they should be altered. John (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If being second-team all-american was notable I suppose there would be substantial independent coverage of this athlete. I do think there's a case to be made that starting college athletes in major sports are notable, but this isn't the place for that discussion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Now that would be speculation, see WP:CRYSTALBALL Scapler (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please show me where I inserted my analysis of his draft prospect into an article. That rule says nothing about the basis on which an editor may support or oppose the deletion of an article. In fact, using your own good judgment about the future is probably an all around good idea in this case. Using WP:CRYSTALBALL to demand the procedural deletion of an article that we know we are going to create in short order is silly and only creating extra work. This person is obviously notable and it's hardly worth arguing. --B (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Discounted Iamawesome800's and MISTER ALCOHOL's comments for making no pertinent arguments.  Sandstein  17:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jock Sanders[edit]

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

    Non-notable. The creator of this page has a history of creating articles for every WVU athlete. While some are worthy of Wikipedia entries, this one is not. Jock Sanders may end up being notable, but right now he is not. Timneu22 (talk) 12:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's delete every college player then, if your notability rules state that being a pro makes an article notable or not. Whether I'm the creator or not, being an all-conference selection and being a multiple starter should be enough notability for our "rules". John (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Some college players can be notable; it just so happens that this one is not. How many athletes from how many colleges are All-BIG EAST in a given sport? Just because John Smith from Rutgers is Second Team All-Big EAST tennis, this does not make the person notable. Timneu22 (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a substantial difference between being an all-conference selection in tennis and football. This is obvious. John (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This may be obvious to you — a West Virginian who follows American sports — but tennis has a more global following than American Football. Wikipedia is global. Timneu22 (talk) 23:54, 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  17:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Devin Ebanks[edit]

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

    Non-notable. The creator of this page has a history of creating articles for every WVU athlete. While some are worthy of Wikipedia entries, this one is not. Like many of the other articles, this one is an orphan page. Timneu22 (talk) 12:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:13, 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. — Aitias // discussion 15:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Darryl Bryant[edit]

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

    Non-notable. The creator of this page has a history of creating articles for every WVU athlete. While some are worthy of Wikipedia entries, this freshman basketball player is not. Timneu22 (talk) 12:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  17:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Scooter Berry[edit]

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

    Non-notable. The creator of this page has a history of creating articles for every WVU athlete. While some are worthy of Wikipedia entries, this one is not. The subject is not noteworthy, and this is an orphan page. Timneu22 (talk) 12:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: The links to the article on this AfD were broken. They have now been fixed. Thanks ~ mazca t|c 15:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:11, 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 Merge to Stockton massacre. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Patrick Purdy[edit]

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

    Although the proposal has been made to merge this article with Stockton massacre, there is nothing to merge that doesn't already exist there. The subject fails WP:BLP1E and there is no reason to have a separate article on him when all the pertinent information exists elsewhere. Trusilver 23:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Even though there is not a lot to merge, I'd propose not to delete the page, as a redirect to the Stockton massacre article has to be created anyway. (Lord Gøn (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    I don't see any problem with a redirect to Stockton massacre. Trusilver 00:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Opposed I've changed my mind and added information to the article. See also here (Lord Gøn (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    I've read through the additions you have made to the article and while they are good and the article is better than it was before, it is still a violation of WP:BLP1E. When the subject is only know in conjunction with an event he was involved in, we write an article about the event rather than the person. Trusilver 21:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Initially I wanted to add the biographical part to the Stockton massacre article, though there are people who are vehemently against this. During a discussion at the talk page of mentioned article I was pointed at the following section of the WP:BIO1E:
    Coverage in Reliable sources may at times be extensive and may expand upon the person's background, but information on the person should generally be included in the article on the event itself, unless the information is so large that this would make the article unwieldy or sources have written primarily about the person, and only secondarily about the event. In that case, the discussion of the person should be broken out from the event article in summary style.
    As there was quite a lot of news coverage exclusively about Purdy's life I'd say we should keep the article about him. Not that I would mind if it was merged into the Stockton massacre article, but then look at the Talk page. Half of it is bitching about even mentioning the perpetrator's name.(Lord Gøn (talk) 21:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but it can be pretty comprehensively discussed in the article about the crime, and with a redirect, it goes to the appropriate article. Does it matter if typing in his name takes a person to the article about the crime, rather than to this shrine? Mandsford (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And how many articles do we need about the same thing? There is already an article about the incident where everything important about the individual has been covered. What does him having his own article really accomplish besides adding irrelevant information? Trusilver 06:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seung-Hui Cho, Eric Harris, or Dylan Klebold this guy isn't... not by far. Those individuals had significant and extensive press coverage surrounding their motives, as well as their entire lives basically being laid out and examined by the media. Now, you might say that the only reason that the same didn't happen with Patrick Purdy is because he committed his crime about a decade too early. But still, that doesn't change the fact that the "life" section of this article is 90% irrelevant fluff leading up to the last two paragraphs which are the only thing relevant to the crime. Trusilver 02:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Seung-Hui Cho, Eric Harris, or Dylan Klebold this guy isn't... not by far.
    What do you want to say? That he isn't as important as Cho and Harris & Klebold? Well, the shooting certainly was a big story in 1989 and Purdy a person of interest, whose life was examined as far as it is possible, if the subject is a drifter with few personal contacts. And who decides what is "irrelevant fluff" anyway? Is the Background-section of the Charles Whitman article also "irrelevant fluff"? (Lord Gøn (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:08, 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. — Aitias // discussion 01:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Math in Swimming[edit]

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

    Virtually the whole article is a WP:COATRACK and a WP:FORK about drag (fluid mechanics). —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 01:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Golden's paradox[edit]

    Golden's paradox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This article merely repeats its listing on List of paradoxes. I challenge whether it needs an article just to repeat this and whether it's notable enough to deserve an article of its own. Would the entry in the list not be another, since it explains the entry? Greggers (t • c) 17:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Apparently this one was not added to the January 2 AFD list. I have added it to the January 8 list. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:12, 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.
    More