< 19 March	21 March >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guillermo Jalomo[edit]

Player is non-notable per WP:FOOTYN, having never played in a professional league and have not been contracted to do so JonBroxton (talk) 23:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 02:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as player fails WP:ATHLETE; recreate when/if player becomes notable. Giant Snowman 02:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article fails WP:N and WP:ATHLETE. Jogurney (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Snowman. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. as for Commune 1--same arguments apply DGG (talk) 00:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commune 6 (Popayán)[edit]

no sources, unverified, non-notable, original research —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 23:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commune 1 (Popayán) for my reasoning. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 02:25, 24 March 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) 23:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commune 1 (Popayán)[edit]

no sources, unverified, non-notable, original research —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 22:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing verifiability and notability. Are there reliable sources proving it is (or was) a populated place, recognized as such by the government, shown on maps, included in census lists, written up in geography or history books? Give us something encyclopedic or remove it. Edison (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreation if we find sufficient to say about it that it can be a branch of the main article. Same for the other numbered commune articles, by the way. Each of these is apparently a city neighborhood; while some neighborhoods can be independently notable, most are better off mentioned or described in the main city article. --GRuban (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and the other 8 "Commune X (Popayán)" articles. These are apparently either neighborhoods the city of Popayán or subdivisions of the municipality of Popayán. This type of subdivision may or may not be notable, but the problem I'm having is simply verifying that they exist. These need to be deleted for now with no prejudice against recreation with reliable sources. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 02:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. yandman 15:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Human Achievement Hour[edit]

Would be better called "Ignore Earth Hour Hour". The author presumably thinks that adding a link to this at ClimateBiz.com helps to establish notability. I would say that phrases such as "entirely new level of strangeness" and "bizarre" show that ClimateBiz thinks the idea is not notable. Only fractionally above NFT level. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The commentor presumably thinks that criticism from ClimateBiz determines the event is not notable. ClimateBiz commentary will obviously be opposed to CEI or anyone that sides with their position or takes part in the event. Obviously they believe (or hope) the event is not notable. Using their sentiments to determine notability is therefore asinine. The use of the link is clearly to show a major player in the environmental movement noting the event. The observation by the of the event taking place justifies its notability. Thehondaboy (talk —Preceding undated comment added 20:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Delete It looks like a one-shot publicity stunt created by the Competitive Enterprise Institute. It doesn't meet WP:RS standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete = This is one step up from an Internet prank. As said above, even the link provided to show notability actually shows non-notability. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 05:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's a publicity stunt that didn't get any publicity. No reliable sources = no notability. -- Whpq (talk) 11:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete A simple Google search lists over 10 separate articles, and countless retreads on the event in 3 days. Two of which are on Digg with high digg counts. The content for this holiday seems to be growing by the hour on both the pro and dissent side anchoring its notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehondaboy (talk • contribs) 17:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete This is clearly a legitimate attempt to parody the so-called "Earth Hour" celebration (which is itself a manufactured celebration.) There are several references to it on the Internet now (over 1,900 from a Google search for "Human Achievement Hour"). Even solely as a counterprotest to "Earth Hour" the event has generated anough publicity and noteriety to be included, as Wikipedia often includes protests, pranks, and stunts (see The Chaser APEC pranks, which was a recently featured Wikipedia article. Those attempting to have the article removed have not made any real case besides blandly referencing the WP:SR (As opposed to "RS") standards. Removing this article would violate the neutrality standards for Wikipedia and damage Wikipedia's reputation as a reliable and neutral source of information. 19:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Counting Google hits doesn't giver rise to notability, nor does it establish reliable sources. Present these reliable sources and we can be convinced. -- Whpq (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The deletion protest was logged a day after the press release. Launching a deletion request so soon after the creation of an event and article hardly sounds like the action of someone who can be convinced. Perhaps this should be decided after the 28th.
    - Articles need to be able to meet notability at the time time they are created. We don't create articles in the hopes that the subject may become notable in the future. As such it is entirely appropriate to bring this article forward for a deletion discussion. -- Whpq (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - It certainly sounds like the attempts of someone opposed to the event, rather than someone simply and unbiasedly concerned about whether it should or should not exist. The reasons for it's removal are weak. There are reasonable sources that have listed the event. Whpq asks for reliable sources. I don't know who Whpq is. He is some random guy on the Internet. Why would he get to decide what is or is not a "reliable source." Weak argument for deletion. Additionally, he again makes the assumption based on personal bias that the event is not notable. The argument that "We don't create articles in the hopes that the subject may become notable in the future," is not valid because it has not been agreed on that the subject is not notable. The events notability has not been agreed upon, so therefore we can't determine that it is currently or will be notable. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.Thehondaboy (talk —Preceding undated comment added 20:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
        I suggest you read over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to discuss an AfD. The article has been brought forward specifically because one editor believes that the article fails to meet guidelines and policies as outlined in the nomination. Who is whpq? It's me, an editor on Wikipedia. All editors can review deletion discussions and weigh in with their opinions. As for what is considered a reliable source, Wikipedia:Reliable sources provides the guideance to all editors. In particular, press releases do not establish notability as outlined in Wikipedia:Notability. -- Whpq (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's a stupid idea, it's a publicity stunt, but it meets WP:N there are 188 hits in Google news for it so it is getting significant coverage.--RadioFan2 (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you review these results? Can you point out the significant coverage? I simply don't see it. -- Whpq (talk) 03:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's been the subject of articles in the The National Post, USA Today, The National Review and Financial Post, these seem like reasonable 3rd party references to me. I do wonder why Google News is bringing up so many hits on "Human Achievement Hour" that are actually Earth Day articles that dont mention Human Achievement Hour at all.--RadioFan2 (talk) 12:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please provide a link to the Google News search that gets 188 hits. I certainly can't see them. At the time of writing Google News gives me 2 hits from the last month (a reprint of a press release written in the first person and a dead link to a blog) and nothing at all from more than a month ago. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ghits do not notability make. No significant coverage in reliable sources. AngoraFish 木 10:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So the following are not reliable sources: The National Post, USA Today, The National Review and Financial Post? If that's the case, then we have clear bias present from individuals who obviously want to see the article removed for reasons outside of its worthiness to appear on Wikipedia.Thehondaboy (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can you provide a citation for these articles? Vague assertions that something was published does not establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The National Post picked up the Minton article The National Post - the others are news links to the Green Biz article through those services. {http://content.usatoday.com/topics/article/Competitive+Enterprise+Institute/00Ee9Wz8MPge7/1 USA Today CEI Links] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.70.83 (talk) 03:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ This just got picked up by Michelle Malkin. michellemalkin.com. Any further questioning of it's relevance or notoriety is at this point garbage rhetoric from individuals biased against this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehondaboy (talk • contribs) 17:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, only one !vote per customer. -- Whpq (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete - Apart from the fact that the Green movement's anti-science policies should be shown up for what they are, any argument for deletion is self-defeating censorship.

Is this what Wikipedia is about?

207.216.216.16 (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Ted[reply]

Do Not Delete I read about this event in the daily paper, and naturally I wanted to know more so I went to Wikipedia. HAH is current affairs high comedy - imagine my surprise to find it up for deletion! I suspect the "deleters" have a humorless hidden agenda. Bushcutter (talk) 06:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Calling it current affairs would seem to indicate you beleive it is a news item which is actually a criterion for deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 09:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. the reason for not re-nominating immediately after a non-consensus close is that a reasonable interval offers a better chance for consensus to form; this is an example--we are no nearer consensus this time. I'd suggest waiting at least a month to see if there are improvements. DGG (talk) 23:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Tissue Image Systems[edit]

See WP:Articles for deletion/SureClick—while SureClick was straightened out, this article was not. Copyvio, nonsense, copy & paste from other articles, irrelevant tangents, and "under construction." Dori (Talk • Contribs) 22:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have removed the AFD tag from Automated Tissue Image Systems. You can't AFD an article that just went through the AFD process. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 02:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sureclick is a different article. Please don't remove the AfD template. If you have an issue with it take it to the appropriate admin board. I believe there is already a discussion at WP:ANI. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But they were both nommed for AFD in the same AFD. Policy states an article that just came from AFD can't go back into AFD so soon. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 03:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Policy also states that we can ignore all rules if there's a good reason to. Why are you so intent on derailing this potentially useful discussion on a technicality?
Why are people so intent on not following policy? That's what it's there for. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 03:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Policy is there to suppress constructive debate and sweep it under the rug? Really? Reyk _YO! 04:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to insist, the closing can be listed at DRV, where it will, with respect to ATIS, be overturned, with a direction to relist, and then we'll be right back here. 69.212.65.147 (talk) 04:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, DRV is where it should have gone since policy is an article that just went through AfD can't go through it so soon. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 12:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The policy doesn't say that at all. It discourages nominating articles again and again in the hope of getting a different outcome, but it does not forbid relisting articles if there's a good reason. Reyk _YO! 01:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ At least some of this is a copyright violation from: here/here "Algorithms should checked for accuracy. Recalls have occurred because algorithms were incorrectly copied from a source". If not deleted then someone needs to vet this extensive text for copyright violations. That sentence was the first one I checked. Chillum 05:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now that the copyright infringements have been removed. Chillum 04:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Some of it is also copied straight from here. Reyk _YO! 05:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean-up per the AfD that ended less than 40 hours ago amongst other reasons, this article has wp:Problems which should simply be addressed through regular editing. Plenty notable devices and given the intensified interest in stem cell research I imagine this is useful information but it does drill way down when that may not be needed. Obviously copyvio issues should be addressed but I suggest purging away and rewrite which may alleviate those concerns. -- Banjeboi 09:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the AfD that ended less than 40 hours ago and clean up the article. Regardless any copyvio concerns, it's a notable thing and the article just needs some TLC. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 12:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete The copyright issues as well as what could be construed to be promotional text should be addressed, but the article constitutes an interesting read on a notable subject and there is no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater, as it were. Unomi (talk) 17:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend that should the outcome of this be delete, that the page is moved to the userspace of the creator so that he may continue improving it. Unomi (talk) 17:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~I am copying it to my userspace and should it be deleted here perhaps it can one day emerge as a cleaned up article. Unomi (talk) 00:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep per many above. -65.246.126.130 (talk) 18:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If it's a copy vio, delete the copyvio immediately. Article is written so badly it's rather embarrassing if its copied from elsewhere. --KP Botany (talk) 23:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as I wrote over at ANI:

I've looked, and I haven't been able to find any policy page that says an AFD ending in "No consensus" cannot be sent through AFD again shortly thereafter. If that's policy, fine, but it should be written down somewhere. Me, I just thought of the new AFD as equivalent to re-listing, which is what I thought was going to occur when it was closed, instead.

OTOH, when Articles for deletion/SureClick was closed, MBisanz (the AFD's closer) didn't take the AFD message off of Automated Tissue Image Systems. My guess is that that was because he didn't realize that it was part of the AFD. I'm not blaming him for that in any way, just myself—I realized later that I'd written it up in such a way that it wasn't obvious that two articles were covered. Consequently, I figured it was a good idea to run it through AFD as an individual article.

Yes, there's some copyvio in the article. And some nonsense. And some copy & paste from at least one other WP article. And some unrelated babbling. And some... well, I'll just quote T L Miles, writing about SureClick during its AFD:

I've removed all the things that have only tangential references to the subject. These include 90% of the text, as there were entire FDA regulation texts and manuals on product testing and complaint processes. I can only hope that these were copyvio, cause otherwise the writer has real issues.

IMO, Automated Tissue Image Systems has more issues than SureClick did, and needs at least 90% of its text cut to be worth keeping. Unfortunately, it's written so randomly that I can't tell which parts (if any) are worth keeping. And with copyvio issues, I'd rather we got rid of it entirely than keep it around in the hopes that someday, someone might take action to clean it up. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 00:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments in response to some of the above:
- Note that the previous AFD did not end as Keep, but as No Consensus. They're not the same thing.
- How about one of you that wrote, "it shouldn't be deleted; it should be cleaned up", go clean it up? Me, I can't make heads or tails of the thing, so I can't do it. If you think that part of it is worth keeping, figure out what that part is so that we can at least get rid of the copyvio.
- Unomi: I'd be fine with userfying if I thought the original author cared. Given that he was notified about the original CSDs and AFDs, and his response was to blank his talk page, I don't think that he's interested. And in particular, I don't think moving copyvio text into user space solves anything.
- KP Botany: if you can tell which parts are copyvio, please feel free to delete them. I can't tell; all I know is that whenever I put in a line or two into Google, I almost always find it elsewhere. Does taking two lines each from 20 different articles and using them verbatim count as fair use? What if it's all copied from many other sources, two lines at a time? Dori (Talk • Contribs) 00:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you put in one line and it turns up just about the same in google, delete it. Don't sweat fair use, just delete every single line copied from another source.
  - It's kinda funny, actually, reading the article. "Communicating test results involves presenting data (in text and graphic forms) to the system user in a format that is not only friendly to oncologists or qualified system users for verification and further analysis, but should also be as realistic as the actual specimen and not introduce additional artifacts." It's not even English. So, no need to be concerned about whether or not we can fairly use it, we dont' really want to use this on Wikipedia. And, yes, you're correct, moving copyvio text into user space does not address anything. Anyway, I started from the top, feel free to start at the bottom and meet me half way. --KP Botany (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'll take it and see if I can do something with it. I don't know if this is the proper way, but I have created atis in my userspace, feel free to hack away at it there. Unomi (talk) 00:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC) Nevermind KP is already pruning it in place.[reply]

← Check my prune, though, please. I hacked most of the article away. Most of the article was too detailed about the technical parts of the system and the microscopes which are not what the system is about, it's mostly about its software, but it requires the high end digital micrograph acquisition and processing systems. Their details belong in their articles. --KP Botany (talk) 00:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)--KP Botany (talk) 00:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I find myself still baffled by it. For instance, the preparation section (so far as I can tell) says, "Preparation is important. Do this, then do this. The resulting inconsistency is why we use ATIS." Are the described steps part of ATIS, or what's been obsoleted by ATIS? The references and external links section needs to be integrated into the article as inline citations, assuming that they back up what the article says. Much of it is just jargon that the initial author threw in, so far as I can tell.

This is should not be in any way read as disparaging of KP Botany—as I said, I'm not even capable of doing what he was able to. But I do think that after 90% is thrown out, what's left shows that there's a stub of an article at best. I'd rather see it deleted so that someone who knows their stuff can start fresh. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 00:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The listed steps are standard tissue processing protocols. In the United States, for medical tissue, these processes are rigidly regulated to guarantee a standard of outcome; however, they involve human beings doing the processing and leave plenty of room for errors in every step. What automated tissue imaging systems in the fixation step is take the human error out of parts. The microscopes and microscopy techniques were simply a list of microscopes and techniques commonly used in the biological sciences, although heavy on widefield fluorescence systems. The software components were standard components and deconvolution algorithms used in digital imaging systems. That's why I removed most of these sections, or rather what I did to the article: I removed all material that was in-depth or listed information about general applications of digital imaging in microscopy or general histology applications and had not been directly related in the text to the subject. I'm fine with a stub or deletion. Pop the references into my user space if the article is deleted. I'm trying to get a few things done in a hurry. --KP Botany (talk) 04:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We need the Medical project to have a look at this. -- Banjeboi 09:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a legitimate medical thing to have an article about. No reason not to have it. Dream Focus 19:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But is this what they're actually called? And do you have a single reliable source showing that this is the proper title for the article, and expanding a bit upon the, so I can at least accurately write the stub? I can't sort through all those sources, the first few were not useful. --KP Botany (talk) 06:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Google says the title is inaccurate—put in that exact phrase, and once you take out all the Wikipedia mirror sites, you're left with nothing. And your experience with the sources is just what I expected based on this editor's other contributions. Thinking about changing your !vote? Dori (Talk • Contribs) 22:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sean D Reynolds[edit]

Appears to have issues per WP:AUTO and WP:BIO. Uncertain whether achievement listed here meets notability standards. Also being used as WP:SOAPBOX for personal beliefs. Appears largely self-promotional. Article's creator, editing once under own name and once anonymously, deleted speedy template. JNW (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete as per nom--Moloch09 (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an auto biography, but the facts are documented and published. The requirements of WP:BIO are met as the achievement of getting a Helicopter to fly itself with an Arduino processor was deemed notable enough to be published by 3 independent sources. Seanreynoldscs (talk) 22:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page is by no means being used as WP:SOAPBOX. The opinions are those of the person being reference in the article. It is clearly stated by the author of the article that beliefs being referenced are those of the person being referenced. Furthermore it is not a soapbox to refer to something that is a widely accepted belief, it is merely one more person who believes that. This article is about Sean_D_Reynolds. He Believes what the article says he believes. He is Notable because of his published achievements, and his achievements are referenced by 3 independent credible sources. Seanreynoldscs (talk) 22:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC) — Seanreynoldscs (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete as per nom. Agree on notability and WP:SOAPBOX issues, as well as potential WP:COI. There have been numerous UAV implementations, being the world's first for a particular implementation is not notable itself. Especially when I found implementations of the same thing from 9 months earlier [1] through a simple Google search. Though one is a plane and the other a helicopter, it's not a distinctly new idea. Rurik (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per Wikipedia:Notability_(geography). SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 22:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chima (town)[edit]

No article, no sources, non-notable —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 21:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve Jenuk1985 | Talk 21:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Improve. I'm pretty sure sources are out there. Acebulf (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you should try to actually find a source. without sources, this article is violating several wikipedia policies like verifiability and no original research as well as guidelines like notability. —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 22:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it is "a town and municipality"--Caspian blue 21:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - long precedent states that legally recognized population centres are inherently notable, and a google search [2] backs up that it does in fact exist. Grandmartin11 (talk) 21:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well, notability requires significant coverage. that's a lot more than just a low-quality source that confirms only the existence. —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 22:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually "...to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be." (from wp:n) With legally recognized population centres there is the assumption that it is mentioned in the country's legal and census records, within the country in question. Colombia you have to admit, does not have as highly digitized records as much of the First World. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing verifiability and notability. Are there reliable sources proving it is (or was) a populated place, recognized as such by the government, shown on maps, included in census lists, written up in geography or history books? Give us something encyclopedic or remove it. Also it appears to be a hoax: why would a town in Colombia have a name in a language from Nigeria? Was there some great Nigerian conquest of South America the history books forgot to mention? Edison (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure you could have found this yourself. Jenuk1985 | Talk 23:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Does a reliable source describe how it was settled by pioneers from Nigeria? Edison (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I can't believe for one minute that people are doubting the existence of this town! Just google it, not really hard to do. Jenuk1985 | Talk 23:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no reason that we should treat this differently from other communities. We don't require communities to have census listings, by the way. As far as the Nigerian thing: it appears to be a coincidence, so I've removed that bit entirely. Nyttend (talk) 00:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Real places are inherently notable. Edward321 (talk) 00:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Verified population center. Towns/villages are inherently notable regardless of size. Being a one-sentence stub is not grounds for deletion. --Oakshade (talk) 00:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep - its Verifiable in Reliable Sources. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's generally been held that all communities are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 04:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A lot of people seem to have this idea that all populated places are inherently notable (don't have to provide sources that prove notability). Where does this idea come from? Certainly not WP:N! —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 05:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it's always been held to be the case on AfD debates. And as I've said over and over again, you can't "prove" notability. Notability is always subjective. The problem with "proving" notability with populated places is that places outside the developed world would be discriminated against because internet sources are less likely to mention them. That then biases Wikipedia towards the developed world, which is rightly considered to be wrong. Thus, we have always considered that if a place is a genuine community (i.e. more than the odd house) then we should have an article on it. Since Chima is a municipality, it quite clearly falls into this category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:N gives a clear objective rule for how to determine notability: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Do you think that this article meets this rule? —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 12:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I refer you to WP:IAR! That definitely applies to communities and has been so held in previous AfDs. Wikipedia is about providing information readers might want to find, not obsessively following a series of bureaucratic procedures. Think: might a reader want to find information on a town which has municipality status and is shown on the map? Answer: yes. Think: can this article be expanded at some time in the future by someone who is prepared to do some research? Answer: yes. It therefore meets notability guidelines to my satisfaction. And obviously to the satisfaction of the majority of people who have contributed to this debate thus far. Try not to be too hidebound by guidelines - they are not the be all and end all of Wikipedia. That's why they're called guidelines. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - i'm not being "hidebound" by the rules. the fact is, this article hasn't only not presented significant coverage by reliable and independent sources, it hasn't presented significant coverage by unreliable or dependent sources. The only thing that has been presented is insignificant coverage (a dot on a map) by semi-reliable sources with unknown independance. —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 13:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Places has already been bought up here, probably worth another read. Wikipedia:Notability_(geography) is also worth a read. Its worth pointing out that there is now no longer any dispute that the place exists, so I'm not really sure what the issue is here. Jenuk1985 | Talk 13:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton ^Talk · ^Review 18:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

F*INK[edit]

Appears to fail WP:N. Notability is not shown. Unable to find evidence of significant coverage by reliable sources Taroaldo (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to violate WP:N and WP:SPAM --Mhking (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, I cannot understand why you think this article is not worthy to be included in Wikipedia. This free weekly guide survived an amazing 12 years, supported all kinds of local arts activity and communities, and the publication has now closed so this article is not an advertisement. I would like some help and assistance rather than deletion! :Cargill208 (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Technically it isn't possible to have an adverisement for something that has ceased publication. Yes, there are stylistic issues but that is not grounds for deletion.dramatic (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Missing reliable sources, not enough notability and possibly ad/spam. Versus22_talk 22:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - article contains too much POV/OR material, but exhibition by one of NZ's largest Libraries is some indication of notability, provided non-trivial sources can be found. (e.g. was there a newspaper feature in the ODT based around the exhibition?)dramatic (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The information I saw did not indicate that the library initiated the exhibit. In my area, major libraries have exhibit rooms which can be booked by someone wishing to put on an exhibit. This type of situation would not qualify as notability. Taroaldo (talk) 22:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. dramatic (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I have found two references to f*INK: one is 'The Rough Guide to New Zealand' Third edition. ed. Laura Harper, Tony Mudd, Paul Whitfield. p.743. Rough Guides Limited, London, 2002. The quote reads "For the latest on the Dunedin Sound, check out f*INK the free entertainment pamphlet available all around town, including the visitor centre (or see www.fink.net.nz), which keeps track of Dunedin's bands, singers and songwriters." [3] :Cargill208 (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The second source is 'Lonely Planet New Zealand'. Harding, P., Bain, C., Bedford, N. 11th Edition. Lonely Planet Publications Pty Ltd, Sydney, 2002. p591. "ENTERTAINMENT: The Otago Daily Times newspaper lists what's on around the city, but the best publication is the free f*INK, available around town or online at www.fink.net.nz." :Cargill208 (talk) 22:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Information such as this is basically a directory entry; doesn't indicate notability. (Yellowpages for tourists.) Now if these publications had written feature articles on the subject, that would be different. Taroaldo (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to do more research at the Dunedin Public Library to find information that validates the hard work done over twelve years. The publication was not some throwaway guide, it was a hub for creative communities before the internet became easy to use and popular. The fact that little was written about it seems to consign it to the dustbin of history, and yet the musical groups and bands that it supported all have pages in Wikipedia. see Dunedin Sound. Thanks for your help with this, how long do I have before my page is deleted? Cargill208 (talk) 23:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Typically five days, but if it is deleted then and you find something to show notability afterwards it can always be undeleted again. --Amalthea 23:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The references you have found so far would be sufficient to support a short mention at Dunedin#Media. F*INK could then redirect there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by dramatic (talk • contribs) 01:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Dunedin#Media per dramatic if no additional sources can be found. Cunard (talk) 00:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. User shows good faith; give the article a chance to revelop with references. -- Chzz ► 02:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. F*INK is certainly very well-known locally in Dunedin, and there are some potential references. It's definitely be at the bottom end of the notability scale, though (it's hardly the ODT or Channel 9). Failing that, a merge in to Dunedin#media seems a viable move. Grutness...wha? 22:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Icewedge (talk) 02:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neo Destiny Episode I: Worlds Apart[edit]

Contested proposed deletion canididate. The prod template was removed by the page creator, so it is probably worth getting independent eyes running over this. There's nothing turning up in even the fringes of reliable sources, so I think the original prod rationale of there being no evidence of notability stands up. Hiding T 21:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 21:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability, per Wikipedia:Notability (books). Self-published and no third party coverage. I42 (talk) 21:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When it's in the book shops, AND selling respectably, try again. Print on Demand is very small market stuff. Friends and family, as the Wikipedia article says. (I hope, by the way, that the version that's available has been proof-read better than the article has...) Peridon (talk) 21:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self-published book with no third-party references. Also almost no google hits, so none are likely to exist. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- No reliable sources to indicate notability and it's likely a conflict of interest as well. Reyk _YO! 22:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self-published book with no evidence of notability presented. I prodded it earlier today. The prod was contested, but so far no new information has been added. I suspect the author is the person who created the article. He seems to be new to Wikipedia, so he's probably not familiar with the Five Pillars, much less the AfD process. I was going to give him some leeway time to come up with some third party refs. But since it's already at AfD, I have to say that as it stands, it doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 03:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete print-on-demand is the equivalent of vanity publishing or self publishing as far as notability goes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Valley2city^‽ 18:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha terminology[edit]

Unnotable list of "terminology" from an anime series; primarily WP:PLOT and WP:OR with no third-party sources. At best such terms are best explained within the existing main articles when first mentioned, most of which never are. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, subject to copyright considerations. Appears to complement the main article and is too large to include within that. However, I suspect this is not all original material; note, for example, [4] which is word-for-word identical in places. I42 (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- large and indiscriminate collection of minute facts about a work of fiction. A lot of this is original research inferred from the anime, and there's way woo much plot summary. There are only primary sources so this article does not pass our threshold for notability. Reyk _YO! 22:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Not only is this article full of trivial information that is not necessary to understand the work. Most of the article is unverifiable and based on original research. Most of the terms is technobabble in the first place. --Farix (Talk) 22:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment glossaries are acceptable content on Wikipedia, and there are several glossaries on fictional in-universe terminology in Wikipedia. 76.66.201.179 (talk) 05:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I understand that Wiktionary also takes glossaries. Though I'm not sure about ones based in fiction. 76.66.201.179 (talk) 05:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia isn't a guide, directory, or indiscriminate collection of information. Sourcing is also very shabby and implies original research. Them From Space 18:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete detailed plot info dressed up as a glossary, and even a proper glossary on Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha isn't something an encyclopedia needs. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and other AfD's on term lists. Easily merged into plot, character, episode, and/or volume summaries where needed. ~Itzjustdrama ^{C ?} 01:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Excessive plot summary. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 04:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary as the most relevant terms could be explained on the fly in characters section, plot section, episode summaries and wherever required. --KrebMarkt 07:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as G11 by Nyttend. NAC. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4 ACE[edit]

Contested speedy. Must we explain why it's a bad idea to have a self-promotional article called 4 ACE by a single-purpose user named 4ACE? Biruitorul ^Talk 20:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per blatant advertising criteria G11. Cheers. I'^mperator 21:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Spam spam spam LetsdrinkTea 00:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BJ^Talk 00:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expressions with piss[edit]

This article is original research, and reads a bit like a personal opinion essay. None of the sources address the concept of "Expressions with piss." Instead, they are examples of it in history that the article author decided himself represent a phenomenon worthy of an article, i.e., original synthesis of published material. I don't see this concept as being a fruitful subject for an encyclopedia article, in any case (the list of expressions and their definitions would be treated by Wiktionary). Dominic·t 20:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is an essay comparing the use of the word "piss" in two specific literary works, not an article on the word in general. Zetawoof_(ζ) 22:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Personal essay. Wikipedia is not the place for original works. Reyk _YO! 22:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – an essay chock-full of synthesis. MuZemike 23:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on a sec (comment) - I do see something potentially worthwhile about an article on the cultural significance of urine. Maybe the article needs to be revised and re-titled, but I wouldn't want to throw out the baby with the, er, pisswater. J L G 4 1 0 4 00:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Daniel (talk) 08:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom goff[edit]

Appears to be non-notable and a hoax T-95 (talk) 20:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a hoax to me. Near the end he talks about WMDs in Kentucky. Radiant chains (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I may be biased, since I have indef blocked the original editor for creating nonsense pages and deleted the Tom goff related and other CSD'd articles, but I believe the article content to be only fit for horticulture. Delete LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY DEL - hello? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord ² 21:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious hoax. Edward321 (talk) 00:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if there's any doubt, just have a look at the article's talkpage... --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord ² 00:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as probable hoax.Nrswanson (talk) 07:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey Gair[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Audrey Gair

Keeping it simple, the page lacks any sources, and mentions nothing why she is notable. Yes web sites exist some as a promotional matter some photos but nothing about what she did at least i could find, at the very least i would support a merge with the kenny hotz article Landlord77 (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not asserted, let alone shown. No sources. Should not be merged to anything. Edward321 (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a model who has not received coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 12:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to locate sufficient verification of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources to meet the requirements of WP:BIO. Extensive Google searches turn up mostly image portfolio websites, online modeling agency profiles and red carpet images from the 2008 Gemini Awards. No prejudice towards recreation if reliable sources are found. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Almost all the keep arguments are that it was kept twice before. It was not. The first keep would have been more accurately closed no-consensus, and the 2nd was a non-consensus close. I strongly dislike frequently or rapidly repeated nominations as potentially unfair, but this was not unfair. The delete arguments that the sources are inadequate for notability, on the other hand, are well-founded in policy. DGG (talk) 23:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Schlund[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Vanity. Notability is alleged mainly through act of having flown a Rocketbelt, and look a lot like WP:1E. Listing from WP:ANI notice to stop the warring at the article. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:BIO, no independent notability and in addition, as nom states, BLP1E applies. It's mainly an ad for the "rocketman", to get to parades etc. At most, this could be a redirect to Jet pack. --Crusio (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are a couple of minor sources out there acknowledging that this person does, in fact, exist, but nothing that meets our standards for multiple instances of independent and reliable and nontrivial sources that demonstrate a reason why he is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Proving he has a jet pack is trivial, proving why he should be considered so important he gets a page all to himself is another thing entirely, and some people tend to forget that last part in AFD discussions. Also it's pretty clear from the page history that it was created mainly for self-promotional purposes, and that person seems to be in the background on one or more accounts trying to justify its inclusion because he doesn't want to lose what is essentially a free ad. DreamGuy (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Sources were found in the last afd that discuss this gentleman in depth, thus establishing notability. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for now ~~Keep~~ - Subject is notable as established in reliable sources. ~~[5]~~, [6], [7], ~~[8], [9], [10], [11], [12]~~ (See the previous AfD for more) — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go through these one by one:

Link 1 has a brief, trivial mention... and SPACE.com is notorious for reprinting press releases as is, so I don't know that it could be considered to be independent anyway. Link 2 has the exact same problems, and is even more obviously just a reprinted press release, including the promotional links and language at the bottom. Link 3 doesn't appear to be much more than a press release either. Link four is just a photo caption on a website. Link five doesn't exist. Link six is a trivial mention in a story about a another topic. Link seven is, again, a trivial mention in an article on another topic. Link eight is, again, just a photo caption.

So, if that's the best you have, you only prove the point that he's not notable. At best you could justify a short mention in another article, as that's all these articles do. To justify an article of his own you need sources about him and only him from independent, reliable sources that would demonstrate some sort of individual notability, not some sort of collective notability. DreamGuy (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Upon looking at them a second time, a lot of the links I gave only include a trivial mention (and #5 is MIA). The only ones with more extensive coverage are #2 and #3. For number 2, it might be a press release, but I wasn't able tell. It looked like a regular article with an author. If these two sources are reliable, I think they do establish some degree of notability. I'm lowering my recommendation to a "weak keep" for now. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 21:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Perhaps renaming the article to Rocketman (stuntman) would be appropriate since that's his stage name and that's the only (?) thing he's known for. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have carefully reviewed this many times, and he is not notable, pure vanity, WP:SPAM as far as i'm concerned, WP:1E, at best a stunt man. All the articles refer to him as a stuntman, or as a pure case of novelty...they do not indicate notability. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 20:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Previous AFD only three weeks ago. Trout Slap the editors who won't let it be, this is a disruptive waste of time. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AFD had no consensus, and an admin listed this specifically because he thought not listing it was disruptive. And do you have any sort of justification for a keep vote other than being annoyed? DreamGuy (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please conform your comments to WP:CIVIL. And don't make up stories like "thought not listing it was disruptive." The article survived two AFDs and has better sourcing than half the BLPs I've looked at lately. Your refusal to accept the fact that your view doesn't enjoy consensus has led you to behave uncivilly and disruptively. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, first off WP:KETTLE on the civility claims. I didn't make up any stories (the WP:AN page confirms what I said), and your claim that there was a consensus that I am supposedly ignoring is what's totally made up. Please explain how a "no consensus" AFD vote and talk page discussion where the majority of people want the page redirected somehow means I am ignoring consensus. I'm going to assume good faith and choose to believe you are just confused (and in a bad mood) and not purposefully trying to deceive people. DreamGuy (talk) 21:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just stop. You are embarassing yourself. The admin said your edit warring was disruptive, and he was attempting to put an end to it. Your obsessive behavior is becoming creepy. Really. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's your idea of being WP:CIVIL? That admin voted to delete (see above), so he wants to put an end to it by getting rid of the article. DreamGuy (talk) 21:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was a no consensus decision three weeks ago and a keep vote 18 months ago, so I think we should use the time to determine some sense of consensus. Even right now, the entire bio section is unsourced and his main media mentions come from IMDb, which isn't a secondary source. That's not a great situation for a BLP to be in but you are right Hullaball that it's better than most BLPs. I just hope we don't get another no consensus but even then, I'd say that it defaults to keep, and everyone can just move on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a keep vote 18 months ago, there were more delete votes than keep votes and the rationale given to delete was solid, just as it is now. The admin who closed at best should have called it no consensus. I think he/she got confused by someone claiming there were new sources and decided to overrule the vote without actually looking at the sources. Either way, 18 months ago was 18 months ago and not relevant now. DreamGuy (talk) 21:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was closed as a keep vote. AFD is not voting, and if you want to argue about it, go complain to the closing admin. It's moot though. However, DreamGuy, if you take that same attitude to the decision over this one (namely, it doesn't matter what the closing admin thinks because you know better), someone will protect the page and we can move on. We aren't going to play my point of view games. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO, WP:SPAM, and DG's analysis of sources. THF (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I agree with DreamGuy's evaluation of the sources. Reyk _YO! 22:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question to Hallaballoo Wolfowitz I agree with your observation that many BLPs have even worse sourcing than this one, but I am confused on how that translates into a "keep" vote here. Doesn't WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS apply any more? I know that if the guy had been on the field during a football game for even one minute, this would translate to notability, but does the fact that the jocks cannot get their act together mean that we should do the same? --Crusio (talk) 22:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS has nothing to do with this. Whatever your or my personal opinion of this "Rocketman," the sources presented and otherwise available are more than enough to meet the GNG. See this AFD [13] for an example of far thinner sources enjoying a consensus that they showed notability. The guy appeared on one of the highest-profile TV broadcasts in the US (Tournament of Roses parade), the status of the event may not be clear to non-Americans or people who have better things to do on New Years Day than watching parades on TV. And also it seems at the Super Bowl. He has been written up in quite a few newspapers in and out of the US. (This section of his website has not just claims or unverified clips, but images of many newspapers involved [14].) I might wish that more wrtiers and professors and productivbe people met the GNG than attention grabbers like this but that doesn't might it's right to ignore the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (1st discussion). Keep (2nd discussion). Keep (3rd discussion). That this discussion is continuing is an abuse of process. DreamGuy and his puppy are going to win their edit war by attrition because the rest of us non-compulsive editors are weary of this debate. There have been two discussions on this article, and additional comments contained in those discussions should not be ignored. For most editors this discussion was closed as a "keep". Once a consensus has been declared by the closing admin, the matter has been decided and the editors can place their attention elsewhere. Only Smooth707 and DreamGuy have continued to argue their position - which was to delete the article. What is the point of having a discussion if a dissenting editor chooses to act contrary to such discussions? I feel that what was needed to be said has already been said, discussed and decided in the two AfDs. This is an article about a person who is named Dan Schlund. The subject person is notable, and the article on this person has survived two AfD discussions. The person Dan Schlund is not a jet pack. Redirecting his name to Jet pack is not logical. He is a stunt man who, among other skills, is one of only a handful of people in the world who can fly with a jet pack, but this does not make his name a search term for jet packs. Redirecting "Dan Schlund" to the general article on jet packs results in the removal of the information on the person Dan Schlund. "Dan Schund" is not a logical search term for "jet pack", so a redirect adds nothing of value to Wikipedia, and will only result in the removal of the article's information from general view. That result would be contrary to the consensus of the two discussions. I hope that when the closing admin reviews the opinions, that he takes into his consideration the opinions of the previous discussion, for this discussion is really just a continuation of the previous one. I also hope that there be someway to restrain DreamGuy from debating EVERY SINGLE COMMENT that he disagrees with. His argumentative positioning is deterring open debate. Most editors do not need such confrontation in their leisure time. And finally, I hope that once this discussion is closed, a new discussion will not be allowed for at least another years. Repeatedly re-opening the discussion until the DreamGuys get the result he wants is simply wrong. Esasus (talk) 03:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I count 6 votes for deletes. Excluding myself and DreamGuy, 4. I am not forcing my opinion on anyone; nor is this an abuse of process. The issue was discussed on the talk page, and then brought to an AFD by an editor other than myself or DreamGuy. The last 'discussion' you are citing was a 'no consensus'. In addition, the first AFD nom was over a year ago. In this case, a 3rd nom is not as shocking as you tend to believe. I have read your comment above thoroughly, and I happen to disagree with it thoroughly. Frankly, I do not care if you see it may way or not, but I accept the WP:VOTE guidelines, and I suggest you do the same. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 04:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:1E. No prejudice against redirecting/merging to jet pack.-- Darth Mike ^(talk) 05:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is Dan Schlund a jetpack? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If an author, about whom not much is known, would have published just one very notable book, we would have an article about the book and probably redirect the author to the book. Does that mean that this author now would be considered to be a book? Please don't be silly. --Crusio (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to be silly, Crusio. The subject has a brief mention in a single sentence in the article jetpack. He didn't invent the jetpack, which rather invalidates the comparison of a author to his novel. I am no saying the article should be kept; I am arguing that - no matter what - it should not be redirected. At the risk of demonstrating less than AGF, it never should have been. It was a cynical attempt by at least one editor to neutralize a previous AfD that they disagreed with, and I for one took exception to the effort. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per LinguistAtLarge and prior AfD survivals. Even if it was no consensus last time, it still survived, and another AfD within three weeks smacks of WP:POINT to me.... MikeWazowski (talk) 06:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep A disruptive repeat nomination per our deletion policy. The topic seems to have adequate notability and claims of WP:BLP1E are obviously inappropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An admin previously uninvolved with the article listed it to try to get a more clear cut consensus over a contentious issue. The only people being disruptive are those who violate WP:AGF with their comments. DreamGuy (talk) 21:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of violation of AGF besides, why is BLP1E "obviosuly inappropriate"? At least to me it isn't obvious at all. --Crusio (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:NOTABILITY as outlined in the General notability guidelines. Notability is supported by multiple independent sources, and specifically in The Oklahoman, , the Sheena Coffey, and the Los Angeles Daily News articles that are cited in the article. Untick (talk) 14:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and comment - The appearance of this at AN/I means many new editors may come to comment, so early closures based on recent other AfDs may not be reasonable (I'm one who found this this way.) Delete - he's not notable for anything other than doing his job, which is cool, but hasn't received much coverage. Redirect to Rocketbelt or Jet Pack for coverage of use in mass media and the burn, which is worth noting at that article as a hazard of the machine. ThuranX (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question - I'll ask again: is the subject of the article actually a jetpack? If not, he should not be redirected to such. As the directed-to article only addresses Schlund in one sentence, its a bad redirect. Thanks for "crossing the street", ThuranX. So nice to see you again. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a clear answer in my above comment. ThuranX (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not "one event" - this is his specialty. Are the Wallendas "one event" (high wire)because they only have one specialty? Coverage in many places (albeit frequently just noting his Rocketman act somewhere). Collect (talk) 12:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, completely fails WP:BIO (including WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:ATH, depending on where you stick him) and WP:N. He does not have any real significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources, including as noted above in the evaluation of those found. Only a few minor mentions in a few reliable sources. Bulk of the article comes from his own site (not third party) and IMDB (not WP:RS. He has also not "made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment", no evidence of a large fan base (as in evidenced by those pesky reliable sources, etc etc. Can't believe this actually survived the previous AfDs. I see no valid reason to redirect this to jetpack either. He neither invented it nor is a significant person in relation to it. It just, apparently, uses it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources establish WP:N. Artw (talk) 04:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:BIO as "the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". WP:COI couldn't be clearer about not using the word "vanity" as it is considered "accusatory and discouraging" as well as "not helpful, nor reason to delete an article." --Shunpiker (talk) 05:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep External references establish notability. This was such an easy decision, I'm inclined to suspect the motives of the nominator. LK (talk) 09:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although we should assume good faith, your snide comment towards the nominator makes me think that you did not read the above discussion (or even just the nomination) at all. There are enough "delete" !votes above to make it clear that the "keep" case is not as clear-cut as you seem to think. --Crusio (talk) 10:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, hey, hey - let's all remain polite if we can, please. Lawrence was expressing a perhaps unfair sentiment, but your reply was rather unnecessary. Let's try to remain civil. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Arcayne, based on above, you're the editor who had an unfair response to everyone else's remark. [15] [16]smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, I've managed to keep some civility, haven't I? And you might want to reconsider what you feel to be "fair". Either way, it hasn't really much to do with this AfD, and I am not really sure why you'd get upset over me asking folk to remain polite. Focus, please. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I think that my "I think you did not read this" remark is perhaps in a different league than "I'm inclined to suspect the motives of the nominator". That remark was not "a perhaps unfair sentiment", it was a completely uncalled for accusation and if Lawrence had bothered to read the above discussion, he would (a) know what the motives of the nominator are and (b) see from the length of this discussion that the case is not clearcut and that several good faith editors argue for deletion. I really fail to see how my comment was incivil.--Crusio (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My comment wasn't solely directed at you, Crusio. Your comment was inspired by an uncivil one and was in retaliation for it. By definition, it deviated from the purpose of the AfD, and we all know how these things tend to quickly degenerate from there. If Lawrence jumps off a cliff, does that mean you have to as well? Just keep cool, and folk will discount Lawrence's accusations in due course. By responding to them with more than a 'that is an incorrect assessment', you are buying into the drama possibly being sought, and do yourself no good. Just stay focused. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wu Wei Gung Fu[edit]

Non-notable recently created martial art. JJL (talk) 16:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — JJL (talk) 16:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

*Keep Seems notable enough, found plenty of reliable sources LetsdrinkTea 16:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete upon further review of the sources non of them seem to be reliable, making the whole article unverifiable. LetsdrinkTea 20:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Funny. I read the sources and i see no reliable ones or an establishment of notability. Looks like advertising.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets notability requirements, there being enough reliable, independent sources. There's even an Academy of Wu Wei Gung Fu in Florida. Jd027^talk 18:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Keep as the article establishes its notability within the world through the means of independant, third-party sources discussing the subject of the article. Them From Space 20:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment note that the cited book is by Outskirt Press, a self-publishing site [17]. The other sources are all websites, including "The JKD Brotherhood Store" and a Seattle area Kung Fu school's site. These don't seem like WP:RS to me, nor do they seem to establish WP:N. JJL (talk) 21:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ouch, I hadn't realised that. Switched to delete per lack of reliable sources. Them From Space 14:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

cmt Themfromspace: Your earlier delete is struck though. Your most recent comment is switched to delete though you haven't bolded, and it would be hard to understand what you mean at this point. (you argued for delete, struck through, and then argued for delete). Can you clarify?Bali ultimate (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To make it clear, I struck out my keep vote and added my delete vote where the keep vote used to be. I then commented below why I did that. Them From Space 13:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cmt not a single reliable source. Conflicts of interest with the kung fu marketting websites, rendering all of this completely unverifiable. "Even has a school in florida?" Really?Bali ultimate (talk) 02:13, 16 March 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 19:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: If this article is deleted please note the following redirects: Wu wei gung - fu, Wu - wei gung fu, Wu - Wei Gung - Fu, Wu-Wei Gung-Fu, Wu-wei gung fu. JJL (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of reliable sources, apparent lack of notability, very likely some level of SPAM / COI. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice against article reposting if notable external sources on the school appear. LK (talk) 09:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. My own opinion might be to delete, but I see the consensus is otherwise DGG (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Detroit Tigers minor league players[edit]

AfDs for this article:

For all intents and purposes, this and every other "X minor league players" is really nothing but a list of redlinked names, who will remain redlinked until they make a major league appearance. The general consensus for minor league ballplayers, especially those below AA level, is that they are not notable enough to warrant inclusion. They are professional per WP:ATHLETE only in the most technical sense. Common sense says they are not professional enough for inclusion. Consider this a blanket nomination for every MLB team's minor leaguer list. DarkAudit (talk) 19:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Individual players on a list don't need to be notable themselves. Why is a list of redlinked names a problem? If this was regarding individual player articles, then my opinion may be much different. Jenuk1985 | Talk 19:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply They're not notable enough on they're own. Why do we need an entire list of non-notables? A guy who never makes beyond AA ball will never get an article. That redlink will always be a redlink. Isn't it a general rule to avoid lists of redlinked names? DarkAudit (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then remove the wikilinks! There are plenty of lists out there that don't link to every single item. Jenuk1985 | Talk 19:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After thinking about it, the minor league players themselves are not notable (for the most part), but the subject of Minor League Baseball Players in the Detroit Tigers Organization is notable. — X96lee15 (talk) 19:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Then we should have one for the Yankees, Orioles, Rays, Dodgers, Giants, Twins, Red Sox, Blue Jays, Padres, Rockies, Diamondbacks, Royals, Tigers, Indians, White Sox, Athletics, Angels, Rangers, Mariners, Braves, Reds, Cubs, Brewers, Mets, Marlins, Nationals, Cardinals, Phillies, Astros, and Pirates. Just having one for a bunch of non-notable players except for the AAAers in the Tigers organization is nonsense.--Giants27 ^T/C 19:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Whoops didn't realize there were for all the other teams, so then maybe delete all.--Giants27 ^T/C 19:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Yes, this is for all of them, not just the Tigers. A Yankee prospect in A ball isn't notable enough, either. DarkAudit (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. This information is likely to change much more frequently than editors will realistically keep up with it, given the transitive nature of minor league baseball. These pages are not particularly encyclopedic and likely to reflect poorly on the overall accuracy of Wikipedia. CopaceticThought (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Players don't change between minor league organizations that often...probably just as often as Major League players do. — X96lee15 (talk) 19:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - but they do move up and down within an organization. CopaceticThought (talk) 19:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Right, but I don't think that's the issue here, especially when there are only five or six players listed on each article. If you're referring to the full rosters, those are just transcluded templates. They're kept pretty up-to-date themselves at least the Tigers rosters are. — X96lee15 (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would think a list of all players within the organization (major and minor) would be more maintainable as you're not moving as much around amongst lists unless, obviously, trades occur, players are released, or free agents sign with a new team. With that being said, I am leaning towards delete in their current states. There has to be a better way to manage lists of MLB players than this method, no offense. MuZemike 20:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject of minor league players within a Major League organization is certainly notable. The rosters have been maintained and kept up to date, that is not a problem. These pages allow an easy way to see all the players within a baseball organization in an easy location. This is both useful and notable. The baseball project is actively maintaining these pages, they should definitely be kept. Spanneraol (talk) 20:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not encyclopedic. To oversimplify, no more appropriate than "list of cities where it rained yesterday." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is a completely ridiculous comment. The farm system of a major league baseball team is far more notable than a list of cities where it rained... Not only are there plenty of reliable sources for this information, there are also plenty of people who actively seek out this information and the purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide information for people who are seeking it. Spanneraol (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please observe [WP:CIVIL]]. I said my comment was oversimplified. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a "current-status-of" resource. We don't have an article "Today's NBC TV schedule, even though people look things like that up. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retracting my comment because it appears that the Baseball WikiProject can sufficiently handle upkeep. CopaceticThought (talk) 21:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't really have a problem with these. The players themselves may not merit individual articles, but the rosters are good information to have. There are plenty of people who want to keep track of up-and-coming players. The rosters for these teams are usually listed in newspapers when they are unveiled, which shows that there is interest in this level of detail. If a player doesn't seem notable, just remove the brackets around his name. Maintenance shouldn't be a problem, unless the baseball editors suddenly go on strike. Zagalejo^^^ 21:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Spanneraol. If there's a better way to discuss the state of minor league organizations I'm all ears. As an aside why do the Tigers keep getting singled out? Is the nominator a Cleveland fan? Mackensen (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it was my fault. I mentioned this article in another AFD and here we are :( — X96lee15 (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nothing personal, just business Don't kick yourself. The Tigers just got pulled into the line of fire first. They're all tagged now. DarkAudit (talk) 12:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I feel the purpose of these articles will just be a repository for obviously non-notable people until they make the majors. Finding places to put non-notables is exactly what wikipedia shouldn't be doing. Wizardman 22:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if the only thing on these pages is the rosters it makes them worthwhile. This is the only place you can see all the rosters of one organization on the same page. The only alternative would be to put them on the pages of the Major League team, and that just makes those pages longer. Spanneraol (talk) 22:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all The teams within the farm system are notable, and this is preferable to individual articles about each minor league team's rosters. So there are red-link names on there? Big frickin' deal. There is no rule that all of the persons mentioned on a page have to have their own page. While I think most of us would fight any attempt by someone to turn all of the red-links in to blue links in order to satisfy someone's notions about notability, it does not matter to me whether the "non-notable" players have their names displayed in black or r.e.d. I agree that there are plenty of Wikipedians who would maintain this type of rise-and-fall of players. Worthy good-faith attempt to throw this one out, but it looks like the closing umpire is going to have to call this one "safe at second base". Mandsford (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply There are plenty of other places outside Wikipedia for those interested in such things to keep track of these guys. Those people already go there. Wikipedia is for after they've made a name for themselves. The players on these lists have not, and a good many of them never will. DarkAudit (talk) 23:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The articles aren't really about the players but about the farm system of the major league team, which is a notable subject. Spanneraol (talk) 23:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which could easily be merged into a short "farm system" section of the respective teams. These articles are no more than lists of players who for the most part will never have an individual article. DarkAudit (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - Minor league baseball players have always been in the gray area of Wikipedia notability guidelines. On the one hand, their names and accounts of their games appear in reliable sources and they are paid for playing, making them "professional athletes." On the other hand, baseball's minor leagues are primarily developmental in nature; their main objective is to take a large group of prospects and develop a small percentage of them to be capable of playing at the major league level. Consequently, many minor league baseball players are little known outside of their small circle of fans, generally located in the smaller cities and towns where they play. Many of them have very short and non-memorable careers, leading to WP:BLP1E concerns. There have been many AfD fights over biographies of minor league players, and despite several attempts (for example, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Notability guidelines) we've never developed a workable consensus about which minor league players merit articles. In this context, I think these lists of minor league players have been an excellent move toward compromise. On the one hand, they recognize that there is encyclopedic interest in minor league players and coverage is available from reliable sources. On the other hand, they also recognize that permanent biographies are not needed for most players who don't go on to reach the major leagues or achieve other notable career distinctions. The player's name remains on the list while he's playing for the organization, and then the name is dropped. Because discussion of the players on these lists is limited to their role as ballplayers, it avoids the WP:BLP concerns that afflict stand-alone articles. Merging of stand-alone biographies to these lists has been a consensus solution in a number of AfD discussions (for example, see discussions of Chris Parmelee, Brett Cecil, and Matthew Mangini). I think these lists are compatible with Wikipedia's guidelines for stand-alone lists. (By the way, I agree that the wikilinks should be removed for the redlinked names.) BRMo (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - um, no. jj137 (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - BRMo said it perfectly. Articles such as these seem to be the best compromise between haveing stand-alone player articles and not providing any information about these players at all. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - per BRMo, Zagalejo and others. Rlendog (talk) 01:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - They are professional players.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I am a professional (my occupation) but that doesn't make me notable for a Wikipedia article. CopaceticThought (talk) 01:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But if an article was written about your place of work, there is no reason why the mere mention of your name within that article whould be prohibited-- and it has absolutely nothing to do with whether you are notable enough to merit your own separate page. Wikipedia is not censored, and so long as the subject of the article is notable enough for its own page, the content is up to all of us. Mandsford (talk) 02:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no problem with a redlinked name, and would prefer that to removing wikilink, for the simple reason that the second an article is written, it becomes blue-linked. There is no reason to remember to go back and re-link it. The only potential problem is that for every one major league player, there are about 11 minor league players, and so the list will eventually become huge, assuming nobody will be deleted from the list and people will only be added. My initial thought was to keep, but I'm now thinking delete all as too unwieldy to maintain.Eauhomme (talk) 02:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It has already been established that the Baseball WikiProject is updating and maintaining to a suitable standard, so I'm not sure your delete is totally justified. Jenuk1985 | Talk 02:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep All: Is this a joke? I have not read one good argument for a delete. Each article serves a major purpose: i.e. a comprehensive guide to each teams minor league players. It is convienent for those who want to see an organizations players, managers, and coaches all at once (opposed to navigating through 6+ minor league articles per team to find that same info). Nick22aku (talk) 03:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

1. A lot of the discussion is about redlinks. Keep in mind, Wikipedia is all about links. The "What links here" function is a major tool to an article (either a red- or blue-linked one). Since this tool operates the same regardless if a link is red or blue, it is especially useful with redlink articles because it provides an inventory of the frequency of that article within other articles. This can help determine if it is time for a redlinked article to be created or not.

2. If this deletion discussion is once agaaaain about the (non)notability of minor league players, then the individual roster templates should be nominated for deletion. This is not the forum for that - this is something different. Nick22aku (talk) 03:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- No joke As said before, the lists of each club's farm system teams can easily be rolled into the parent club's article. Leaving us once again with a list of names that would not pass muster in any other article. They wouldn't be acceptable for inclusion in calendar year articles. They wouldn't be acceptable to list as alumni from their high schools or colleges. What makes them any more acceptable here? DarkAudit (talk) 12:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply Adding these rosters to the Major League club would make those already lengthy articles even longer. These guys play before thousands of fans at minor league parks, they are more notable than high school alumni.Spanneraol (talk) 14:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply You misunderstand. I meant listing the minor league teams sans rosters. And I repeat. The same guys are not worthy of individual articles, and adding their names to their high school or college alumni lists would be immediately reverted. Same goes for adding their birthdays to the date and year articles. Near-instant reversion as not notable. Put these names anywhere in Wikipedia but here, and they'll be reverted. It's a double standard. DarkAudit (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Most of the listed players are not notable enough for standalone articles but many are. And there is no problem with the ones without an article being included in these lists, since the rosters they are included in are notable. Rlendog (talk) 20:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - Maintained properly, I believe the creation of these pages provides good information on the top prospects in each organizations minor league affiliates. While the players themselves may not be notable enough to merit a page, the group as a whole does. Hardnfast (talk) 13:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe that the articles can maintained properly, and is a quick and easy tool to located information. Sure the players are not notable when looked at individually, but the teams are notable, in fact most minor league teams have pages. If you are going to have minor league team articles, makes sense to include the players in some fashion. With most players likely to never get above redlink, a team's player template is not realistic.Neonblak ^talk - 13:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment "They are professional per WP:ATHLETE only in the most technical sense. Common sense says they are not professional enough for inclusion." is a patently ridiculous statement by the nominator. You are confusing your opinion of whether they are notable enough with being professional enough. Common sense actually says the opposite of what you state: All of these players earn a living playing baseball full time. That is professional, no matter how you wish to rationalize the difference between the major and minor leagues. Reso lute 00:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How can they be paid but not professional (unless they are Semi-professional)? Also, please do not remove red links; they may not look good but they help to build our encyclopedia. Even our featured articles and featured lists have them; there is no good reason to delink them (unless the subjects are truly and always will non-notable). Dabomb87 (talk) 03:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't oppose a merge into something along the lines of List of minor league players or whatever. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These should be deleted and indivdual pages made for the players. They are obviously notable per WP:ATHLETE since they are all professional and are all discussed in third party sources. Kinston eagle (talk) 14:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the consensus from the baseball project is that minor leaguers, and especially deep-minors minor leaguers, are not notable, in spite of the professional provision of WP:ATHLETE. DarkAudit (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All. I don't know if the players, especially the minor minor leaguers would merit pages on their own however as a unit they are notable. In order that we don't have so many unnecessary pages that will face deletion themselves, we should maintain all of these pages. Valley2city^‽ 18:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Broadband for Rural Nova Scotia[edit]

This article is duplicated - a better version is at Broadband for Rural Nova Scotia initiative. Computerwiz908 | Talk 18:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I suggest the article simply be redirected without further discussion. No real need for an AFD if no one's suggesting either article actually be deleted. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect looks like an alternate title to me. 76.66.201.179 (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect Only difference I can see is the -initiative one has section titles. Redirect to that one. Peridon (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mythology and fiction in NetHack[edit]

List of non-notable external references, this counts as a list of minutae and is disallowed under WP:NOT. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 18:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for above reasons, also unsourced - that's not to say a sourced section on influences on the game from various mythos cannot be included on the game's page, but no need for the spelling out here. --MASEM (t) 18:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete – as nothing but an indiscriminate list of fiction/mythology things that are possibly referenced in this game. I note weak because, if someone did any serious research on the topic, ~~like in List of units in the Age of Mythology series~~ (i.e. utilizing prose), then I would say that this would be a viable topic. However, the current state is damning. MuZemike 18:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dammit! Forgot that was redirected! MuZemike 18:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That AfD resulted in redirect & delete if memory serves, not a good example :) MLauba (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cut heavily and merge to NetHack, surely.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Entirely unreferenced, indiscriminate. Naturally, the main page is welcome to discuss the various influences from other works, but this list is entirely unnecessary and excessive. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 20:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- mentioning that there are mythological references in NetHack, along with a handful of examples, is appropriate. A big huge unsourced list that lists each and every instance of it is not. Reyk _YO! 22:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even worth merging, as this is just a list of generic mythology monsters that appear in zillions of video games. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cut, merge & delete per above, indiscriminate list, no RS, runs afoul WikiProject Video Games content guidelines: " If the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it is unsuitable." MLauba (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an indiscriminate collection of information. Also serves as a game guide. Them From Space 00:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can be summarized in a single sentence in the parent article. Marasmusine (talk) 17:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - what Maramusine said. Artw (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I will rename as Chinese bakey products DGG (talk) 00:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese bakery[edit]

I proded this, tag was removed. At the moment I can not see any way to save this entirely unsourced article. While yes, there are bakeries in China (and among overseas chinese communities) that make distinctively chinese baked goods, that's a pretty low, indiscriminate bar for an encyclopedia article. There's no coverage at all that i can find about the topic of "chinese bakeries" (unlike, say, the vast literature on french boulangeries, which are so culturally important in france THEY might deserve an encyclopedia article... but i digress). There is some original research about the "two types" of chinese bakery (having lived in southeast asia for many years, however, i know that chinese communities have locally-influenced baked goods in almost as many countries as there are in the area -- not to mention regional variations within china) in the article. Beyond that, it's a link farm to largely unsourced stubs of the type "Banana Roll -- Banana roll is a common Chinese pastry found in Hong Kong." So fails notability, verifiability, wikipedia is not a directory or a dictionary, and generally no sources after an article has been around for 3 years is an indication there aren't any forthcoming. Bali ultimate (talk) 18:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all mentioned above. T-95 (talk) 21:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources can be back up with time and the subject is notable in my opinion. If you look around articles of notable dishes or cookery, you will those are completely unsourced for a long time. Among Chinese bakery, egg tart is a very notable pastry at least in East Asia. I think the subject encompassing Chinese bakery deserves its article.--Caspian blue 22:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article does describe a distinct type of bakery, so called in my hometown of Montreal, as well. True we don't have a French bakery article, but we do have Parisian café and I believe this is as distinct and notable. The article could easily be supplemented with more refs referring to Chinese bakery as a distinct type of business, such as the one I posted above. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added two ELs from (coincidentally) Canada on Chinese bakeries.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have categories Category:Chinese breads and Category:Chinese dessert but no list for either. From what I'm reading, this is an article about Chinese baked goods rather than the places where they are produced, and maybe the title should be moved to fit that. Of course, whatever "List of" might mean in Chinese, it's Wikipedian for "nominate this", so perhaps the L-word should be left out. Mandsford (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I very much saw it as an article about a particular type of establishment. But I suppose a case could be made for renaming as a List of Chinese baked goods? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
cmt "List of chinese baked goods" would have a hope of survival and verification. So i would support "renaming" and stripping out the OR about "two kinds" of "Chinese bakery" which is silly. all this said though, why does one want a list of chinese baked goods at all? Bali ultimate (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For the same reason as the other articles in Category:Lists of foods? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of Chinese pastries and re-tool the article to reflect the title. While personally I do think Chinese bakeries are unique, there lacks reliable sources to make an article out of the subject. WP is not in the business of publishing original research, and I think this is just one of those subjects for which it seems like there should be an article, but in reality there's not any reliable sources that can be found. HOWEVER, having said that, we can probably create articles for particularly notable chains of Chinese bakeries, like for example, Maxim's. Chinese WP has a category for bakeries in Hong Kong[18] - but note that Chinese WP generally has a lower threshold than English WP for what is notable. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Questions Are there any major franchises of bakeries that only sell the type of food mentioned? How common are these places? Is it like having an article for hamburger restaurants, showing how popular there are in various countries, how big the major burger franchises are, history of them, etc? This does simply appear to be a list of food. Is there a history of how these types of bakeries came into existence, when certain things were introduced and how, etc? Are they just as popular now as they were before greater contact with other nations, allowed us to introduce other food products instead? Dream Focus 03:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To answer your question - yes, there are major franchises/chains of bakeries that mostly sell this type of food. There's a category on Chinese WP just for the Hong Kong-based establishments - zh:分类:香港餅店. But note that Chinese WP does not have an article on Chinese bakeries in general, like the one being discussed here. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sounds like a suitable topic for an article. Chinese bakeries certainly exist, and I'm confident sources can be found. -- Noroton (talk) 04:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Food consumed by multiple countries are notable enough. Benjwong (talk) 05:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Chinese bakeries clearly exist and they are discussed widely. Vartanza (talk) 07:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could the four "keeps" above provide the sources that elude everyone else that support "is notable enough" "sounds like a suitable topic... confident sources can be found" and "they are discussed widely." There are no sources to support any of these assertions that you've all made that i'm aware of (would particularly like backing from the one who writes "they are discussed widely" since if he/she were right, sources would be easy to find).Bali ultimate (talk) 13:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I voted to rename and retool to List of Chinese pastries, but I also happen to believe the subject is notable. My vote, however, rests upon the fact that there aren't many, if any at all, reliable sources to be found about the subject for an article on WP. Having said that, I think some of the people who voted to keep have mistaken the article to be one about Chinese pastries, whereas the article is actually about the Chinese bakeries themselves, as in the businesses that serve and sell Chinese pastries. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

cmt i support the proposed rename as "List of Chinese pastries" which is at least categorizable and specific. Where you and i disagree is how one would define chinese bakery beyond "bakeries with largely chinese/overseas-chinese clientele where some or most of the pastries are "distinctively chinese" in nature." In the end, that's just a broad definition. Again, this is one case where i think a list is preferable.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think defining a Chinese bakery would be an issue if we can get the article renamed and retooled to a list of Chinese pastries - there would be no need to do that. But even if that becomes an issue, in my opinion, it is only a matter of wordsmithing a description/definition. Chinese bakeries as bakeries that are unique apart from their Western counterparts obviously exist. It's only a matter of how to describe them in words - but this is exactly the kind of problem that is indicative of a subject matter that lacks reliable sources. At any rate, I think this AfD is probably heading to a decision of "keep". If you still want to pursue the matter, you could start an article move request to rename and retool the article as a list of Chinese pastries. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Serangoon Ave 2[edit]

Non notable street. Its worth noting that Serangoon ave 2 has been speedily deleted 4 times with much the same content. Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I normally don't participate in AFDs on this subject, this road does seem remarkably unspectacular. It's a fairly short road and only seems to have a few run-of-the-mill buildings on it, along with a children's library [19]. Agreed that it's probably not notable. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- notability not established, and author does not mention anything notable on the street. Matt (talk) 08:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious delete - no assertion of notability, no external sources. If it's been recreated 4 times, it should be protected against recreation. LK (talk) 09:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Wanamaker Organ. As fascinating as the subject of this article is, the arguments brought by those suggesting deletion are stronger than those brought by those suggesting keep, and Dr. Chapman seems to fall just on the wrong side of notability. WP:MUSIC lists 12 criteria do demonstrate notability for a performer. 1) We do not have multiple non-trivial reliable sources. The blogs and personal recollections, as enthusiastic as they are, are not reliable/verifiable sources in this case. Similarly, there is no charted or gold album, no concert tour, the Vantage and Monette labels appear to be neither major nor important indie labels, the book has no text but is solely musical score (see http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/51006094&referer=brief_results, has not been the subject of a broadcast, is not considered the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city, etc. The argument to keep based on the inherent static nature of pipe organs developing a local history which may extend to the organist can be satisfactorily filled by redirecting this article to Wanamaker Organ where Dr. Chapman is mentioned. Being an above-average organist is wonderful, but is not ipso facto evidence of notability. Similarly, having the skills to be notable does not automatically make one notable. Lastly, while it is true that wikipedia is not paper, it still has criteria for notability that we need to follow. I will be happy to userfy this for someone and if more work can be done to fill at least one of the 12 criteria, the article can be recreated without prejudice, but at this point, sadly, this article does not meet our notability requirements. -- Avi (talk) 06:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Chapman (organist)[edit]

The subject was an organist in a department store. There isn't anything in this article that suggests he accomplished anything noteworthy. The "musical legacy" section is just a series of anecdotes about him. The references are poor. I don't see any reason why this man is entitled to a Wikipedia article LargoLarry (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. There is noting notable about this individual. LiteraryMaven (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nomination from newly created SPA. Google search shows subject has notable enough recording career. Subject may be notable in an unlikely way, but there's enough coverage out there to justify an article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep somewhat poor article, mainly written by two new users. Lots of sources and Ghits to make a nice article out of it. Also note, that the two main editors were not informed of this discussion. Especially new, not yet welcomed editors should be guided to AfD if their first article is discussed for deletion. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord ² 21:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. It's odd that a new account would go straight to AFDs, but the person is right, the article does not belong here per notability rules. IF the new users who created it provide sources that actually meet our standards they can add them to the article, or recreate the article later. DreamGuy (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Main contributor to the article is User:Sallyrob, who definitely is not a new editor. He began contributing in October 2006. He has a history of creating articles about subjects that interest him personally but aren't notable enough to meet Wikipedia requirements - at least three of them were deleted within the past couple of weeks. References cited in this article include Capuchino High School yearbooks and the San Bruno Herald, although no specific article or issue of the latter is mentioned. Another reference cited ([20]) makes no mention of Chapman at all. Most of the information cites the book Music in the Marketplace: The Story of Philadelphia's Wanamaker Organ by Ray Biswanger ([21]) as a source. This appears to be a Wanamaker in-house publication. I am willing to bet the passages in this article citing it as a source were copied verbatim from the book. (A phrase like "Keith, who was a brilliant performer and masterful transcriber, was considered to be a godsend for the Wanamaker Organ" certainly sounds like it came from promotional material. And aren't adjectives such as "brilliant" and "masterful" considered POV?) As for Chapman's "notable enough" recording career, I found only two recordings by him ([22] and [23]). He also wrote a book about himself, now out-of-print ([24]). If Chapman's tenure as an organist in a department store makes him notable, then does it follow that the people who preceded and followed him in this position deserve articles, too? 209.247.22.166 (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the high school year book cite is a bit much. The article creator is a former newspaperman, according to his personal page, and it appears he knew of Chapman from his days with the San Bruno Herald. I don't think it's fair to categorize him as a serial creator of non-notable articles. He's had some images deleted of late to do fair use issues, but what of it? I can't imagine your last question is serious but the answer is no: finding that Chapman meets the notability guidelines would not make others in the same position automatically notable. Lastly, the article creator was a working journalist so it's possible he wrote the phrase you describe as possible copy vio . Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wrong. Article creator was Wehtam721, the first revison already had 4kb.[25] Sallyrob first appeared after more than 20 revision by Wehtam721, Nightscribe and some anon IPs [26]. And even IF Sallyrob had written the whole article alone, that still would not make the topic unnotable. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord ² 15:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keith Chapman has several pages of listings at Google. He recorded several albums, which have been reissued on CDs. He is also featured in several video clips on Youtube. Although I lived in San Bruno, California (Keith's hometown) during the time Keith

was active in Philadelphia, the local newspapers often talked about his great accomplishments with the Wanamaker organ. There is evidence, too, that he played elsewhere. I'm sure a case could be made for including Keith in Wikipedia simply because of his recordings and his book, all of which are available through various websites. I was NOT the major contributor to the article, but added a few items that I was able to verify from the Capuchino High School yearbooks. I also verified his birth and death dates on an organ website. Undoubtedly, there needs to be more research to establish Keith's importance as a concert organist.Sallyrob (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you Google the name Keith Chapman, only two items on the first four pages relate to this particular individual, so to say he has "several pages of listings" is a bit misleading. Two recordings (I don't find any evidence of "several," so if they exist can you direct us to where they are listed? Thanks!) and an autobiography (possibly a vanity project, at that) do not establish notability. As 209.247.22.166 points out, a lot of the phrasing in this article sounds like it was copied from the sources cited, which unfortunately can't be checked easily, and he's correct when he says Chapman isn't mentioned at all at another referenced source. The Wikipedia guidelines state, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." I don't see sufficient evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources here at all, so my vote remains delete. LiteraryMaven (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as obviously very notable to some people. Disc space is cheap. WP's not Brittanica, instead it's a world of organized, useful facts. -65.246.126.130 (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The fact a subject is "obviously very notable to some people" is not a valid reason for allowing an article to remain. It needs to meet the notability guidelines, which this does not. Also, disc space has nothing to do with the issue. Do you have a legitimate reason to support keeping this article? LiteraryMaven (talk) 18:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing illegitimate in what I wrote. -65.246.126.130 (talk) 18:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, neither "obviously very notable to some people" nor "Disc space is cheap" are valid arguments for keeping an article. LiteraryMaven (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and everything said in support of deletion. MovieMadness (talk) 18:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah, unless someone in Philly can produce some great refs proving notability, I don't see how it meets general notability or WP:MUSIC, alas. Interesting read, though. Flew into a box canyon. Damn. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep listen non music majors, curtis graduates have the skills to be notable, but i will supply the verifiable reviews. this "department store" organ is the largest in the US. this article is better than the average performer on the list of organists. [27] pohick (talk) 01:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- listen, curtis graduates may indeed have the skills -- but do you have the refs? I'd be happy to change my vote. Just give me a real reason. (We know the organ is notable, that's why it has an article.) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - (aside - kinda like saying Basilique Ste-Clotilde, Paris is notable, but César Franck, Gabriel Pierné, Charles Tournemire, Joseph-Ermend Bonnal, Jean Langlais, Jacques Taddei are not)(with organists the players go to the instrument)
  - WP:NM - Musician 5 - Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels = Vantage, Organ Historical Society; 7 - Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city = Friends of wannamakers; 10 - Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a compilation album = A Song After Sundown; 12 - Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network = Pipedreams, (along with wanamaker organ and Conte); other 5 - Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture = NGO, Friends of wannaker; not in criteria - published arrangement organ book frequently used by musicians, play concert before peer musicians (implied honor).
  - these organists are a funny subculture, we would agree that Virgil Fox, and E. Power Biggs are notable, and your average church organist is not. however, where to draw the line? A sustained career at a premier instrument seems notable to me, because of time, 20 years ago, it will be hard to find newspaper reviews in the archives (that you won't be able to link to) pohick (talk) 01:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article. Because of the nature of pipe organs (fixed in one specific location for decades at a time) many organs will develop their own history, which, as evidenced by the article in place for the Wanamaker organ itself, can become extensive. The titular organists of such significant organs are, as a part of the instruments' history, also worthy of some mention, especially in the case of the Wanamaker, with its incredibly prestigious status. --Eppeh (talk) 01:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Eppeh (talk • contribs) 01:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject appears notable. Numerous external sources cited. Additionally, numerous other sources can be gleaned by a google search on Organ "Keith Chapman". LK (talk) 10:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How does it happen that LargoLarry, a new user, comes across an obscure article and sends it to AfD as his first edit? LK (talk) 10:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You can't assume he's a new user. It's possible he's been around for a while and finally created an account because only registered users can nominate an AFD.

This article has been expanded extensively since I originally voted to delete it. It now has a lot more reliable references, although I think some of the added facts constitute padding rather than genuinely important information. For example, the list of his students seems unnecessary, since none of them are notable. I am going to clean up some of the grammar and correct some of the punctuation errors and change my vote to keep (with reservations). LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 13:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i agree the list of students (that i added) was a little much. there is a list of at least 10-20 references to the subject in resumes (those were the first 4). tends to go to broad pedagogy influence. pohick (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BJ^Talk 00:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Green blog[edit]

No sources other than the blog itself, and Twitter. Anti venin 16:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC) EDIT: Fails WP:N (due to the fact that there are no third-party sources.) I thought that much was obvious. Anti venin 18:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - So what is the reason for the nomination? No sources? That's not a valid reason for deletion. Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For a valid reason, how about a strong lack of notability? 209.247.22.164 (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but I am new here to Wikipedia - I am still learning much thanks to this article. But on what grounds should this article be deleted? Antivenin says its because its lacking any sources. That might be the case but I have only just begun with the article. And secondly I've seen many other articles on Wikipedia that has no sources. User 209.247.22.164 says that a reason could be "a strong lack of notability". But who are you to say that the article lacks notability? Notability means 1. The state or quality of being eminent or worthy of notice. 2. A prominent or notable person.. I know several Wikipedia articles I could claim lacks strong notability compared to green blog. Maybe it's just that you dislike our content and or ideologies? Leufstedt (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Which is why we have the AfD discussion. It appears that the article does not explain its importance; has it reached the attention of national, or even local media? Scholars? Nonprofits? For all I know, this blog is as little-noticed by the world as a school fundraiser. It sounds to me like you're representing the blog, so tell us how it's notable enough to stay. CB...(ö) 21:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We can say something lacks notability if we can't find reliable third-party references. May I suggest you find some and add them rather than suggesting we're not 'green'. (I do dislike the attitude of 'If you're not with us, you're agin us'.) Reliable sources don't include blogs, most forums, Wikipedia - yes, even us, The National Enquirer, self published stuff. Is there anything in the press about your tree planting? In English or in Bahasa Indonesia - someone here will understand enough of it. Instead of getting hot under the collar, PROVE them wrong. Note that I am reserving my judgement for the moment. And note that most of the regular editors here would prefer an article to be sorted rather than deleted. When we say delete, it's often because something is irredeemably a blatant infringement of the rules, or because something is apparently non-notable. In the case of non-notability, this can be because it is patently non-notable (the Downby-in-the-Swamp Junior School Christmas Play of 1998) (as opposed to the 2001 play where the donkey blew up, the fire engine ran over a Santa on the way to put the headteacher out, and there was a picket outside protesting against the depiction of Mohammed in the Nativity scene), or it's non-notable because no outside reliable sources have been found or given. This is where we came in, isn't it? Peridon (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see I have to make things clearer. When you search for the article in question on Google, you see no third-party sources from which you can verify information or establish notability. Any other questions? 122.162.247.112 (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - I have restored the above comment which was removed by User:Computerwiz908 with no reason. Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment My apologies, the above comment was mine. I didn't realize I wasn't signed in. My view on this remains the same. This article is not notable and thus should be deleted. Thanks for restoring my comment, Jenuk1985. Anti venin 17:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unable to verify notability. -- samj _in^out 16:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Currently not notable. However, no prejudice against recreation if notable external sources start to discuss this blog. LK (talk) 10:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus indicates the synthesis, POV-fork and NOT#NEWS issues render the article unsuitable for inclusion. MBisanz ^talk 00:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teleprompter usage by Barack Obama[edit]

A clear POV fork designed to document derogatory remarks made by Rush Limbaugh. Poor sourcing being used to create a thin veneer of legitimacy. Scjessey (talk) 16:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See also: Recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teleprompter of the United States. --Ali'i 16:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That article was about the phrase that Limbaugh used. This article is about Obama's teleprompter use in general. That article was move to here and greatly expanded with many non-Limbaugh referecnes instead of being deleted. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is established and has third party reliable sources. any POV can be cleaned up. 16x9 (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These "third party reliable sources" you refer to appear to be mostly Rush Limbaugh's website, a YouTube video, a couple of blogs, a Rupert Murdoch newspaper and two reliable sources that don't use the "TOTUS" neologism. This warrants a line in a related article, not an article all to itself. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you think Rupert Murdoch isn't a valid source, then why haven't you nominated The Simpsons for deletion? Grundle2600 (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV fork and trivium, dumping ground for material not weighty enough for other Obama articles. Maybe worth a sentence or two at Jargon of the Rush Limbaugh Show. PhGustaf (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and discuss merger There is a New York Times article entirely on the subject and some other substantial coverage from reliable sources which is the basis for notability. Clearly the article needs work (an editing issue) and a merger is probably worth considering. But this isn't a good case for deletion since notability is well established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither notable nor (here's that word again!) significant. It's pure POV nonsense. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Un-necessary content fork. Anything that can be said can go in one of the other articles on Obama, either the article on him or his presidency. There is no need for an entire article devoted to how he uses a teleprompter, and keeping it on its own puts undue weight on an entirely minor aspect of the person and his presidency. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the Limbaugh content to the show's jargon article. Remove "that was an experience I'll never forget". Get rid of the flubbed line on Tuesday (nn). Get rid of the opinions at the bottom (kind of POVy). Sceptre ^(talk) 16:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the Times article, both premiers fell victim to the teleprompter. Just focusing on Obama is kind of suspicious. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And looking at the NYT article, it appears Obama uses the teleprompter to stick to his own script, rather than to hide a lack of improvisational skill. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is rather timely, as Obama happens to have attempted to improvise last night - the result is a gaffe about special olympics. See Yahoo News: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090320/ap_on_en_tv/obama_special_olympics Dermus (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork. Also not really notable. "It's on Limbaugh!" does not count - everything Jon Stewart says doesn't end up here, so there's no reason to apply a different standard to Limbaugh. Also, a cursory look at Googlenews shows that only the fringe directly address Obama as a 'teleprompter president'; every other news story on the subject is only topical to a gaffe caused by a teleprompter malfunction. Anyway, is there anyway to prevent this kind of crap from occuring in the future? It seems to me that as long as Obama is President, we're going to keep getting people who will create an article $noun_of/by_Obama as a way to honeypot in whatever bad things they want to say about him, and it's completely ridiculous. 75.66.180.72 (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is adequate news coverage in reliable sources (e.g., New York Times) as the basis for notability. Because some editors don't philosophically agree with the reliable sources (i.e., it is a "Rupert Murdoch newspaper") is not sufficient basis to disregard them. Newguy34 (talk) 16:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not merge. Though perhaps a nice piece of essay writing, as an encyclopedi article this is a hopelessly unencyclopedic subject, reads like an essay, and has mostly unreliable sources. Even the reliable sources are mostly in editorial mode and cherry picked. When newspaper X contains an editorial / lifestyle / human interest / humor piece where one particular columnist Y says Z in the piece, it is misleading to say "Newspaper X said Y", and it is impossible to establish any weight to the statement "Y said Z one day in source X." It is a meaningless combination of two matters, Obama and teleprompter usage. Indeed people have written about it but one could say that about thousands of other Obama-related subjects: Obama + basketball, Obama + smoking, Obama + shopping at J. Crew, Obama + travel to Ohio, etc. This particular one has become a darling of some partisan detractors of the president which makes it trivia / cruft of a POV nature. The reason to not merge is that there is little useful content here and it would be inappropriate to move the content wholesale into other articles without the editors of those articles deciding it is relevant, properly sourced, significant enough to include, etc. Anyone editing this article is advised to save a copy of anything useful in their user space, and if they wish propose any additions to other articles at their convenience. Wikidemon (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an update, although I think that treating the intersection between the president and his use of a particular technology will always be too trivial a subject for the encyclopedia (and POV to boot, given the reason for doing so), I am not adverse to treating TOTUS as a valid neologism / cultural meme if it can be verified as such. Sooner or later Saturday Night Live is going to do a skit, or there will be an article about this as an image matter.Wikidemon (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete without merge. Clearly not written from a NPOV. This is also not an appropriate article for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a journal documenting the habits of Presidents. Anti venin 16:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I then trust that you strongly feel that the Bushisms article should be deleted. Would you please submit it to AfD? Dermus (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that bushisms is not a worthy article, go ahead and nominate it for deletion yourself. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It's already been nominated for deletion twice, and been kept. Jd027 (talk) 19:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep umm didnt we just have this discussion? this is a notable topic that and has been covered by worldwide news media sources. it's not just a Rush thing. Perry mason (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think, if you'll read the previously posted arguments, that it is in fact, not notable and not covered by reliable sources. 75.66.180.72 (talk) 16:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

whats not reliable about all those sources (and many others) posted? Daily Mail, Sky News, The Times, Fox News, The New York Times and others have all covered this. sure, rightwing blogs are too dubious to include but we have plently of mainstream, traditional media coverage. of course its notable, it would be insane to say otherwise. Perry mason (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing the point. There is nothing notable about using a teleprompter. In fact, it is a sensible approach to making sure you don't make an ass of yourself in front of a camera. It's been done by presidents for decades, and now that a bunch of right wing people and their newspapers (3 of the 5 sources you listed are News Corp. organs) it has suddenly become a big deal? Nonsense. This is just another POV fork, with POV language like "Obama even read from a teleprompter when he said..." - as if it was a bad thing. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no, you are right, there is nothing notable about using a teleprompter normally but what IS notable is the fact that the POTUS has been seen to have an over-relience on the TOTUS and due to this, he has made mistakes (e.g. the Irish PM issue) and this fact has been discussed in the media. is 3 of 5 News Corp. links not enough for you? im sure i can find a lot more if necessary. even if there is POV language in the article, that is not a valid reason for deletion. the article will be kept and some of the language will be made more neutral if it is required. however, i could compromise and say this article could be merged into Public_image_of_Barack_Obama i guess but the content should not just be put down the memory hole. Perry mason (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it turns out that this Irish PM incident" was misreported, and the newspapers and websites described all reported the event by reading the same inaccurate press release. So this isn't notable at all, and most of the sources have been discredited. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok you have convinced me, lets shoot all this nasty offensive disgusting content down the memory hole Perry mason (talk) 16:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Egads, whether or not this is even worth a mention in any Obama article is debatable. This highly-POV fork certainly is not notable enough to stand as an independent article. Just another endaround for some to try to get their 5x-deleted "Criticism of Barack Obama" in via other means. Tarc (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete here but add to Dittopedia, where it will no doubt become an FA. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is established and has third party reliable sources (The New York Times, U.S. News & World Report, Times Online, The Daily Mail, The Politico). It has balanced POV. TOTUS neologism confined to one section - the article has significantly changed. Those claiming POV fork should nominate the Bushisms article for deletion, least their choice in article to delete appear to be un-neutral in POV. Dermus (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC) — Dermus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic and is the article creator. [reply]
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument. If you have a problem with another article, then take it up in the appropriate venue. As for "third party reliable sources"
Politico; is questionable reliable source

US News & World Report; an OpEd, and one that critiques conservatives' focusing on this issue at that

TimesOnline; primarily about the Irish PM, goes into Obama in the middle, then onto to wider US-Irish relation news.

Daily Mail; about the same as above, only much, much briefer.

NYT; the only legitimate article about Obama's teleprompter use, and usage by past presidents.

Limbaugh, HotAir, not within spitting distance of being a reliable source.

So, no, the claim that this has received "significant" coverage, as required by WP:N, is demonstrably false. Tarc (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you miss the New York Times story entirely about the subject? There are lots and lots of stories about this subject as the sources you mention indicated. Let's not let our personal POV influence article deletion decisions. I think a merge to an appropriate target is reasonable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you had actually taken the time to read what I wrote above, you would have seen that I noted the NYT entry as the one legitimate source out of the lot, yes. Coverage by one source does not even remotely rise to the level of "significant coverage" as required by notability guidelines however. So no, there are not "lots and lots of stories" about this in reliable sources. After the Times, it drops off to a handful of casual mentions, and from there it is off the deep end into the cozy confines of fringe media. Claims to the contrary are easily debunked, as I have just done to the original editor, and now to you. Tarc (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - And for the record, I agree with the quote from Bill Burton that's cited in the article: "Whether one uses note cards or a teleprompter, the American people are a lot more concerned about the plans relayed than the method of delivery." -- Grundle2600 (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the Love of Jesus, NO IT IS NOT. Unless you can prove this topic is notable outside the fringe, that it has an effect on Obama's public image or has an effect on his daily life (so that it would meet eligibility requirements for his bio), the this article is not appropriate. 75.66.180.72 (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think The New York Times is "the fringe"? Grundle2600 (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do think I'll fall for your fence jumping? "TOTUS!" is fringe. That some gaffes have been reported on by a /few/ sources does not meet notability requirements, and is nothing more than double dipping: Politico talks about his teleprompter usage and all of the sudden Rush is right! No. No. No.75.66.180.72 (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is well sourced and there is a New York Times article entirely about the subject. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about the "TOTUS" part. My concern is with the rest of the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT has also reported, in two or three places, that Obama dislikes beets. This probably isn't important enough for an article of its own just yet, but if it turns out he also eschews parsnip and rutabaga it will be our solemn duty to report on the root-vegetable scandal. PhGustaf (talk) 21:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would breach WP:POINT to actually create the article, but I've just gotta see this redlink: Barack Obama root vegetable aversion controversy (we could have a nice picture of a beet for the Obama Trivia Series template... I'm getting carried away, this silliness is making me giddy). Rd232 ^talk 02:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WTF I'm obviously not an expert at navigating the landscape of policy and guidelines here, but it seems to me that changing the name of the article to keep it from being deleted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Teleprompter_of_the_United_States) has to be... wrong? Inappropriate? Against the rules? I don't know, but Denmark has never had such a foul odor.75.66.180.72 (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In defense of the closure of the previous afd, once the article had been renamed, a lot of the previous discussion had been rendered moot, so closing it made sense. the person who closed that afd stated there was no prejudice against renominating it (and I'm not surprised somebody did). If nobody had, I would have. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and do not merge. This article is clearly a POV fork and the majority of the sources fail WP:RS, WP:V, and a whole host of others. Brothejr (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without merge. I like to think of myself as objective, and I read Wikipedia:Content forking and some related policy/essay pages before weighing in on this. Gaffes like the incident with the PM of Ireland may eventually lead to a Bushism-esque Obama article meriting coverage - but definitely not today. Recognizance (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Teleprompter use by the President of the United States is not new to Obama. Neither is the occasional flub. None of the sources presented establish why this topic should be covered separately from Presidency of Barack Obama. And yes, it's a POV fork. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above. Arkon (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV fork and Merge whatever encyclopedic content there may be to the Barack Obama and Rush Limbaugh jargon articles, respectively. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm sure you could get pretty reliable-looking sources for Concerns About What Barack Obama Had For Breakfast as well, but it is possible to have too many articles about one person.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. I don't see anything encyclopedic about this subject. Allowing it to remain will lead to the creation of similar articles about every President who ever used a teleprompter. LiteraryMaven (talk) 20:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV fork. Artw (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV-fork and content-fork, only created after it seemed difficult (even so not impossible) to include the "teleprompter stuff" in Obama's main article (and mentioning some short summary of this material in one of his subs seemed not to be an option for some).--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as content-fork per above. Grsz¹¹ 21:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Gerrymandered NPOV-violating content fork. Scope of article designed to reflect poorly on real subject of article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Partial merge - Maybe add some of this "material" to one of the sub articles. Just like the Palin sub articles seem to be a breeding ground/container for the muckracker material, hopefully we can contain the Obama muckracking to the subarticles and hope that is enough to satisfy the fringe element. Anyways, Tom 21:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the WP:CFORK reasons detailed above. Can't imagine how an article with this title could ever be an acceptable article by our standards. Talk about random. DreamGuy (talk) 22:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an original synthesis of disconnected comments. WillOakland (talk) 22:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - OK, I changed my mind about the Cramer-Stewart article, but this one really is WP:NOTNEWS. Pure recentism and POV synthesis. Robofish (talk) 22:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivia and a content fork. What's next? Wine glass usage by Thomas Jefferson? Revolver usage by Andrew Jackson? Bathtub usage by William Howard Taft? - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I get that Americans love their resident so much, but what is this; joke? --Caspian blue 23:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pov fork, no independent notabilty established and OR.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per actual wikipedia notability guidelines. Multiple major media outlets have reported on this aspect of Obama's presidency, it is notable and worthy of an article. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:N more carefully. The finally clause adds "presumed" as a qualifier, with WP:NOT overriding the previous criteria if the community thinks appropriate. As demonstrated, say, in an AFD debate. Rd232 ^talk 02:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Pointless POV fork. LotLE×talk 00:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as a POV Fork. I don't believe that this article is anyway encyclopedic. What's our next article Types of shoes thrown at George W. Bush?
Delete as a POV fork. Them From Space 00:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article appears to represent axe-grinding, not scholarly input. Presidents have been using teleprompters since the machine was made available, and there is nothing unusual about the current president's use of the teleprompter for delivering speeches. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as WP:CSD G10: article which "serve[s] no purpose but to disparage [its] subject". Rd232 ^talk 01:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - trivial, pointless POV nonsense. Tvoz/talk 01:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's notable and seems to be a worthy topic for an article. The practices of presidents influence others. -- Noroton (talk) 03:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Did the alleged cannibalism of President Idi Amin lead to widespread cannibalism in Uganda? Or, for that matter, has President Obama's teleprompter usage led to a surge of usage of that product in the US? Did President Bush's teetotaling lead to a noticeable decline in alcohol use? - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wow, this really is nonsense, that the arguably most powerful person in the world uses modern technology? Has this really revolutionized politics or even the teleprompter industry? This simply seems utterly non-notable and I look for reasons to save content. If we have articles regarding world leaders using the latest technology something might be salvageable there otherwise the rest can go. -- Banjeboi 04:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. And I would love to see the closing admin, if s/he deletes this, make a strong statement about why this kind of article is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Barack Obama is a very important person, of course, but we are not going to have articles about every aspect of his life and presidency that has been discussed in the media. This article—though it relates to an issue that has caused some to criticize Obama—is the equivalent of an article like Basketball playing by Barack Obama or Book reading by Barack Obama. Literally everything this guy does will be reported extensively for the next few years—we could easily develop an article about his eating habits as someone suggests above, but this is an encyclopedia so we ought not do that. Instead content like this would probably fit in an article like Presidency of Barack Obama. I'm not sure this story is notable enough at this point, but eventually the article on Obama's presidency should have (it doesn't now) a section on the administration's communication strategies. Probably something about the teleprompter situation could be mentioned there if this continues to be an issue in the months ahead. But it will never warrant an article, and it would be good if we sent a message with this AfD that these kind of articles—whether they are about Obama or any other person who receives obsessive press coverage—violate the policy that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe there is an article on something so minor. And yet, it conforms to Wikipedia's five pillars, covers a topic which without-any-doubt-whatsoever passes our notability guidelines for coverage in reliable sources, and does not stray down WP:NOT. So it's of little importance – why do you care? Neutral, verifiable content on encyclopaedic (i.e. discrete) topics is an improvement to the encyclopaedia. If it's good enough for The New York Times, it's good enough for us. Skomorokh 06:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's precisely wrong. The fact that something is mentioned in the Times does not mean we automatically include it here. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, which is why this article does stray into WP:NOT. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Torpedo this moronic, unencyclopedic idiocy now. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure rubbish. Political graffiti by "dittoheads". ► RATEL ◄ 09:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable. And the evident bias in Wikipedia's treatment of Obama as compared with Bush is embarassing to the project as the press are now reporting that too. What's sauce for the goose... Colonel Warden (talk) 11:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but I really want to see one about his brushing technique. Dahn (talk) 11:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about Spliff-rolling techniques of Barack Obama? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You must be joking. Are American conservatives reduced to this scraping of the bottom of the barrel? --CalendarWatcher (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is worthy of a line or two in the main article, only because a small number of reliable sources deem the topic notable (for some bizarre reason), but it certainly is not worth a whole article. Tony Blair made frequent use of a teleprompter. Lots of statesmen do. I doubt the international press will make much of this observation. Not weighty enough for it's own page, nor will it ever be. Dynablaster (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is nothing notable about this president of the us using a teleprompter. an article on teleprompter use by public figures might be nice, with this controversy as a small unit. newscasters use them but we know its part of their job. there is probably commentary going back decades on whether public figures should be allowed to use them and thus make themselves look more prepared, but please, barack is not the first or last or in any way notable. reminds me of a movie article which listed as a notable event that it was parodied in mad magazine. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Random section break[edit]

Delete - and pipeline to our friends at Conservapedia. POV fork. Jd027 (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If Bushisms is acceptable, this absolutely is too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.19.62.168 (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC) — 68.19.62.168 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You might want to check out WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Just saying "x exists, so y should exist" isn't really a good argument in an afd. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, there are several full-on books - including a fairly scholarly one by a prominent NYU professor - devoted in whole or in part to the topic of "Bushisms," i.e. to the 43rd president's relationship with the English language. Bush's linguistic errors have been discussed ad infinitum and the term "Bushism" has very much entered the national lexicon in the United States and indeed elsewhere. Thus the Bushism article is not remotely comparable to one on Obama's usage of a machine that all presidents have used for several decades and which, for now at least, is just a flash-in-the-pan story. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious delete. Possibly worth a mention in a single sentence in Public image of Barack Obama. Obvious coatrack article, ~~and any equivalent about GWB (such as his notoriety for linguistic errors) would rightly be deleted in a shot.~~ I've just seen Bushism, although that really is a case of WP:OCE -Halo (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For those who might not remember, Ronald Reagan was also widely criticized for his teleprompter usage. It was supposedly proof that he was a dummy, a puppet, etc. See examples [28][29][30][31]. Would anyone propose that this should have a separate article? WillOakland (talk) 22:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At best this is trivia, at worst it's a POV-fork. Either way it should be deleted. Nick-D (talk) 22:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is a POV-fork and completely racist. Where are the articles on the teleprompter usage by white candidates, business leaders, or other speakers? This whole issue stems from Republican Racists thinking that a black man could not be that articulate. TharsHammar (talk) 02:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we please not bring up that baseless slander, especially given that these guys were the prime supporters of segregation (and slavery before that), that these two were named by Republicans to key positions, that this guy heads the GOP, and so on? And, while we don't have articles on teleprompter use by other politicians (nor should we, or on Obama), was outrage over this as high as that over this? The fact is, despite his claimed oratorical brilliance, Obama is pretty inarticulate when speaking impromptu; people have noted that, just as they noted the fault in his predecessor; that is all. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, when something is racist I will call it racist. It is important to bring up so people understand why they are slandering the President of The United States like this. Oh, and this guy was a Republican politician. And when the guy who created the TOTUS smear says "I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark." or "You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray (the confessed assassin of Martin Luther King). We miss you, James. Godspeed." We must point out it is a racist smear propagated by a racist Radio broadcaster. TharsHammar (talk) 14:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Both of those quotes were apparently made up by User:69.64.213.146 and placed into the Limbaugh Wikiquote article in 2005. They are not actual quotes from Limbaugh. See [32] for further commentary. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I got those quotes from here. Even if they were made up there is still. TharsHammar (talk) 23:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to get the last word in: "racism" is often in the eye of the beholder, and tends to shut down all legitimate debate (and debate over Obama's inarticulateness without the teleprompter is certainly valid). It's not as if the Republicans didn't thoroughly repudiate Duke (whose state, I might add, is now led by a non-white Governor, something the Democrats somehow never managed to do during their long and illustrious reign over Louisiana), and it's not as if the Democrats don't continue to exalt a still-racist (one might argue) ex-Klansman, but let's not let facts get in the way of a good polemic. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - - listen, just because the Chocolate Messiah sounds like an extra from the special Olympics when his beloved TOTUS aint around, doesn’t mean that its ok for you to use fabricated Rush Limbaugh quotes to prove a bad point. CENSEI (talk) 15:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's pretty funny, considering what an idiot your own beloved Bush sounded like when he spoke extemp. Teleprompters are good. Obama is tolerable to listen to. Not great, but tolerable. Bush was literally painful to listen to. He shoulda used a teleprompter more often. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Take it to your blogs, guys. PhGustaf (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I've heard of chocolate Santas and chocolate Easter bunnies, but.... wait, wait. This just in.[33] - Wikidemon (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        They're using this euphemism because they can't quite get away with "tar baby". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Hey, Bugs! Taking over for Br'er Rabbit now that Disney has retired him? PhGustaf (talk) 05:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        It's the racist editor who should be thrown into the wikipedia briar patch. I'm sure the Limbaugh clones think "chocolate messiah" is hilarious. They're the "outs", they've got nothing to lose, and we're hearing more and more openly racist rhetoric from those slimy degenerates. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets all guidelines, and follows clear precedents. Delete votes bring up straw man that using a teleprompter is not noticable, and yet with so many articles from the most conservative to the NEW YORK TIMES on the subject, it is anything BUT un-noticeble. Deletion here would be reactionary political posturing. ThoriumX (talk) 08:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC) — ThoriumX (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Offending the delicate sensibilities of Obamatons is not legitimate grounds for deletion. Ruthfulbarbarity (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nor is it legitimate grounds for inclusion. Also WP:CIVIL. Rd232 ^talk 14:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All hail to the TOTUS! And for all of the Chocolate Messiah's devotes who claim that this kind of politically motivated fluff does not belong in Wikipedia, may I introduce you all to the Santorum. You may now resume your regularly scheduled outrage. CENSEI (talk) 14:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, wow.Wikidemon (talk) 14:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ahhhh yes, right on cue. And if you think its bad now, just wait for a few months to see the fallout of the 2009 Stimulus Legislation CENSEI (talk) 14:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note His comments here helped "win" CENSEI a topic ban from articles and other pages relating to Barack Obama, loosely construed. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Well referenced article, also pursuaded ay arguments above. Also troubled by the way that the nominator has moved everything around, which has a whiff of WP:OWN issues.Ikip (talk) 18:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article keeps to a neutral point-of-view sufficiently, and it appears that comments by Rush Limbaugh only constitute one or two of multiple reliable secondary sources. I concur with Skomorokh (talk · contribs) in his analysis of this article. As an aside, the formatting/sectioning of this discussion is atrocious. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the subject is inherently not notable and a daft cover for personal attacks, per "editor" User:CENSEI. T L Miles (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not worthy of its own article any more than "Barack Obama's Bowling Skills" is, and the latter has consumed a lot more media ink and air time. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete without prejudice against recreation: this article is a POV pork. Ottre 07:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep It's reliably sourced to multiple independent news outlets. POV concerns, if any, are a matter for editing, not AfD. Jclemens (talk) 07:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the sources have been discredited as having been written from an inaccurate press release. And nobody would ever say that "Canada Free Press" was a reliable source. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I see this, the issue is not about Obama's use of teleprompters, it is about the neologism Teleprompter of the Unites States. I am unable to find such an official designation for this device. Glancing through the articles referenced, there seems to be no reference to the term Teleprompter of the Unites States whatsoever. Now, the teleprompter usage has generated significant media coverage, so if any of this information can be used, it should be merged to the Barack Obama article, or renamed. Calling it the TOTUS, especially in this context, is insinuating that the teleprompter is a stand-in for the president, ipso facto representing a non-neutral POV. 74.69.39.11 (talk) 12:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC) Comment - note to self, read the header. 74.69.39.11 (talk) 12:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete non-neutral POV, WP:COATRACK ukexpat (talk) 14:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV, questionable cites, etc., you name it, this has it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Its worth a sentence or two in the Barack Obama article, but for the moment nothing more than that. If over the next few years of the Obama presidency, teleprompeter usage becomes an iconic part of his style and is commonly commented on (like Roosevelt's Fireside Chats) it might merit an article - but for now its a fairly slim and largely unnotable topic. As others have pointed out there are several more notable things about Obama that don't have articles. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's an attack page, and it's a non-encyclopedic topic. I'll let Peggy Noonan have the last word: "insubstantial and weightless". — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Lord Cornwallis. There aren't many people who can get the New York Times to write an entire article about their laundry list or the way they eat breakfast in the morning, but the current president of the United States is one of those few. It is worth a sentence in the main article, but not a separate article in itself. --GRuban (talk) 19:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There should not be a "merge" of any sort here, IMO. A merge would mean that the current article becomes a redirect to another, but I find it to be a bit implausible that this would ever be used to search the Wikipedia. Whether or not it warrants mention in another article would be decided at the appropriate atricle's talk page, not here. Tarc (talk) 19:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't find it implausible; as some have said, the topic has gotten individual attention by the closest thing this country has to a newspaper of record; and saving the edit history isn't a bad thing either. Redirects are cheap enough that this is worth one. --GRuban (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Hard. Probably a line in one of the Obama articles (probably Presidency of Barack Obama), plus any of the old information about Limbaugh into that Limbaugh Jargon article. Redirect Teleprompter usage by Barack Obama to Presidency of Barack Obama and redirect TOTUS to the Limbaugh Jargon article. But it's not going to matter what I say anyway. The article has gone under VAST editing since this was nominated. Compare: Nominated version v. Current version. I mean... it's not even the same article. (Also this recent version- mostly Grundle's work). I would hope that everyone commenting here would go back and look at the new article, but they won't. The Limbaugh material has almost completely been removed, and the sourcing is actually not as bad as portrayed above. Grundle did a lot of work to eliminate the worst offending parts and make the article neutral. But, like I said, it's not going to matter. The article will be deleted based on votes alone (I'll assume bad faith and guess many people voting here haven't even read the article, how's that?). So, I would ask the closing administrator to userfy this to mine (or maybe Grundle's... since he or she did a lot of the grunt work) user space. Mahalo. --Ali'i 19:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, way to cram a whole pile of bad faith assumptions into such a short post. Even without the Limbaugh junk, the issue is still that it is a trivial POV fork of content that was repeatedly tossed out of other articles. Tarc (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I readily admitted I was assuming bad faith regarding my belief that many voters here probably never read the article, and certainly not the current version. Your mileage may vary, but I mean what I said, and wo#n't be changing anything I wrote at this point. Mahalo, Tarc. --Ali'i 19:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can assure you I did read it before I commented here and I'm sure that goes for most editors. The issue here isn't about the article being POV (we can always tag or extensively edit it, if it is) but if it passes notability guidlines. As far as I can tell it isn't. It would be best left as a redirect to Barack Obama not to the Presidency of Barack Obama as his usage of a teleprompter relates more directly to his person, and started before he took office as President. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 20:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's clearly about non-neutrality as well. Evidence: See "delete" votes above. How many mention point of view forking? So for some, it's about notability and neutrality. You may be correct about the mergeto target, however. Mahalo, Lord Cornwallis. --Ali'i 20:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had read the article before my first !vote, and reread it in response to Ali's's comment. It's indeed much better now, but it's just become a well-researched, well-written article about a matter of no particular import. The mountain has labored, and brought forth a mouse. PhGustaf (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? I did most of the labour in the current version, and I agree with you. It's a nonsense. Who cares if Obama uses notes, or an autocue, or a powerpoint presentation? But - somebody does. Enough that Rush Limbaugh and fans have stirred a veritable hurricane in a teapot. The origins of that hurricane, once teased out, become interesting. Why did Byers report that Obama had gaffed? He wasn't there, so what was his source? Where did both Byers and Pidd get the "teleprompter president" text for their articles? Agency material, because neither was there, but not the Associated Press report almost all the others papers parroted. Just a chance find? Or maybe someone figured an underhand way to achieve apparent independent verification of a smear, by feeding it to foreign journalists as press agency material? Limbaugh was keen enough to declare these second-hand reports truth, and thus use the unwitting "unbiassed" British press to vilify the US papers who'd actually got it right as "US Drive-By Media" Obama sycophants. I find this interesting, and maybe the record of this little teacup should remain available. Morag Kerr (talk) 23:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, and listen up. If 23 separate newspapers use exactly the same wording in a report, it doesn't mean that 23 individual eyewitnesses came to the same independent conclusion. It means that 23 overworked and pressured journalists who WEREN'T THERE all copied the same press agency material verbatim. Morag Kerr (talk) 23:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment without regards for any alleged good or bad faith assumptions I see this as a reasonable outcome. Merging usable content to two articles - assuming TOTUS is notable enough to the Rush Limbaugh article - and redirecting separate terms to those places. -- Banjeboi 07:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough reliable sources Ostap 22:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I came to this with a strong "delete" in mind, but decided to clean up the inaccuracies and misunderstood citations in the mean time. But in the end, these tell their own story. The "teleprompter president" thing was small beer before the St. Patrick's Day incident, just a theme that Republican sympathisers played with. The only thing that happened on St. Patrick's Day was that somebody else made a gaffe. But Limbaugh decided he was going to spin it as if Obama had gaffed, and went spectacularly over the top. The fallout from that, and from Limbaugh's fans spreading the false interpretation all over the internet, has itself reached the mainstream media. It's almost interesting. Morag Kerr (talk) 23:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being "almost interesting" isn't grounds for notability though. Criticism of (or interest in) Obama's teleprompter use has spread to the mainstream media, but that does not mean it deserves its own article rather than a breif mention on the main Obama page. Your argument seems to be that it should stay to highlight an alleged conspiracy between The Times and Limbaugh, but I can't see how that would pass WP:N. Basing the article around the St Patricks incident would also violate WP:RECENTISM. If the teleprompeter usage becomes an iconic part of his presidency, it might one day justify its own article. On the other hand, it might all be forgotten in a few days time. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 03:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point. I'm not alleging any conspiracy between David Byers and Limbaugh. I merely wonder where the unattributed agency material used by both Byers and Pidd came from. Just sounds like a source that wanted to spread the "teleprompter presedent" label. What it's actually about though is Limbaugh's lying spin, which has travelled round the world several times before the truth got its boots on. Having the accurate record of events available in Wikipedia has merit. Morag Kerr (talk) 10:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per delete votes above (not news, pov fork, unencyclopedic...) ~EdGl ★ 23:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Every President uses teleprompters. Big deal. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep has obvious POV issues, but I'll submit my !vote solely on Wikipedia policy and guidelines: Meets WP:N, supplies WP:RS which support WP:V. — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 08:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm sure the closing admin will notice this, but it is definitely worth observing the very large percentage of "keep" opinions who are either brand new users or IP addresses. I'm sure that dittoheads wouldn't organize sock-puppetry on an AfD though... LotLE×talk 08:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, that does seem to assume bad faith. May I suggest using ((SPA)) as appropriate instead? -- Banjeboi 09:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm happy to accept bad faith here, per WP:QUACK. Not that it makes much difference. Presumably the closing administrator will weight all evidence appropriately. It is odd that such a trivial article would attract so much attention on both sides. Wikidemon (talk) 09:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just curious: is this all aimed at me? — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 09:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - You would have to ask LotLE but I would think not. You're neither an WP:SPA nor a new account. Wikidemon (talk) 09:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - It isn't aimed at him. The article itself was created by a user who had never posted to wikipedia before under that name, and some of the !voters are likewise recently dewikiflowered. Some but not all of these are tagged. PhGustaf (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like it's aimed at me. OK, so I decided finally to create an account rather than doing my edits anonymously. So sue me. But all my comments here are signed by me. Morag Kerr (talk) 10:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV fork and trivia. --Docku: What's up? 14:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Getting more than enough outside coverage, not just from Limbaugh. If the reason is that it is only to push Limbaugh's remarks, that claim fails. And "IDONTLIKEIT" is too common a theme above to be used for weighing reasons here. [34] Maureen Dowd in the NYT "Barack Obama even needs a teleprompter to get mad. " And I suggest that when she takes up a topic, it is not because Limbaugh asked her. [35] NYT again (right wing rag?) "Presidents have relied on teleprompters for decades, but none as extensively as President Obama." dismisses the claim that "they all do it." [36] "For Mr. Obama, a teleprompter means message discipline, sticking close to his intended words." So we are left with notability: passes, one-sided issue = only if O'Dowd and Limbaugh are buddies. It is not just "derogatory remarks by Rush Limbaugh" - it is in the general press, and if Dowd is an example, the genie is not about to go back into the bottle. As long as the article ends up NPOV, the issue remains. Collect (talk) 10:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A lengthy side "Discussion of article version posted 23rd March" that appeared in a separate section following this comment was cut and pasted to the discussion page by me.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This is an obvious coatrack for a relatively minor POV attack and something with no encyclopedic notability. Should we also start a "use of teleprompter by David Letterman" article? For that matter, should we start one for every president since the teleprompter has been invented? Ridiculous. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article has changed a lot since this discussion began[edit]

Comment Just briefly restating my point at the beginning of the moved section, that much of this discussion relates to earlier versions of the article, not the current version. Opinions on the current version would probably be helpful unless anyone wants to revert to an earlier version. Morag Kerr (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article has changed a lot. Unfortunately while it started off as an anti-Obama WP:COATRACK it has now transformed into an anti-Limbaugh Coatrack. Which is a mildly amusing irony but it doesn't appear to have changed its notability, and doesn't merit a seperate article at this point in time. If Limbaugh and others keep this issue up for the next 4-8 years it might one day qualify for one. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 00:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am still opposed. Tvoz/talk 00:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SNOW... Tone 11:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asses' milk[edit]

I'm really not sure if this article is supposed to be serious or a joke. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 15:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Just because a subject is unfamiliar to someone, doesn't mean it should be deleted. Notable topic; referenced article. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify on my "speedy" designation, if the nominator had done a simple search such as donkey milk egypt, it would be obvious that the article is not a joke. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears genuine, and I had even heard of it. Collect (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's nothing wrong with this article. De728631 (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just hope they don't give chocolate milk. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a translation of the french version "lait d'anesse" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rochat contributeur (talk • contribs) 16:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Weeeelll...there is something with the article, it needs cleanup. But the topic is notable and important, as should be evident from the sources--unless one doubts those, of course, for which I see no reason. Elkman, do you have an opinion on keeping or deleting this article? Drmies (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have much of an opinion -- we can keep it. I was just being a smart ass. (Ha ha.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the subject really exists but I suggest we Rename the title to prevent any confusion. (the reason is too obvious)--Caspian blue 17:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Caspian blue 18:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. It's really called "Asses' Milk", and it's not called "Donkey's Milk", so renaming seems inappropriate.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 3,370 for "Donkey's Milk" :-)--Caspian blue 19:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And 9,670 for Asses' Milk. :P We could redirect Donkey's Milk to this, though.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, I know, but the hit number is just to show you for reconsidering the comment; it's not called "Donkey's Milk". :)--Caspian blue 21:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clean it up, please! ps: Ever heard of Cleopatra? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord ² 21:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep obviously not a joke. Them From Space 00:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BJ^Talk 00:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Montana 3[edit]

Non-notable album. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord ² 16:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Does this have anything to do with this? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord ² 16:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears to be a speculative article, based on songs from the 3rd season of Hannah Montana. TheJazzDalek (talk) 18:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article about a future album with little or no media coverage and no references from reliable sources. Fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:V. TheJazzDalek (talk) 18:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did a Google search and I found some articles, but they all seemed speculative and none of them actually had reliable sources. Acebulf (talk) 20:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums & WP:CRYSTAL. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acrophobia (game)[edit]

Delete - Prod was removed a while back, but still no improvement. No notability established for game. Only one outside media reference is used as a source, need at least two or more independent, reliabe, non-trivial sources demonstating why the topic should be considered notable (not just that it exists -- proof of existence is not proof of notability). The Eingang page/Acrophobia FAQ/Just the FAQa is run by the programmer, the Talk City page is promotional for their version. These two sources are not independent, and therefore do not establish notability. The one outside source (WIRED) presents this as a minor product of certain company that is not even mentioned on this page, Berkeley Systems... going to that article shows that the game was so nonnotable to that company that it isn't worth mentioning there. DreamGuy (talk) 14:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep This subject has been covered in the past by Wired.com which is a major publication See [37] (This link is included in the article.) The nominator seems to have targeted this article only after I began to clean it up. Tothwolf (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand how notability is established here. One source from a long time back mentioning a company doing a game online and then folding is nowhere near enough. On top of that, I did not "target" the article after you "began to clean it up" (adding a previously deleted image, minor stub sorting and links that violate WP:EL rules doesn't count as anything like clean up), I noticed that the article was still around after I prodded it last year for deletion because your edit made it show up on my watchlist. DreamGuy (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You did indeed target the article, you saw it on your watchlist and decided swoop in and try your hand at getting it deleted again while I was actively working on it. It doesn't matter if one company folded or not (I've not verified your claim yet) but the game itself is not a product of one individual company. This game continues to exist and many other versions exist. You intentionally removed links to other versions of the game before nominating this article for AfD and claim "links that violate WP:EL"? Also because you claim one company "folded"; Notability is not temporary Tothwolf (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ...Now, as for the image that I fixed... That image, File:Acrophobia screenshot.png was a casualty of BetacommandBot's overzealous image deletion tagging.— Never Forget
...as for the stub tagging, I properly categorized this article and added a stub tag before I began to work on the rest of it. This is pretty standard stuff. Stub tags are for editors, not readers. I suggest you read User:Pegship/The nature of stub sorters.
--Tothwolf (talk) 22:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment For the record, this is a genre of a type of word game, not a single game from a single company. This is something that the nominator has either overlooked or has chosen to omit mentioning here. Tothwolf (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Furthermore, the nominator might wish to preform a search for Acromania (and Acro Mania), which is another name for this genre of game. There is a redirect from Acromania to Acrophobia (game) on Wikipedia, which the nominator would have seen had he followed WP:BEFORE. (And NOW I have to wait for this AfD to be over with before I can continue to clean up and work on rewriting this article...) Tothwolf (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, really, there's a Wikipedia redirect at another name? Wow, that sure establishes notability. You might want to tone down your indignation and, I don't know, see if you can actually come up with reliable sources that meet WP:NOTABILITY standards. DreamGuy (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't have the ability to WP:AGF when someone makes an edit such as this [38] before doing this [39] in an attempt to further discount an article before nominating it for deletion. Wired Magazine is a WP:RS. Tothwolf (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tothwolf. Wired is a reliable source. Acebulf (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, let the AFD talk for itself and please do not turn this into a war. Acebulf (talk) 21:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Berkeley Systems was an extremely well known software publisher back in the days of Microsoft Windows 3.1. They created software such as After Dark, which included among other things, the infamous "Flying Toasters" screen saver. This company is hardly not notable.
Here are 8 non-trivial published sources for Acrophobia. I hope 8 are enough as I don't feel like adding any others to citation templates right now. DreamGuy, thanks for forcing me to have to look this stuff up ahead of schedule and for disrupting my entire day. You could have looked this stuff up yourself yet you chose not to.

Frankel, Alex (1998-05-01). "Customer Knowledge: Ahead of the Game". CIO Web Business. 11 (14). Framingham, MA: CIO Communications: 52 –&#32, 53. ISSN 0894-9301.
Conner-Sax, Kiersten; Krol, Ed (1999-11-15). "Online Games". The Whole Internet (1st ed.). Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly Media. pp. 254–255. ISBN 1565924282. Berkeley Systems, the company that created the flying toasters screensaver, brings us the Bezerk Online Entertainment Network, which supports four games: You Don't Know Jack the Netshow, You Don't Know Jack the Sports Netshow, Acrophobia, and What's the Big Idea?.
Piskurich, George; Beckschi, Peter; Hall, Brandon (1999-11-05). "Instructor-based Section". The ASTD Handbook of Training Design and Delivery (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Professional. pp. 59–60. ISBN 0071343105.
Kapp, Karl (2007-04-13). "It's in the Game". Gadgets, Games and Gizmos for Learning. Hoboken, NJ: Pfeiffer. p. 58. ISBN 978-0-7879-8654-4. Not only can traditional games played by baby boomers around the kitchen table be turned into educational online games, but early Internet games can be modified to provide an educational experience as well. One such game is Acrophobia.
Glassner, Andrew (2004-03-15). "Structures". Interactive Storytelling. Wellesley, MA: A K Peters, Ltd. p. 233. ISBN 978-1-56881-221-2.
Willmott, Don (2004-01-13). "Entertainment". PC Magazine Best of the Internet. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. p. 108. ISBN 978-0-7645-4474-3.
Allen-Meares, Paula; Garvin, Charles (2000-04-21). The Handbook of Social Work Direct Practice. SAGE Publications. p. 582. ISBN 9780761914990.
Samsel, Jon; Wimberley, Darryl (1998-12-01). "The Web and Popular Entertainment". Writing for Interactive Media. New York, NY: Allworth Press. p. 205. ISBN 1-58115-005-9.

--Tothwolf (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I'll assume good faith in that the above sources are good. Tothwolf, I recommend you do the same with others next time. MuZemike 23:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- MuZemike, I understand, however there was more going on here than what was readily apparent at AfD. Check the edit history on the article and you'll see more of what I'm talking about. A really short version is that this was a bogus AfD nomination and DreamGuy would have seen all of these and then some had he checked Google. Tothwolf (talk) 23:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in good faith. Jenuk1985 | Talk 19:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep assuming article is improved with some of the additional references mentioned. Berkeley is a notable company, but as DreamGuy notes, is not currently mentioned anywhere in the article (and even if it were, doesn't in itself guarantee notability for all of its products). There may be bad blood between you guys, but with the article as it stands, without the additional references, the AFD was not completely out of the question; let's assume some good faith all around, please. --GRuban (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Berkeley Systems article itself very incomplete and properly expanded it would be quite large. I was in the process of starting work on the Acrophobia (game) article (including a preliminary reference check) when DreamGuy saw it come up in his watchlist and nominated it for AfD. AFAIK, there is no "bad blood" between myself and DreamGuy, but I do not think nominating this article (and a prod and then AfD of another article after sources were added) for AfD when sources are readily available is appropriate. IMO a cleanup template noting his concerns would have been a much better idea. I'll include some Google Books links for the above citations shortly so others can check them. Considering DreamGuy is an experienced editor and has made over 20,000 edits to date I have a hard time believing he could not find these same sources via Google Books. Tothwolf (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment A number of links quickly produced from Google Books:

Google Books search for Acrophobia game
The Whole Internet— limited preview on Google Books, very complete coverage of Berkeley Systems' games.
CIO Web Business: Customer Knowledge: Ahead of the Game
Gadgets, Games and Gizmos for Learning
Interactive Storytelling
The ASTD Handbook of Training Design and Delivery

--Tothwolf (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 05:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Primary Domain Controller[edit]

No refs ever, no significant change since June 2005. Never had refs; badly written. Minor vandalism and a bit of linkspam. I'd love to see it improved, but if it's not happened in 4 years, it's not likely to suddenly come to life. Unless this process awakens input. Chzz ► 14:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and suggest early close: I don't see any grounds for actually deleting this. This seems to be a somewhat obsolete concept in Windows network architecture, and as such a worthy subject. It may not be a priority for anyone now, but fortunately, there is no deadline. Reference standards were much more lax in 2005, and failure to comply with current standards is not a good reason to delete any article, especially one that has been here for a long time. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "If [an] article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD". — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per LinguistAtLarge, and the even more explicit statement of the same concept at WP:DELETION: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." I see no reason this page cannot be improved to address the cncerns stated by the nominator. JulesH (talk) 19:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per Linguist. I seem to be saying that a lot today.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. anddiscuss renaming on the article talk page DGG (talk) 00:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Treaty of Kurekchay[edit]

Delete The article is an OR based on personal interpretation of a supposed primary source. There are no references to reliable second party sources (except of a footnote where a Russo-Qarabaghi treaty is mentioned, which according to a user is the same as the Treaty of Kurekchay). I can not find any reference to such a treaty in academic sources (see google-books). So please delete per WP:PSTS and WP:BURDEN. --Vacio (talk) 14:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Per Vacio. VartanM (talk) 05:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote, see below. VartanM (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Vacio has been trying to remove the info about this treaty for quite some time now, removing the links about it from various articles, [40] attaching baseless tags, etc, and now tries to delete the article about it. The treaty between the khan of Karabakh and the Russian empire was a real historical document, its full text is available from Russian historical publications. See here, full text in Russian: [41] Here's the scan of the text of the original treaty: [42] In a printed publication it is available from Под стягом России: Сост., примеч. А. А. Сазонова, Г. Н. Герасимовой, О. А. Глушковой, С. Н. Кистерева. М.: Русская книга, 1992. p. 275-279. Its existence is confirmed by secondary sources, such as this:

Mirza Jamal was thus present during the signing of the Russo-Qarabaghi treaty between Ebrahim khan and Prince Tsitsianov, which made Qarabagh a protectorate of Russia.

George A. Bournoutian. A History of Qarabagh: An Annotated Translation of Mirza Jamal Javanshir Qarabaghi's Tarikh-e Qarabagh. Mazda Publishers, 1994. ISBN 1568590113, 9781568590110, p 3.

agreement between the Karabakh Khan and the Russian Emperor of May 1805, under which the former renounced his vassalage from Persia and declared his recognition of the power of the Great Emperor.

Russia and the Moslem World: A Monthly Review of Critical Articles and Interviews. Institut nauchnoĭ informat︠s︡ii po obshchestvennym naukam (Rossiĭskai︠a︡ akademii︠a︡ nauk) N. Ross Pub., 2000

Despite all these sources being provided, Vacio still wants this article deleted. I don't really understand why an article about this important treaty is being nominated for deletion, when you have its entire text available from various publications. --Grandmaster 07:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide one single source which would contain these two words -- Treaty of Kurekchay?--Vacio (talk) 13:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Flamboyant bad-faith nomination. Regardless of the disputed points the treaty existed. brand спойт 08:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This nomination is ridiculous. Cited treaty is a historical fact, not sure why it would bother anyone committed to scholarship and research in history. Atabəy (talk) 09:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Academic sources DO NOT mean only google-books. Trying to have deleted an article about a historical fact is indeed ridiculous. Zitterbewegung ^Talk 20:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but with qualifications. Something clearly exists, and is thus deserving of an article. However, the question is whether it is correct to call it a "treaty" in the general meaning of that word. But that can probably be decided through further discussion, as can questionable claims and possible OR, such as the "made the khanate a protectorate of the Russian empire" content in the article. Meowy 21:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as per Meowy's suggestion I renamed the article to Kurekchay agreement and I think that the article can be kept by expanding on the context and the situation of the Armenian captives and those who escaped to Georgia. VartanM (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is Meowy some kind of authority to grant permission for renaming articles? Google returns 3 times more results for "Kurekchay treaty", and here is impartial Webster reference using this term. Atabəy (talk) 03:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bournoutian calls it a treaty. What's the problem here? --Grandmaster 06:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Atabəy's 3 results, 2 are from Webster, and their sources are "[WP]", thus Wikipedia. Not reliable. Sardur (talk) 08:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename As Meowy mentioned, something clearly existed but it was not a treaty so the article should stay until this is sorted out.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 13:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I searched the following names (using Google) which refer to the same fact: Treaty of kurekchay (247), Kurekchay treaty(212), Treaty of kurek chay(0), Kurek chay treaty(0), Kurek chay agreement(0), and finally Kurekchay agreement(4). Google returns maximum number of results, 247, for the current name, Treaty of kurekchay. Thus, I strongly suggest to keep this name and put redirects from Kurekchay treaty and Kurekchay agreement. Else this discussion is the waste of time. Thanks to all. Zitterbewegung ^Talk 14:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of those hits trace back to the Wikipedia article.-- Ευπάτωρ^Talk!! 22:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I checked and a few of them definitely trace back to Wikipedia but that in reality is not the majority. Zitterbewegung ^Talk 19:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on. I didn't say for certain it was not a treaty. I said there were questions about it being one. Based on reading it using various online translators (not the best way to read it, I agree) It seams like a personal affirmation and agreement between the Khan and Tsitsianov. However, that could still be called a treaty - and anyway, an article title is meant to be used to locate the article; it doesn't nead to be a 100% accurate definition of the article's content. What the document certainly doesn't do is "make the khanate a protectorate of the Russian empire". If that were its immediate intention it would contain references to territorial borders, and trade, and so on. But this has nothing to do with a request for deletion, so it should be discussed on the article's talk page (where the usual hidden agendas with probably eventually be revealed). Meowy 16:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Goose Gossage. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Gossage[edit]

His father is Goose Gossage and he plays for the Chico Outlaws in the independent baseball which isn't affiliated with MLB so he clearly doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE. Giants27 ^T/C 13:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Giants27 ^T/C 14:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Giants27 ^T/C 14:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Goose Gossage, which does not currently include information about his family, but should. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Goose Gossage for reasons stated by Hit bull, win steak. Hardnfast (talk) 13:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rich Gossage. He already has one sentence in that article (which is good enough IMO) Tavix (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect As the nominator I even didn't think it should be deleted but rather redirected and merged into Rich Gossage.--Giants27 ^T/C 21:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, because obvious hoaxes are vandalism, and thanks to Snigbrook we know what the photo really depicted. Although I do say that I prefer the picture that illustrated this article to the one currently at Egyptian Building, although it would have to be moved or re-uploaded under a non-hoaxy title. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur J. Eames Building[edit]

This is a false building. The article says it is on the campus of East Carolina University. No record of that building PG Pirate 22:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added this to the log for 20 March as it wasn't originally added. —Snigbrook 12:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unverifiable, and the picture appears to be the Egyptian Building in Richmond, Virginia (I don't know about the pictures inside the building, probably other pictures copied from somewhere). —Snigbrook 13:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax from the same account that brought us Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Society of the Seven. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've been on this campus and this building isn't on it. LargoLarry (talk) 14:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. optional redirect to the film if desired DGG (talk) 00:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nellish[edit]

This article is essentially someone's essay about the fictional language used in a film. It has no valid citations (only a link to the IMDb quotes section) and basically consists of original research. Because it is original research, it isn't suitable for merging in the film article and that has been under consideration since 10/08, although no one has commented on it. I see no valid reason to keep this page, it isn't notable on its own. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect and merge all content to Nell (film). This is a case in which I'm not worried about the O.R. issue, because an it's explanation of an important feature of the film. J L G 4 1 0 4 11:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to question you didn't leave in your response. The word Nellish is used once in passing in the film. When the two doctors are discussing that Nell actually speaks English, she says "There's only one word of pure Nellish in there", in reference to a word they don't think is English. The article is incorrect to even describe Nell's speech pattern as Nellish. It's The once used word Nellish refers to what they think is a made up language, which is later corrected when they realize it is mostly largely misprounced English (due to her learning from a mother with aphasia) and some twin speak combined. What she speaks isn't a fictional idiosyncratic language that requires a new name. Twin speak is what it is. It is also called idioglossia. It may be a subtle distinction, but it is a significant point. It basically means the article is incorrect in most of its assumptions. It treats the speech as a third speech entity, instead of the two that already exist in the film speech, which is original reseach that has totally wrong assumptions of the origination of the speech used and doesn't at all make clear it is idioglossia. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I attributed more significance to the term than it has. I was hoodwinked into believing that this was an example of idioglossia or at least some sort of interesting linguistic phenomenon. J L G 4 1 0 4 00:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a merge only makes sense if this has received significant coverage in reliable sources, and as far as I can tell, it hasn't. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nell (film) The use of idioglossia is a specific plot point in this film, and the information as presented in this article is too good to delete. However, it is not at all notable outside of the film. Eauhomme (talk) 02:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't think you see the distinction between what this article is saying and the fact that idioglossia is actually what is portrayed in the film. This article treats her speech as if it were some newly discovered language, called "Nellish", which is factually not true. It is garbled English coupled with idioglossia. The film article already covers that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response Agreed, and separate from my point. Regardless of whether it is a true language or an aphasia, it is not notable outside of the film. However, it should not be deleted, because within the confines of the film, it is very good information--hence my call to merge, as opposed to delete. Eauhomme (talk) 06:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and oppose merge. The material in this article is original research. -- Whpq (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. LK (talk) 10:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fails GNG as references are about his books not him. Fails WP:Creative --Ged UK 09:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Devendra Prabhudesai[edit]

The article in question was created by me quite some time back and I just got a note on my talk page about it being prodded. I've been quite inactive on wiki for a while now and am quite busy in RL currently so I won't be able to devote the time required to find sources for this article. Would really appreciate it if some wiki cricket buffs eyeballed this and try to salvage it. As creator, I'm obviously convinced of the notability of the subject but only if reliable sources can be found to back it up. I'll try and get back to the discussion later with any sources I find. Thanks. --Srikeit 09:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —Srikeit 10:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough. --Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete writer of (apparently) one book, and no evidence that it's any sort of literary milestone which would grant its writer instant notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Lots of coverage in reliable sources of author and book [43]. I will add a couple cites. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Appears notable; plenty of hits and sources about this apparently very productive author and journalist. Badagnani (talk) 18:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems notable, and now is well referenced.--Dmol (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet Wikipedia:AUTHOR). The subject of his book is most certainly notable. The author is not. Untick (talk) 14:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all mentions I can find are primarily in the context of promoting the book. Nothing here that wouldn't be consistent with a flash-in-the pan book-tour publicity drive. Ghits do not notability make. AngoraFish 木 11:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7 Tone 16:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John a bell[edit]

Failed mayoral candidate with some trival coverage as a listing on IMDB as an extra. fails WP:BIO. Article was already deleted once but since I can't see the content, I don't know if it's a CSD case. Cameron Scott (talk) 09:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John a bell was not a failed candidate. His positions were requested by 2 elected councillors and the mayor. His coverage was not trivial, as it was featured in major newspapers and television. His movie titles are the same as any other candidate. This Cameron Scott fellow has some racist or bias towards john a bell. It sickens me that some one of this type has leverage over a true account of a minor celebrity. If running an environmentally friendly paper free campaign, which garnered 2027 votes is a failure, then this pedia is a farce. Has this "judge" Cameron Scott received this type of attention? Has he worked 4 months on a feature length film? BIGOTRY by wikipedia is here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John bell wiki (talk • contribs) 09:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete also possible COI in comment above. Just not notable--Moloch09 (talk) 11:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete The author fails to prove notability and it is obviously autobiographical. LittleOldMe (talk) 09:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete came in 5th in a city election. Extremely non-notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I have read the entire AFD and do understands DHowell's concern of a speedy close, but after reviewing all the comments, the consensus indicates the POV-fork nature and SYN of the articles prevents their inclusion and that therefore they should be deleted. MBisanz ^talk 04:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Herb usage[edit]

Group of articles all created by one user. The majority of the content is a directory of herbs with their supposed uses, not encyclopedia material. May be better suited for Wikibooks. BJ^Talk 08:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all ASAP. Several problems here. First a lot of this is original synthesis. Second, the sources used are suspect. I don't think books written from the perspective of traditional Chinese medicine are reliable. These studies aren't put to the rigorous standards that research in a Western medical journal are. Frankly, this could be bad and potentially dangerous information that could hurt people's health. I think these should be removed as soon as possible.Nrswanson (talk) 09:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The source in herb (anti-oxidant), for starters, is a "Western journal". It's Food Research International, the journal of the Canadian Institute of Food Science and Technology, whose editorial board, listed here, comprises editors from the University of Guelph, the University of Manitoba, Cornell University, and others. The authors of the specific journal article cited are from Shaanxi Normal University, and at least one of whom, Qiu, is a professor. These people are not fringe quacks, and the journal that they published in does not lack peer review.
  And that's just one of the articles. Herb (formulas) cites articles in the Journal of Ethnopharmacology, the peer-reviewed journal of the International Society for Ethnopharmacology, the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, the peer-reviewed journal of the International Society of Chemotherapy, and Phytomedicine, the peer-reviewed journal of the European Scientific Cooperative on Phytomedicine, whose editorial board is listed here. Herb (General Usage Part 3) cites articles in those journals and yet others still.
  Nor can one even argue that the articles are taking sources and mis-using them. Several of the sources are clearly on-point from their very titles. Take source #38 from Herb (General Usage Part 3), for example: "Plants used in Chinese and Indian traditional medicine for improvement of memory and cognitive function" is clearly directly on-point as can be seen from its title. And again, the journal that it was published in, Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior, is yet another "Western journal". One of its editors-in-chief is from the University of Sussex. He's this person. Uncle G (talk) 13:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above --Anti I A (talk) 11:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - I understand that in British law there are specific rules against claiming that your product treats cancer. That aside, these article are all unverifiable hearsay, presented in an unencyclopedic way. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- University researchers publishing research articles on Chinese and Indian traditional medicine herbs and food science, in peer-reviewed international journals, is "hearsay"? Content that cites these articles with proper, full, citations, is "unverifiable"? I suggest reading the actual articles at hand, and checking the sources that they cite, not just basing one's opinion on what is written in this discussion. Uncle G (talk) 13:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried reading the only source given on the 'cancer' page; it crashed my browser. In any case, the 'cancer' page is just a list with little context. I remain unconvinced by this walled garden. Any verifiable information can be merged to existing appropriate articles on herbs, herbalism, or the individual plants. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The link you mentioned is to patentstorm.us and it should not crash your browser. Perhaps you can try again using another browser or a different computer? http://www.patentstorm.us/applications/20050025841/fulltext.html Cottonball (talk) 01:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it works on a different machine. It's not clear from the patentstorm page whether a patent was granted; anyone can apply for a patent for practically anything, as I understand it. I don't think this is a reliable source. AlexTiefling (talk) 02:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few other sources have been included. These are based on published papers. Cottonball (talk) 09:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The anti-cancer citations are from these journals:

Analytical Biochemistry : Analytical Biochemistry, Methods in the Biological Sciences, emphasizes methods in the biological and biochemical sciences.
Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy : Biomedicine and pharmacotherapy is one of the few journals at the forefront of fundamental and technical science, biological and medical disciplines, therapeutics and pathological description.
Bioresource Technology : The journal publishes original papers, review articles, case studies and other material for the professional in the fundamentals, applications and management of bioresource technology.
Cancer Letters : CANCER LETTERS is a journal providing rapid publication of brief articles in the broad area of cancer research.
Carbohydrate Polymers : Carbohydrate Polymers covers the study and exploitation of carbohydrate polymers which have current or potential industrial application in areas such as food, textiles, paper, wood, adhesives, biodegradables, biorefining, pharmaceuticals, and oil recovery.
FEBS Letters : The subject area of FEBS Letters is broad. It covers biochemistry (including protein chemistry, enzymology, nucleic acid chemistry, metabolism, and immunochemistry), structural biology, biophysics, computational biology (genomics, proteomics, bioinformatics), molecular genetics, molecular biology and molecular cell biology (signal transduction, intracellular traffic, regulation of cellular proliferation, cell-cell interactions) and systems biology.
Food and Chemical Toxicology : Food and Chemical Toxicology publishes original research reports and occasional interpretative reviews on the toxic effects, in animals or humans, of natural or synthetic chemicals occurring in the human environment.
Food Chemistry : Food Chemistry publishes original research papers dealing with the chemistry and biochemistry of foods and raw materials covering the entire food chain from `farm to fork.'
Gynecologic Oncology : Gynecologic Oncology, an international journal, is devoted to the publication of clinical and investigative articles that concern tumors of the female reproductive tract.
Journal of Ethnopharmacology : The Journal of Ethnopharmacology is dedicated to the exchange of information and understandings about people's use of plants, fungi, animals, microorganisms and minerals and their biological and pharmacological effects based on the principles established through international conventions.
Leukemia Research : Leukemia Research is an international journal which brings comprehensive and current information to all health care professionals involved in basic and (or) applied clinical research in leukemias, lymphomas, multiple myeloma and other hematologic malignancies.
Microbiological Research : Microbiological Research is devoted to publishing reports on prokaryotic and eukaryotic microorganisms such as yeasts, fungi, bacteria, archaea, and protozoa.
Peptides : Peptides is an international journal presenting original contributions on the chemistry, biochemistry, neurochemistry, endocrinology, gastroenterology, physiology, and pharmacology of peptides, as well as their neurological, psychological and behavioral effects.
Phytomedicine : Phytomedicine is published to attract and disseminate innovative and expert findings in the fields of phytopharmacology, phytotherapy and phytotoxicology, as a reference source for researchers in these fields, and with the aim to set international standards in their methodology.
Process Biochemistry : Process Biochemistry is an application–orientated research journal devoted to reporting advances with originality and novelty, in the science and technology of the processes involving bioactive molecules or elements, and living organisms.
Steroids : Steroids is an international journal devoted to original research on all aspects of steroids.
Trends in Molecular Medicine : Trends in Molecular Medicine's objective is to facilitate communication between groups of highly trained professionals with distinct backgrounds and skills, whose common goals are to understand and explain the molecular basis of disease with a view to new clinical practice.

Cottonball (talk) 08:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as a classic case of WP:WALL that cannot be fixed with any straightfoward merge process. WillOakland (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a wall as it does not satisfy the definition "but do not have any links to or from anything outside the group". For example, in the main article 'Herb usage', there are 23 references, out of which 8 of them are links to sites that do not link back to 'Herb usage'. The others are references to published materials. Similarly, the other parts have links to sites "outside the group". Cottonball (talk) 01:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the links mentioned above is to the Korean Traditional Knowledge Portal, a well-researched site with details on about 5,000 herbs. http://www.koreantk.com/en/m_sta/med_stat_search.jsp?searchGbn=statis. Cottonball (talk) 02:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand WP:WALL to refer to interwiki links, not external links which would be expected in a walled garden created as a web site mirror or a promotion. 12:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Inter-wiki links would include links to Indian Traditional Medicine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_herbs_and_minerals_in_Ayurveda), Japanese Traditional Medicine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kampo, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kampo_herb_list, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kampo_list) as well as other articles on Traditional Chinese Medicine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_herbology).

Delete - the extent of the WP:WALL isn't fully displayed above, there are many more articles (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants#Article list for a full list). I recently took some of them to AfD (here) but there was no consensus. Also see the discussion at WT:PLANTS (here). The article lists essentially tell you very little (or nothing). The first two columns are different non-English names for these "herbs", the fourth is a "Latin name" and the third is a rough English translation of the Latin (probably from one of the search engines or translation guides in a WP:LINKFARM article the editor also started: Herb (Translation of herb names)). What do we get out of all this? We know four ways to say or read the name of an "herb", but we don't know the species or anything about it other than the source of the material based on the article names: root, tuber, stem, etc. What would be much more helpful and useful as an article would be a List of plants used in traditional Chinese medicine or something like that, arranged by type of material (root, stem, etc.) and then by species, but I think none of the existing information would be salvageable. --Rkitko ^(talk) 13:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(1) As given above, the relevant links prove that it is not a wall, so displaying more articles cannot prove that it is a wall. (2) I have no doubt that the articles can be more useful than their current form, but this is not a criterion for deletion. Rather, it is a criterion for improving the articles. If the articles are deleted, they cannot be improved, so the move to delete them based on this reason is self-contradictory. Kindly reconsider. Cottonball (talk) 14:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I read WP:WALL, the existence of external links is irrelevant to whether or not it is a walled garden in Wikipedia terms. The problem is that the pages are not integrated into the rest of WikiPedia. (Note the example of the older, and competing, page on Chinese herbology). Lavateraguy (talk) 21:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong opposition to stated deletion reasons.~~ Delete I still don't know if the article is useful or not, Cottonball's answer on the article talk page was really no help whatsoever. However, I don't see a proper reason for deletion listed. "Group of articles all created by one user." I'm writing a group of articles about Berkeley Geochronology Center and their scientists. Are you going to delete all of my articles because they are a "group of articles created by one user?" Is this a valid reason for deletion? "The majority of the content is a directory of herbs with their supposed uses, not encyclopedia material." What? Of course herbs with their supposed uses are part of an encyclopedia! It's called economic botany--figures we don't have an article on that, probably deleted because plants and their supposed uses isn't encyclopedic. Wikipedia has hundreds, maybe thousands of articles on herbs or their components and their supposed uses. We have an editor who does nothing but add molecules from plants and their supposed uses, and I've never seen one of his articles in an AfD because their content is inherently encyclopedic. "May be better suited for Wikibooks." How so? I still can't even read the article, so I am curious how you say it is for Wiki books. I am going to ask other plant editors to weigh in on this AfD as it seems to be attempting to set dangerous precedent to delete economic botany articles under the guise of WP:I just don't like it. --KP Botany (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure but if these articles are kept, they need a ton of cleanup. As for WP:WALL, I see a pretty solid wall (sure it may have a few chinks, but it needs tearing down). For example, why are all the specific plants on Herb usage not linked to their articles for example? Another way of saying it is whether Herb usage is a content fork of Chinese herbology. Kingdon (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the creator said they were forked due to a request, which kinda does make them a wall. the intent is to make it an article about traditional uses of herbs, rather than just Chinese herbology (which is usually called Traditional Chinese medicine, academically, hope we don't have two such articles). Yes, they're not readable, ton of cleanup is nice. Oh, I see, TCM is all traditional Chinese medicines, not just the herbs, as I use the term. --KP Botany (talk) 21:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Herb usage is not a good title - on the one hand the content neglects usage in European and Indian (and presumably other) materia medica, and ethnopharmacology, and the culinary and cosmetic usages of herbs, on the other hand it proposes to include non-herbal elements of the traditional Chinese materia medica. Lavateraguy (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(1) There is a section on Indian traditional herbs in the article. Regarding European herb usage, i thought that they are already well represented in Wikipedia.(2) Initially, non-herbal elements have been included, but i have removed all of them (afaik) as there were objections to including them as "herbs". What is left behind is just a statement that these elements are used in TCM materia medica, but no names, usage or references are given. Cottonball (talk) 02:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Merge/Move to other articles and leave redirects behind. The content here should be reflected in navboxes and categories, once properly sourced content is added to the relevant articles. For example, any reliably sourced content in Herb (hyperlipidemia) instead should go in Hyperlipidemia, in the Treatment section, and in an article about each herb, in the Uses section. --Una Smith (talk) 23:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't follow you here. There should be no aggregate article on the usage of herbs in medicine? I doubt that is what you are saying, so please clarify about the main article only, as the forks cannot be redeemed as far as I can tell. Rather, the content of the main article, if its intention is to be an article about traditional uses of herbs, particularly title and general content of such an article. --KP Botany (talk) 23:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KP Botany, I am making no statement about the meta-question you pose; this AfD concerns only these particular articles, their present content, and what to do now. For example, I worked text from Herb (hyperlipidemia) into Hyperlipidemia. The source does not apply; it concerns a patent for a formulation of multiple plants. It does not establish use in traditional Chinese medicine nor efficacy in humans. --Una Smith (talk) 01:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The meta question is only about the herb usage article, so I don't know what happened to the hyperlipidemia article. I found the tangents impossible to follow, though, as they're not really articles. Good luck to you on them. Patent formulations are not reliable sources. --KP Botany (talk) 02:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I do see what you mean about the particular articles, though. Just not how that applies to the main article. --KP Botany (talk) 23:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main article being Herb usage? That is hard to say because the subject is so ill-defined. Does herb mean herbaceous plant? Does use mean medicinal use? I don't know and I suppose Cottonball may not know either. --Una Smith (talk) 01:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Herb as in herbal medicine doesn't even necessary mean plant, but refers to the primary use of plants for medicinal purposes. In this article, I can't even read it, so it's hard to know what is meant, but from talk page discussion it appears to mean traditional use of primarily plants for medicinal purposes. There may be a language issue with Cottonball that is making the proplem worse, as I don't think he/she is addressing the purpose of an encyclopedia article, so it's hard to really say anything. Probably merge, verify redirects, and leave them behind would be useful, although verification first. --KP Botany (talk) 02:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Random collection of unverifiable information. JFW | T@lk 22:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Verifiable published information referenced by the article can be found in the following journals (this is a sample and not a complete list), together with a short introduction of the respective journal:

Advances in Chronic Kidney Disease : "The purpose of Advances Chronic Kidney Disease is to provide in-depth, scholarly review articles about the care and management of persons with early kidney disease and kidney failure, as well as those at risk for kidney disease."
Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry : "Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry provides an international forum for the publication of full original research papers and critical reviews on molecular interactions in key biological targets such as receptors, channels, enzymes, nucleotides, lipids and saccharides."
Carbohydrate Research : "Since its inception in 1965, Carbohydrate Research has gained a reputation for its high standard and wide scope which includes all aspects of carbohydrate chemistry and biochemistry. Articles published in the journal cover sugars and their derivatives (also cyclitols, and model compounds for carbohydrate reactions), oligo- and polysaccharides, nucleosides, nucleotides, and glycoconjugates."
European Journal of Cancer and Clinical Oncology : "The European Journal of Cancer (including EJC Supplements) is the official Journal of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), the European CanCer Organisation (ECCO), the European Association for Cancer Research (EACR), the the European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists (EUSOMA) and the European School of Oncology (ESO). "
European Journal of Pharmacology : "The European Journal of Pharmacology publishes full-length papers on the mechanisms of action of chemical substances affecting biological systems. "
Enzyme and Microbial Technology : "Enzyme and Microbial Technology is an international, peer-reviewed journal publishing original research and reviews, of biotechnological significance and novelty, on basic and applied aspects of the use of enzymes, micro-organisms, animal cells and plant cells. "
Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology : "Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology publishes the results of studies concerning toxic and pharmacological effects of (human and veterinary) drugs and of environmental contaminants in animals and man."
Fitoterapia : "Fitoterapia is a Journal dedicated to medicinal plants and to bioactive natural products of plant origin."
Journal of Ethnopharmacology : "The Official Journal of the International Society for Ethnopharmacology. The Journal of Ethnopharmacology is dedicated to the exchange of information and understandings about people's use of plants, fungi, animals, microorganisms and minerals and their biological and pharmacological effects based on the principles established through international conventions."
Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
Maturitas : "The Official Journal of the European Menopause and Andropause Society (EMAS). Maturitas is an international multidisciplinary peer reviewed scientific journal of midlife health and beyond publishing original research, reviews, consensus statements and guidelines. "
Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis : "Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis. A Sponsored Journal of the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists. This journal is an international medium directed towards the needs of academic, clinical, government and industrial analysis by publishing original research reports and critical reviews on pharmaceutical and biomedical analysis."
Life Sciences : "Life Sciences is an international journal publishing articles that emphasize the molecular, cellular, and functional basis of therapy. All articles are rigorously reviewed. "
Pharmacological Research : "Pharmacological Research provides a rapid information exchange medium for specialists within the discipline of pharmacology." Cottonball (talk) 03:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the issue, Cottonball. The problem is the article is just not an encyclopedia article, it's a list of herbs with bullet points. Read today's main page Featured Article, whatever it is. It tells a story about the subject of the article. Your articles don't even have complete sentences, just phrases and words sprinkled here and there.

An article is an essay on a topic. It has an introduction that's an introduction to the topic, rather than an introduction that says, "this article will talk about herb usage," as your article's introduction is. The introduction is not necessarily labeled, and it doesn't come after the introduction. You don't have to say what the article is about, because that is the point of having a title. The London article is about London, it doesn't say, "This article will discuss the London metropolitan area," it just does that.

You must write complete sentences in English that convey a thought. They have to be in a logical order. They have to include what's relevant, and the article, overall, should develop what is relevant as it moves from beginning, the introduction, through the middle, the bulk of the discussion, to the end.

Wikipedia already has an article on Traditional Chinese Medicine, which appears to be where you're going now.

This simply is not an encyclopedia article.

--KP Botany (talk) 03:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- My above reply is in response to the "unverifiable information" issue raised by JFW. It lists 14 reputable journals where information can be verified; it is not aimed at addressing all issues simultaneously, as it is beyond my ability to do so. Cottonball (talk) 03:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You asked me to write an Introduction, and i am in the process of doing so. Please be patient while it is being written in logical order. As far as i can see, many articles contain tables/lists, so their existence per se should not preclude their existence in Wikipedia. An example is this AfD page where a list of 14 journals is found.Cottonball (talk) 03:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, spare me, I'm the only person here not voting for deletion, and you simply won't work with me to improve the article. Focusing now on me, rather than the article isn't going to help matters. I give up. --KP Botany (talk) 07:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please do not take this personally, as my intention is not to "focus on you", anymore than it is to focus on other WP administrators here. Rather, it is to focus on the points raised. In this respect, i have to address the issues you raised, even if you are the only person here NOT voting for deletion. But i suppose this doesn't matter anymore, as discussion has unilaterally ceased. Cottonball (talk) 07:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - What parts did you try to verifiy, JFW? Please elaborate so you can show to Cottonball how the article is unverifiable.
  - However, Cottonball, it does not matter. What is important is that your article is a "random collection" of information, not an article. There are articles that are lists, yours is not titled "List," as are lists. Articles include tables and images, that does not mean a table alone or an image alone is a stand-alone article. Lists are related to an article, tables are parts of articles, images go in articles or lists or tables.
    - What JFW said matters to me, that's why i attempted to address it. However, this discussion seems to be morphing into a random walk with no end in sight, as i doubt changing the title to "Lists" will make it acceptable to you. Cottonball (talk) 05:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Your article is a random collection of words and bullet points so far associated with Chinese Traditional Medicine. As said before, we already have an article on TCM.
    - There seems to be 2 points here: (1) The use of the word "random" as a criterion for deletion, but in what way is this applicable? (2) The assumption that a general article on TCM will preclude all other discussions or subsets of this topic, just like an article on "Great Britain" will preclude an article on London. i fail to see the logic of this. Cottonball (talk) 05:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - I suggest you ask someone to move the article to your user space, or move it yourself, work on it there, and when you think you have an article, I will be glad to look it over.
  - This is what your introduction still says, and the edit history[44] says you have not even touched it yet:
  - "This article discusses the use of herbs for various physical needs in a very simplified way. As the use of herbs to treat diseases can be complicated, depending on the condition of the patient, the stage of treatment, as well as other herbs/drugs that are taken, this article is not to be used for self-prescription, and neither is it to be used for prescribing for others. This is especially true for large dosages, repeated or long-term use of herbs or herbal formulas."
    - i changed the Introduction [45] a number of times, as shown in its edit history. Cottonball (talk) 05:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - An article begins, "Herb usage is how people in various cultures traditionally use herbs..." It does not begin, "This article discusses...." We know that the article discusses "herb usage" because this is an encyclopedia and the article is titled "herb usage," and that's how encyclopedia's work, they tell the user about a topic based upon the article title. Please, just take it to user space, work on it, get it to where others can understand what you're doing. That's what sandboxes are for, places to write and create. You can even do this offline. --KP Botany (talk) 04:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The response has been moved here. [46] Cottonball (talk) 07:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A related problem is Chinese herbology which I think should be moved again to Chinese materia medica. What I now think Cottonball wants to write about is the use of crude medicine in general, not limited to traditional Chinese medicine; the Chinese materia medica is the Chinese pharmacopoeia of crude medicines. So at this moment I would merge Herb usage into Crude medicine. However, I have not looked at all other articles in this cluster. --Una Smith (talk) 03:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, crude medicine is the ingredients for the pharmacopia, and materia medica is more like the Physician's Desk Reference plus some of the pharmacopia, and the crude medicine, since we're discussing herbal remedies here. Chinese materia medica should probably be a section in Chinese herbology, or its own article, rather than the primary article. You may be correct that what Cottonball is attempting is a general article on crude medicine, as that is what appears to be the subject matter of the articles. It had not occurred to me that what I was thinking and what he/she was writing were so far apart. Still it now appears that the purpose of the original article is original research! This could be discussed in WP:Plants or on the various article pages. I think most of the articles are in poor condition, possibly due to limited editing in those arenas maybe because of the rabid anti-pseudoscience quacks. --KP Botany (talk) 04:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: As far as I can tell no justification has been presented for having this article in addition to already existing articles on traditional Chinese medicine, herbalism, Chinese herbology, Ayurveda, List of plants used as medicine, Phytopharmacology, etc. What does article provide that the others don't? and why should it be in a separate series of articles? (See WP:WALL.)
- The original article (Herb usage) was more than 100kB long, and i was asked to split it, so that it becomes more accessible/readable. Wikipedia:SPLIT Cottonball (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're missing the point. The question is not whether you should write one article or many; it's whether you should write new articles rather than adding to the existing articles on the same subject. See WP:Content forking. Lavateraguy (talk) 13:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - As some of the articles are rather short (List of plants used as medicine and Phytopharmacology), adding/merging will simply mean that most of the materials will be from Herb usage, and the same comments will probably apply. i am open to merging if it does not cause the other articles to be deleted. Cottonball (talk) 14:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore the author writes "i believe that plants hold a lot of secrets that we have yet to explore or understand, and traditional sources can offer interesting leads." While this is a legitimate position, the author gives the impression that he is writing from a position of advocacy, and I fear that it will lead him to violate WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP; his material may be better suited to being presented on his own site, or at Wikibooks. He should consider how he would react to the addition of citations of papers finding herbal medicines to be inferior, ineffective or harmful to the pages (see WP:OWN). Therefore I propose that what material is salvageable is be merged into appropriate articles (as has been down at hyperlipidemia).
- i can hardly object to findings that show herbs to be "inferior, ineffective or harmful", for the same reasons that texts in TCM actually do so. Finding inferior and ineffective herbs will sieve them out, resulting in superior and effective ones. Similarly, it is the practice of TCM texts to list "harmful" herbs, that is, herbs that are toxic all the time, and those that are toxic some of the time (contraindications). i am not writing from a position of advocacy, as i feel that such findings should be welcomed instead of rejected, for they add to our store of collected knowledge. Knowing what is wrong is as important as, if not more so than, knowing what is right, for they are two sides of the same coin. Cottonball (talk) 01:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It may be that these concerns are unwarranted, but it would be preferable to resolve the issue now, rather than deal with a potential can of worms down the line.
Perhaps the author could discuss his aims at his own talk page, and see whether they can be reconciled with Wikipedia's aims.
A less ambitious project would be to expand, and split as appropriate, relevant sections of herbalism (risks to health, effectiveness, clinical studies). The current ambitious goal has led to a supposedly general page that rapidly focuses on TCM, which is not a desirable state of affairs. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and/or rename all. This is complicated. These seem to be well-sourced, so in the interests of preserving information these should be salvaged in some form. I'll address these each separately:
- Merge and redirect sourced and verifiable information in Herb usage to Herbalism. This is a content fork and should be covered in the already existing article about the topic.
- Rename Herb (TCM Classification) to List of herb categories in traditional Chinese medicine, and possibly merge to Chinese herbology.
- Merge Herb (General Usage Part 1), Herb (General Usage Part 2), and Herb (General Usage Part 3) to List of herbs used in traditional Chinese medicine. Possibly merge to List of plants used as medicine.
- Rename Herb (Chinese-Japanese Common Herbs) to List of herbs used in multiple traditional medicine practices, and merge in the "Herbs common to..." sections of Herb usage.
- Rename Herb (formulas) to Traditional herbal formulas and possibly merge to Chinese classic herbal formula.
- Rename Herb (patents) to List of patented traditional herbal formulas.
- Merge Herb (preparation) to Traditional herbal formulas.
- Rename Herb (anti-oxidant) to List of herbs with anti-oxidant capacity.
- Rename Herb (anti-cancer) to List of herbs used in the treatment or prevention of cancer.
- Merge Herb (hyperlipidemia) to Hyperlipidemia#Treatment.
- Rename Herb (Meanings of Terms) to Glossary of traditional herbal medicine, and probably merge the definitions of individual terms into the articles in which they are used, and the other notes where they would be most appropriate.

I do not envy the admin who closes this discussion, but I hope that it is not closed as delete simply because other options would be more difficult. DHowell (talk) 06:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- i agree with DHowell's proposal to Merge and/or rename all. Cottonball (talk) 08:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 00:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of catgirls[edit]

Indiscriminate list. This list contributes nothing to the sum total of human knowledge except that some people are enamoured of pointless lists. It's divided into rather arbitrary subsections, and riddled with original research judging by the "presumably"s, "apparently"s and "suggests that"s. There are no sources to confirm that any of the individual entries are in fact catgirls; although some are probably obvious, others are not. The Egyptian goddess Bast? Come on! That's not even OR, that's just opinion. All in all, this list is an indiscriminate, pointless mess that Wikipedia would be better off without. Reyk _YO! 08:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I think this could be an okay list with some real pruning, but it might actually be better to just kill it and start over with a category, or a section in List of fictional cats. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It links to other articles on the wikipedia, thus making it a valid list. Most of these characters or series listed are notable enough to have their own wikipedia articles. Dream Focus 13:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to other articles is a reason to keep? Thats a new one.... Dandy Sephy (talk) 14:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It means it isn't just some arbitrary list, but a list of notable things. Very helpful for finding things on the wikipedia. Dream Focus 14:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of these are valid reasons for keeping the list. All wikipedia lists should link to other articles on Wikipedia; otherwise, they're dead-end (and likely orphaned) articles. It's perfectly possible for a list in which every entry is linked to an article to still be completely arbitrary or invalid. The individual entries having sufficient notability for their own articles has no bearing here. And usefulness (or "helpfulness") is not a valid argument for keeping. I'm not going to argue your keep !vote itself, based on Quasirandom's below comments, but your arguments aren't much. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 19:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination consists of arguments that the list needs to be cleaned up, not that the list needs to be deleted. Also, contra the nomination, it does not have "no sources" -- one is sourced, to a scholarly article citing that particular catgirl as the one that popularized the type, which ought to be enough to show that the subject of catgirls is notable. So: clean it up, and if after citing all that can be cited and deleting the rest the list is too small, then start a proposal to merge it back into Catgirl,the article from which this was split and which acts as its context. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For sources, one has only to look at the other wikipedia articles the list links to, or check the official sites of the series, if they believe any on the list are a hoax, and there aren't really catgirls in them. Dream Focus 14:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If there are indeed articles that don't belong to this category,then remove them.Otherwise,why bother? -R.G. (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - per Quasi, AfD is not cleanup. Work through the list first, and bring it back to AfD after it's cleaned up, if necessary. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 19:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The list appears to have been created simply to have a list and membership of the list involves original research or synthesis of ideas. See also WP:LISTCRUFT. --Farix (Talk) 23:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original research? You mean they have to look over at the cover of the series, and say hey, that is a catgirl on it? Common sense indicates we don't need to wait until a newspaper or magazine reviewer says it is a catgirl, if we can use our own eyes to verify that. Do you have and realistic doubts that the catgirls on the list exist? Dream Focus 03:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using your "own eyes" also means using your own interpretation, which falls under WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. That's why we have WP:V to avoid this. --Farix (Talk) 03:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Cruftcruft "Unfortunately, [cruft's] definition's complete and utter lack of any objective criteria leaves "cruft" in the eye of the beholder. Rather than being anything meaningfully nonencyclopedic, Cruft becomes any topic, subject or article that the beholder is uninterested in...Ways to spot Cruftcruft...Almost always used as "justification" for a delete vote in an Article for Deletion...Options other than delete not often considered...Use of the word "Cruft", commonly found in increasingly bizarre portmanteau forms, such as "listcruft", "gamecruft", and the nearly all-inclusive "Vanispamcruftisement"." Ikip (talk) 16:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Farix has this right. This is an indiscriminate list. Also seems to be put together with original research. The list is doomed to these from its outset because of its overly broad topic. Them From Space 00:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is the topic overly broad? It only list one thing, that being catgirls. Dream Focus 03:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The list ranges from cat characters to characters who simply wear cat-ears. --Farix (Talk) 03:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If each section was divided into separate article pages, many would want to merge it altogether. Having catboys listed in the catgirls article is a bit odd though. Nothing elses seems out of place. Dream Focus 04:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a complete waste of space. Doceirias (talk) 01:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Idontlikeit isn't a valid excuse. Do you have another reason for its deletion? Dream Focus 03:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ILIKEIT isn't a valid reason for keeping, either. Reyk _YO! 03:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TheFarix. Purely WP:OR with few legitimately sourcable entries, which can and should already be discussed as appropriate under cat girl. This list fails WP:NOT and WP:N. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Quasirandom and Dream Focus's arguments. Ikip (talk) 16:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if they are significant characters in notable fiction, the list is not indiscriminate. Indiscriminate is not a synonym for: "less important than I think they ought to be". It can mean listing everything of a type, regardless of any criterion at all, or listing things at random, or on the basis of non-rational criteria. This is a rational criterion. "Cruft" similarly is a synonym for NOTIMPORTANTTOME. I'd say half of Wp is not the least important to me. it might be exactly the opposite half of some people here, and then we'd have no encyclopedia at all. DGG (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list performs the usual purpose of assisting navigation and so seems quite proper per WP:LIST. This function is analagous to an index in a paper reference book and these are usually thought indispensable for a good reference work. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see the ARS has arrived to shout "KEEP" in unison just as soon as the article was tagged for "rescue". And here they claim that the ARS is not an inclusionist voting block. --Farix (Talk) 22:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What?? I don't see any elephants in this room. Them From Space 22:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken. I am a member of the ARS and added a citation to the article for the cat-goddess Bast - the only entry which has been specifically challenged. I would have done more but the list does not seem to need any more help, being well-structured and comprehensive. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One citation out of hundreds of entries. And does it really say that the goddess is a "catgirl" or does it simply verify the existence of this goddess in Egyptian mythology? If it's the later, then it still fails WP:SYNTH. Almost all of the entries have issues with WP:NOR and especially WP:SYNTH. Who calls character that dress in cat costumes "catgirls"? Or characters who transforms into cats (ex. Minerva McGonagall) as catgirls? --Farix (Talk) 23:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Farix, Assume good faith. There have been plenty of articles flagged for rescue which had few and sometimes no rescue members getting involved. And most did say Keep before that tag was even added. Dream Focus 01:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

((rescue)) was added at 04:13 on March 21. The last three keeps were all by ARS members at 16:12, 21:00, and 00:02 on March 22. That's simply calling a spade a spade. This is the kind of block voting that we were told by ARS members didn't happened the last time ((rescue)) was put up for TfD. --Farix (Talk) 01:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain the difference between this and the hit list which is to be found at Anime and manga. You and other editors seem to have a consistent pattern of voting delete for articles upon this list. Do you claim exclusive rights over this material? Colonel Warden (talk) 09:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike the ARS, WP:ANIME is not a group that wants to keep or delete articles. Nor does it solicit membership based on inclusionist or deletionist tendencies. Simply put, the workgroup doesn't go around creating or protecting Walled gardens. The deletion sorting page is also is neither inclusionist or deletionist in nature. Inclusionist, such as Dream Focus, can use these lists just as easily as a deletionist would. The only thing that a listing on the anime and manga deletion sorting page will result in is members of WP:ANIME, who are usually in a better position to judge an article against policies and guidelines, to comment on the proposed deletions. --Farix (Talk) 13:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The animanga delsort page is not a hitlist, it is simply a list of pages within the scope of WP:ANIME which are up for deletion, similar to any of the dozens of other WP:DELSORT lists. The only agendas being represented via that page are the agendas of whomever is perusing it at any given time. And I'd appreciate you not making assumptions on my !voting patterns (as, probably, would many of the other people who watch that list); I !vote on the merits of articles listed there (if I comment in the first place), not on my personal opinions or editing philosophy (which, by the way, is somewhere around mergist). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 19:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep of flawed nom, one that violates POLICY (WP:ATD) and Guideline (WP:BEFORE) by ignoring them before making the nomination. You don't Ignore the rules unless it improves wikipedia. And further, to state "This list contributes nothing to the sum total of human knowledge" is diametrically opposed to the entire purpose of why wiki is here. Perhaps this list will not increase the nom's knowledge, but a number of editors who have actually contibuted to the article might seem to indicate that the "knowledge" is notable to them and worth inclusion in a paperless encyclopedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing wrong with the nomination. It cites policy (ie. WP:V and WP:OR). Either this article can be improved (which I doubt), in which case this AfD will act as a spur to improving it, or it can't in which case it should be deleted. Either way, derailing productive discussion on procedural grounds hurts Wikipedia and should be discuraged. Reyk _YO! 00:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whatever is cited as reasons for deletion, the ignored policy WP:BEFORE means just that "BEFORE". And using an AfD to "spur improvement" is itself a misuse of the AfD process, most specifically because there was no WP:DEADLINE before this AFD was initiated to force a showdown and start a ticking clock. Tagging it for improvement, whether you personally think it is possible or not, is the proper procedure and assuumes good faith that others might try. Circumventing policy is never to be encouraged. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nice try. I did not use AfD for the purpose of spurring improvement to it, but because I think it is irredeemable. As I explicitly stated. The (unlikely) possibility for improving it to an acceptable standard is an additional perk resulting from the process in case I am wrong. I resent you twisting and misrepresenting my views. And isn't it funny how the same people who go on and on about WP:BEFORE are the same ones who take no notice of WP:BURDEN? Reyk _YO! 00:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I am sorry that quoting you is not proper. But you did in fact just write "Either this article can be improved (which I doubt), in which case this AfD will act as a spur to improving it, or it can't in which case it should be deleted." And isn't it funny how those people who ignore WP:BEFORE are the first to divert attention from that error by pointing in other directions? Not you, naturally. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment WP:BEFORE isn't policy. It's advice to editors before nominating an article. At best, it as guideline status. However, AfD can't be closed as Keep on the bases that an editor ignored WP:BEFORE. --Farix (Talk) 01:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        You say I ignored WP:BEFORE. I didn't. I took a good long look at the article to see whether it could be improved by editing and in my opinion it can't. You say I ignored policy in my nomination. I didn't. I referred to WP:V and WP:OR, which actually are policy. You say I started this AfD to get this article improved. I didn't. I went as far as saying that's one of the good things that could result from the discussion in case I am wrong about the article's potential. And you wonder why I'm complaining that you are putting your words in my mouth. Being deliberately misrepresented is one of the things I don't put up with. Reyk _YO! 01:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arbitrary/loose nature of subject. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 11:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete arbirtrary, indiscriminate, not a directory.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I suppose. Assuming (from the existence of catgirl) that this is a notable fictional archetype, it's reasonable to list notable examples. I think anything non-obvious should be trimmed unless cited, and then it will be small enough to merge back into catgirl. Nerfari (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 13:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List requires cleanup which seems rather easily done. Nerfari's comment that this is a navigational aide similar to a glossary in a paper encyclopedia also bears consideration. I'm normally antilists cause they're a poor excuse to remove content, but when its a navigational aid I can support them. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like a reasonable list, no real reason given for deletion. Artw (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful list for navigation. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A useful and encyclopedic list the meets guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some of them are a bit annoying in person, but the phenomenon is easily notable, indicating that a well-sourced and sorted list is in order. As a side note - the nomination was fine. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly indiscriminate; a category is somewhat appropriate for individual character articles, but aside from that, this is an exercise in original research. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 03:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely indiscriminite OR. AngoraFish 木 11:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted without prejudice to re-creation. When the copyvio was removed, what was left was a very brief article without context, and the only information it contained was the name of the title and the authors. No opinion on the book's notability. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Six Disciplines of Breakthrough Learning: How to Turn Training and Development Into Business Results[edit]

Page is essentially a how-to on business. Violates WP:NOT among other things. NeutralHomer • Talk • March 20, 2009 @ 04:20

Delete The article is about a non-notable book, whose authors do not have articles on Wikipedia. A Google News Archive search returns very few results that can be used to source and expand the article. Cunard (talk) 06:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Most of the article was a copyvio of the book's Amazon entry, so I have removed that content from the article. Cunard (talk) 06:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only reviews I could find were also from Amazon, and they were all copied from the back of the book. This doesn't seem to be notable. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Pretty much nonsense, besides, mathematically wrong. Tone 16:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reardon's Theorem[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Reardon's Theorem

The "theorem" is not correct as defined here; take for example the case where A=0, B=3, and C=3. This gives that -27=27, obviously wrong. Further, the article was created by User:Pjreardon, smacking of a WP:OR violation. Quantumobserver (talk) 06:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I can add nothing to what Quantumobserver has said. This article is blatantly original research and even more blatantly wrong. Reyk _YO! 06:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Delete. Well, I'll add that there are actually zero ghits. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probably a hoax. --neon white talk 08:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems a bit hoaxy but the main problem is that it's totally unverifiable, pointing towards WP:OR. There does seem to be a mathematician by the name of Patrick Reardon, but I can't find any mention of a theorem he may have discovered (correct or not). one brave monkey 10:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as blatant hoax. If A*B = 0 then either A or B (or both) must equal zero and this in itself makes the formula pretty useless as if B = 0 it quickly reduces to A^n = A^n. Worse if B = 0 it reduces to (-B)^n = B^n which is obviously false. This is never going to be verifiable as it's obviously false. Dpmuk (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per Dpmuk. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeshiva Torah Temimah[edit]

Sending to AfD for discussion because the PROD tag was removed. Does not appear to have sufficient notability per our school guidelines. The prod tag was removed because there was allegedly an instructor there at one point who was a suspected pedophile. Enigma^msg 06:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The aforementioned pedophilia scandal received substantial reliable source coverage; see this version of the article before it was stubbed. It's part of the history and functioning of the organization, not just information about an individual connected to it, so this is not a COATRACK situation (this appears to have been the rationale for suppressing the information). The sources mentioned demonstrate international reliable source coverage of the organization, so it satisfies WP:ORG. The article should cover more than the pedophilia scandal, but that's a reason for article editing, not deletion. Baileypalblue (talk) 06:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 07:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per Baileypalblue's comment. Extremepro (talk) 08:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - multi-campus school backed up by reliable sources. TerriersFan (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In that case, this article needs to be rewritten entirely per WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK. Any volunteers? Enigma^msg 00:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have done some editing, and I encourage others to join in as well. Baileypalblue (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meeting V and N, but with an encouragement to expand the article to non-controversy related material. Per WP:NNC we don't have to limit the article to solely what's covered in reliable sources. Jclemens (talk) 23:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it is a very notable established Haredi yeshiva in Brooklyn worthy of an article on its own positive merits. True, unfortunately, it has been the place where there has been a problem with dealing with allegations of sexual misconduct by a teacher and a subsequent cover-up, but that is not what makes the yeshiva notable nor important as a yeshiva per se. Similarly, Dallas is not notable only because JFK was shot there! But it is obvious that looking at the editing history of the two users here who have worked on portraying only negative information, Yomista ‎ (talk · contribs) and Nonameyetanon (talk · contribs) that they themselves may well be bordering on a number of problematic behaviors that need to be monitered more closely such as WP:NOTSCANDAL; WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND and WP:LIBEL and due to the limited and identical nature of their edits they may well also be in violation of WP:SOCKPUPPET. Scandals and legal problems are interesting but while they may make for good yellow journalism it is not the same thing as writing and building a reliable WP:NPOV encyclopedia. IZAK (talk) 06:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I noticed that somebody on the article talk page has suggested splitting out the sexual abuse controversy to its own article, presumably as a way of reducing the weight it is given in this article. I don't support this -- I don't think the subject merits its own article -- but I thought I'd mention it here, while we have a quorum. Baileypalblue (talk) 10:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Baileypalblue: Seems the suggestion was made by an anonymous editor [47] who simply wanted to move out controversial stuff. It's a bad idea and the only ones who would gain from it are the POV-warriors who are out on a rampage to create as much negative PR about Orthodox Judaism as they can. If anything, the story about the sex offender allegations should be shrunk down to a size that does not make it appear that the entire yeshiva's claim to fame is because one teacher and its principal were accused of wrong-doing. Suicides, rapes, prostitution, harrasments and murders happen with students on almost all secular college campuses over time, but that is not what makes them notable educational institutions. IZAK (talk) 13:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is clearly going to result in a Keep, but I will not withdraw it because the article needs to be discussed and I'm afraid it won't be discussed further if this AfD is closed. Enigma^msg 17:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was - Deleted - Speedied as obvious misinformation (G3) - Peripitus (Talk) 06:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Underhill[edit]

Obvious hoax Grahame (talk) 05:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 05:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as vandalism. Reyk _YO! 06:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn and article redirected by Habanero-tan, per the result of last month's AfD. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 13:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nannerpus[edit]

Funny little banana octopus isn't notable enough for an article because he only appears in one commercial. Habanero-tan (talk) 04:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Agree with the nominator. Of the "sources" in this article, one is a broken link, another doesn't mention the banana-peel octopus thing at all and another is just a youtube-like posting of the video. No notability established. Reyk _YO! 05:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Denny's, which was the result of the first AfD the subject of this article received: WP:Articles_for_deletion/Nanerpus. I wouldn't object to a deletion, but I think the fate of both spellings of this should be in sync. Rnb (talk) 05:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the reasoning at WP:Articles_for_deletion/Nanerpus, which still holds, or delete if the editors of this article are unwilling to accept the consensus of the community to redirect. Baileypalblue (talk) 05:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, didn't know about WP:Articles_for_deletion/Nanerpus. I'll redirect and I withdraw this nomination. Habanero-tan (talk) 05:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theo Green[edit]

Tried CSD (declined as notability is apparently claimed), and then PROD, but PROD removed by article creator.

Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC criteria, and doesn't meet WP:NOTE. Being listed in IMDB is not criteria for inclusion. A good faith effort to seek out reliable sources coverage didn't reveal anything specific, but does confirm that this is not a hoax.

Composing scores for notable movies is not a claim to notability, and "Twisted Pair" is not notable. While the New College is notable, its choir isn't singly notable.

Put simply, there is no independent coverage that makes for a wikipedia article. This should be deleted or merged into The_Escapist_(2008_film)#Music, which is certainly the one notable thing. Cerejota (talk) 05:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 05:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 05:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 05:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Composing scores for notable films IS notable. WP:CREATIVE says: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." - Mgm|^(talk) 12:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any indication that his scoring work is notable; that he had that relatively minor role on a notable film doesn't mean he meets WP:CREATIVE--we don't give articles for the makeup artists or set designers or editors or foley artists, either. If he is nominated for an Oscar for scoring, he'll pass the bar then. THF (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Meets the following criteria for MUSIC.

Criteria 10) Composed the score for Hush http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hush_(2009_film) which was nominated for a British Independent Film Award. http://www.bifa.org.uk/

AND Criteria 10), Has Composed and performed the soundtrack for 2 feature films with theatrical and television release, and a program for BBC television, as supported by References 3) and 4)

AND Criteria 1) It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable

See Reference link 1) from the Guardian / Observer, an online version of a printed newspaper in the UK - Quote 'The theme of the music was anything to do with alluring and dangerous women,' says Theo Green, who produced the music for the show. 'There's a big tango theme running through the soundtrack because that style of music brings out that sexy but dangerous side in women.' Green's background is in film so music and dialogue from movies such as The Wicker Man, The Ninth Gate and Las Vampiras that hint at the theme were layered on top of the other tracks. 'Some of the tracks may not instantly strike you as the most obvious music to walk to but I think it's good to break it up.'

See also Reference link 2) from The Irish Times, and online version of a printed newspaper in UK/Scotland - Quote 'More impressive still is the audio design. Whereas most low-budget films sleep happily if the dialogue remains perceptible, Hardy, sound designer Theo Green and composer Benjamin Wallfisch have conspired to create an expressionist clamour, which heightens the sense that we are in some drugged nightmare.'

AND Criteria 4) as supported by Reference 1) - Has toured and performed with televised shows at London and New York Fashion weeks. —Rumplestiltskin2009 (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Rumplestiltskin2009 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep To Cerejota: you mention New College Oxford is not notable for its choir, please see Wiki entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_College,_Oxford "The College is one of the main choral foundations of the University of Oxford. The College Choir has a reputation as one of the finest Anglican choirs in the world and have recorded over seventy albums, and have been awarded two Gramophone Awards."

ALSO PLEASE NOTE: New references added: the score for "Hush" is notable under Wiki's criteria, reviews and links have been added to show this film is now on general theatrical release in the United Kingdom and other countries. Alongside "The Escapist", both films have been nominated and won awards and are notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. Composing the music for Hush and composing both additional music and sound design for Escapist have attracted wide press coverage. Rumplestiltskin2009 (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As Rumplestiltskin2009 said, he won a notable award for his work, and therefor meets the requirements. Dream Focus 01:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies notability and references check out Jamestilley (talk) 02:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Jamestilley (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete addressing the many points above

Rumplestiltskin2009 did not say he won a notable award for his work. The film was nominated for an award and that award was not for the score and the nomination was not for Green.

The references may check out but only three are independent reliable sources and none of them have substantial coverage of Green.

None of the references show that the score for Hush is notable. One shows that the film might be, not every part of it. If "Composing the music for Hush and composing both additional music and sound design for Escapist have attracted wide press coverage" where is that coverage.

WP:CREATIVE does not appear to be satisfied. None of the works mentioned are a significant or well-known work and as a sum they are not significant or well-known collective body of work. The criteria is not about any notable work. I also disagree that Greens ivnvolvement counts as a major role in co-creating.

WP:MUSIC criteria 1 has not been satisfied as all the coverage of Green has been trivial.

WP:MUSIC criteria 10 is about performing.

"Reference 1)" (Guardian / Observer) does not support the claim he has toured and performed with televised shows at London and New York Fashion weeks. Duffbeerforme (talk) 05:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I cited "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." I was referring to the movie(s) as the well-known work. A score is a significant part of a movie and by contributing the score to the film, I believe he meets this criteria. It doesn't mean the score itself has to be well-known. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think yopu misinterpret what that policy says: it clearly means that " that has been the subject of" In other words, if a book or film is made about Theo Green, not if Theo Green participates in creating a book or film. I think this is a very clear, unambigous formation, and MGM is misunderstanding it. If the criteria where what you say, then wikipedia would be exactly as IMDB, and we can agree it isn't. I insist this should be merged into Hush and Escapist, with the redirect to Hush as it seems there are more RS for it. This guy certainly deserves to be mentioned, he is just not notable enough for an article on himself alone. --Cerejota (talk) 11:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Mgm. That is how I read your comment. What I am trying to say is that the criteria does not say a notable work. It says "significant or well-known work" which goes beyond simple notability as meant by wikipedia. I also don't think most scores count as "played a major role in co-creating" especially in the case of Greens work in The Escapist. In any case one should "see WP:MUSIC for guidelines on musicians, composers, groups, etc" which also has it's own section on composers (WP:COMPOSER). And for Cerejota I believe Mgm has it the right way around. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Satisfies WP:CREATIVE, Films "The Escapist" and "Hush" have been reviewed by multiple independent periodical, as given in References

Satisfies WP:MUSIC criteria 1, trivial coverage is defined as "articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories". References supplied include interviews in major newspaper and reviews (not trivial)
Satisfies WP:MUSIC criteria 10, Has composed abd performed music for a network television show (BBC Surviving Disaster) and two notable films, The Escapist and Hush.
Also as part of New College Choir, won two Gramophone Awards.

CEREJOTA please note: it is the WORK a person has been involved in that must be the subject of multiple independent articles and reviews, not the PERSON. If a PERSON has been involved in creating a work that attracts multiple reviews, it satisfies the criteria. The criteria does not mean that the person must have had a film made about them etc. The films mentioned are notable and reviewed, thus included on Wikipedia: composing the music for them is considered as notable under WP:MUSIC Jamestilley (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~What is that smell?~~

No, trivial coverage is not defined as that, they were examples.

As it stands there is no evidence that as part of New College Choir, Green won two Gramophone Awards. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Please try to keep comments helpful and related to info not "What is that smell"! The criteria for coverage is very clear; independence and reliability are down to the publication and trivial/non-trivial is down to whether the mention is a listing or part of the article. There can be no doubt that this composer has created music for several notable films, and the films mentioned are here on Wikipedia. That simply satisfies the composer section of WP:MUSIC, as with other composers represented by Air Edel and with a page on Wikipedia, eg David Julyan. Jamestilley (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck out your second keep !vote. Duffbeerforme (talk) 02:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the help from Article Rescue Squadron.

This topic now has more references, awards information, and links to notable work discussed in the press. Also of note is the unique combination of composition and sound design in film scores. Rumplestiltskin2009 (talk) 20:30, 18 March 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 04:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC. Film score musician with only one fairly minor credit of any importance. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable enough to those looking for obscure facts (WP's strength). Disc space is cheap. -65.246.126.130 (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Cleanup Evidence of notability exists, but the article is a bit too peacocky as it stands Avi (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for advice, have removed peacocky bits! Rumplestiltskin2009 (talk) 05:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:Creative. This composer has composed original music (a significant role) for a TV show (Surviving Disaster), and four notable films; Hush (2009), One Woman Show (2007), Explosions (2006), and Get the Picture (2004). Untick (talk) 04:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plenty of refs from Channel 4 to MTV News. Passes notability and WP:Music, no grounds for this to go Gilgamesh007 (talk) 11:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I may be blind but I did not see any mention of Green in the MTV News article and I only saw Green listed in the credits listed in the Channel 4 article. Yes there a lot of references provided but a good number do not even mention Green and those that do only provide trivial coverage. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Many of the references are there to establish the films he worked on as notable, which is one criteria, but others include reviews of his work, and some like Hollywood reporter review a film, mention the score, then list the name below. Rumplestiltskin2009 (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - References establishing the notability of things he worked on should be included in articles on the things he worked on. If it does not cover Greens work it has no place in Greens article. Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC) Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Can that be true? Still learning how to create WP content, but it seems obvious from looking around that Inline Citations are encouraged to support any point or claim made in an article, as in WP:CITE and WP:IC - its not just citations that talk directly about the creative work of a subject that are allowed on WP? Anyone else care to comment? Rumplestiltskin2009 (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You are right Rumplestilskin2009. Sources for everything should be provided but it's possible that they aren't importance for notability concerns (i.e. just passing references to him or something). Duffbeer, even if it doesn't cover Green's work, it can still be included with references. We just ignore then here for notability concerns. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets WP:Music #10. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 23:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 05:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Minkow[edit]

A biography containing unsourced negative information about a living person since it's creation - there are no versions that don't have serious and substantial BLP violations. Delete with extreme prejudice - a viable article should be started from scratch Exxolon (talk) 03:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although the negative information may be unsourced now, numerous sources exist about this person (see the New York Times and the Guardian). I would actually think that 90% of our BLPs are greater risks for defamation cases than this article due to the fact that there are some significant negative facts about this person which were widely reported in national media long before Wikipedia ever existed. However, we should make sure that the article treats the subject neutrally by also discussing the more recent and more positive aspects of his life. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well-known figure in Southern California via his incessant advertising, then his subsequent fraud trial. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Metropolitan90. Minkow was the perpetrator of an extremely well known case of corporate fraud, that was covered extensively in the media and business literature; he continues to draw attention and coverage even now. The current article is extremely detailed, perhaps excessively so from a readibility point of view, but it certainly does not appear to be defamatory in light of the widely reported facts about Minkow's history.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment His history was absolutely NOT widely reported outside California and was not reported **at all** in the wide vast world outside your country. References are required because not everyone reading the article lives where you do and a lot of them will not bother to look for references - they'll just send this to AFD or even CSD over and over again - because his fame is not obvious. That doesn't of course speak to whether the article should be deleted: I'm just suggesting that if you know of references to please put them in, to prevent this. I have never heard of him in my life before reading this AFD. --NellieBly (talk) 08:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have already started adding references to the article, most of which are not from media published in California. See also the references cited in my recommendation above -- neither of which is from a California newspaper. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Bangkok Post, Koelner Stadl Anzeiger, lots of sites outside of California. And besides, what are you claiming, that we can't have articles unless the person is known outside of the United States? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Before his downfall, Minkow was personally celebrated by President Reagan as an example of the entrepreneurial spirit that makes America great. His fraud trial, the sordid details (like borrowing from the Mob) and conviction were reported nationally, as a result. And there has been some reporting on his anti-fraud efforts ever since. As for "His history was absolutely NOT widely reported outside California and was not reported **at all** in the wide vast world outside your country.", see WP:UNKNOWNHERE. Daniel Case (talk) 08:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum Even if they do it on the German Wikipedia, we don't do this "tear down and rebuild" thing here. If the nominator thinks the article should be rewritten entirely, he should do so himself or tag it with ((cleanup-rewrite)) to encourage someone else to do so. Starting an AfD to force that issue is, well, lazy and a waste of time and resources here. Daniel Case (talk) 08:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, there is no contention by the nominator the person shouldn't have an entry, there are plenty of sources, the article just needed a major rewrite, for balance and maybe more sources. It's now been stubbed so BLP issues at the minute are moot. Rd232 ^talk 21:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable. See, e.g., [48] and the sources cited by Metropolitan90 above. TJRC (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SNOW... Tone 11:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tourism in Bolivia[edit]

WP:NOT#TRAVEL; procedural nomination, as I declined the CSD. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 03:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - because it is a poorly written travel brochure paragraph. Just delete. Might make a decent article in the future but not now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Bolivia#Tourism is good enough. Habanero-tan (talk) 05:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Economy of Bolivia#Tourism. Useful redirect, could some day be used as a title for a stand-alone article. Don't think there's anything in this article worth merging. Baileypalblue (talk) 05:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll switch to keep, I'm pleased to see LinguistAtLarge writing a viable article on this topic. Baileypalblue (talk) 07:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete travel guide and redirect. Besides, it doesn't include any phone numbers. WillOakland (talk) 05:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 06:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is an obviously encyclopedic and notable topic. The article just got off on the wrong foot. It needs cleanup, expansion, and references-- not deletion. I just gave it a lead paragraph. If we all give it 5 minutes, we can have a decent article in no time. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 07:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - I've essentially started the article over. It doesn't contain anything that it originally did. Now it needs some more expansion such as a "history" section and some statistics. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 07:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Great work, thanks! –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nice save by LinguistAtLarge who has written a good start to an encyclopedia article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per LinguistAtLarge's improvement. I agree, this is an encyclopedic, and notable subject. This is more than a "travel guide" because the discussion about the growth and economic impact of tourism. This is a good stub to expand. --J.Mundo (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid topic and valid article. Collect (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nice work by Linguist, yet again. Drmies (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. notable subject.--Caspian blue 17:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep, with applause for Linguist.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Bedford[edit]

Rookie listed player who has yet to play in the AFL. Duffbeerforme (talk) 03:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:Athlete.Nrswanson (talk) 04:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- All the sources I can find are passing mentions in sports-related articles, so he doesn't pass the general notability guideline and he hasn't played a senior game so WP:ATHLETE won't save this article. Reyk _YO! 06:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The previous two just about covered it. Quantumobserver (talk) 07:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just your average garden-variety rookie at this point. Recreate if and when he gets his first top league game. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawing to nominate the parent and other subarticles . BJ^Talk 08:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Herb (anti-cancer)[edit]

Dump of a patent application with no reliable source that show the herbs treat cancer. BJ^Talk 02:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no third-party WP:RS for this ambitious claim; no evidence of meeting WP:N. JJL (talk) 02:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JJL -Drdisque (talk) 03:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands, i agree that Delete is the right move for this article. However, i will appreciate if you can give me a couple of days to dig up the relevant studies to back it up, as they are not clear from the patent application. [49]

Note: i've come across a few books that provide this information, but i understand that if it takes longer than a few days, the article will be deleted. Anyway, thanks for keeping up your good work. cheers Cottonball (talk) 04:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Direct evidence of the medical claims is not really relevant here. Is there any peer-reviewed discussion of these treatments, or any kind of press coverage? WillOakland (talk) 06:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 05:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harry tincknell[edit]

Delete unsourced BLP about a 17-year old race car driver. Could be true, but no sources. On google, I came across his website here which has the claim "Someone has to be a future world champion l've put my name down.". Not sure if he has raced in a purely professional league (don't you have to be 18 to drive in England anyway?), so seems to fail WP:ATHLETE. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He competed in the British Formula Renault Championship this winter, which is a fully professional series. Article needs help though. I'll work on it. -Drdisque (talk) 03:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ATHLETE. As it is now clear that British Formula Renault Championship is indeed a professional series, will the nominating admin please consider withdrawing the Afd? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets notability guidelines. Edward321 (talk) 00:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per User:Drdisque & User:Shawn in Montreal. Cs-wolves (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was boldly merged and redirected by Jenuk1985, which seems an appropriate outcome given the comment by the closing admin at the previous AfD and that there is no consensus to keep the article here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Danny[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This is a non-notable villain in the show Danny Phantom, who only shows up in one episode. A previous discussion last year ended up in a no consensus after about a month of discussion. Tavix (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I advise you to withdraw this nomination and take heed of the closing reason given last time around - "The result was no consensus although an editorial merge would likely be the most helpful way to deal with this." There was no need to bring this to AfD, just complete the merge as suggested and be done with it. Jenuk1985 | Talk 01:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and then discuss whether or not to merge at the appropriate talk page. DGG (talk) 02:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obvious fancruft. Further the article fails to provide any sources of note so it fails WP:NOTE as well.Nrswanson (talk) 02:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nrswanson.Broadweighbabe (talk) 02:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the consensus at the previous afd which clearly should have been closed as delete. --neon white talk 08:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with the character list. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reason as my vote in the first AfD as a plot device evil twin who wasn't a major character through the series after his first episode. Nate • (chatter) 18:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close I have made a BOLD merge and redirect based upon the original AfD discussion, since nobody else seemed to want to. Jenuk1985 | Talk 18:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moot Has been merged and redirected. Good outcome. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Acroterion (G1: Patent nonsense, meaningless, or incomprehensible). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Capital-ommunism[edit]

Non-notable neologism lacking sources. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 01:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Pure original research LetsdrinkTea 01:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - nonsense, neologism, WP:NFT, WP:NOR, no sources, all brought to you by by the Letter N. Jd027^talk 01:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Just as I tagged it as: A1 (Patent nonsense) :P Cheers. I'^mperator 01:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7 Tone 16:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Winson[edit]

Nominating on behalf of User:Headbomb who cites notability concerns[50] Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I see no claim of notability here. -Drdisque (talk) 03:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real notability shown, no reliable sources in article, none found. Duffbeerforme (talk) 03:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Drdisque.Nrswanson (talk) 04:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 00:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear research at Michigan Technological University[edit]

Notability concerns. I'm tending towards week delete. I'm mostly listing to generate discussion. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 00:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 141.161.92.138 (talk) 00:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence that nuclear research performed at Michigan Technological University is in any way notable. Seems too specific to merit merging but if anyone wanted to merge and rd that'd be OK too. JJL (talk) 01:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as for almost all such cases. In fact, less noteworthy than usual, because based on the material in the article, it was a rather undistinguished program, which didn't even have its own research reactor, and where the emphasis wasn't of research in the first place. If some one wants to do an article, Nuclear research at the University of Chicago might be a more plausible topic. DGG (talk) 01:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG.Nrswanson (talk) 01:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG and WP:N. Tavix (talk) 01:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG.Broadweighbabe (talk) 02:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 18:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. X-ray machines, liquid scintillation counters, ¹³⁷Cs, and ⁶⁰Co are very common -- surely every research university with a science program has them. But I fully support similar articles for universities with larger, more interesting programs. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7. Deletion requested by author. Matt (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of info-gap decision theory[edit]

POV pushing essay Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 00:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 20 references. 141.161.92.138 (talk) 01:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: above IP blocked for disruptive editing. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete essay based on one (WP:FRINGE?) theory that argues a specific POV. JJL (talk) 01:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear OR--references supporting to some extent the hypothesis, as is the case with good research, but none the less a personal synthesis. DGG (talk) 01:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:FRINGE material. Also, maybe it's just the time of night, but it looks to me like only an expert would understand even the concept of the article. Quantumobserver (talk) 07:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC) Merge back into Info-gap decision theory where it came from. Quantumobserver (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, weakly. It may just be the title - this article might be intelligible to mathematicians, and relate to a valid subject, but if you can't tell that from trying to read it, it's rather hard to say. Definitely needs translation into English. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Quantumobserver's correct about where this came from; see this diff: [51] which shows where the info needs to be added back in.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think I'd have to call this one WP:NOT#OR. The whole article is based off of one person's views (Sniedovich), and if you look at the list of references, Sniedovich's own works are the newest on the list. This tells me that the author of the article was not able to cite anyone that's reviewed Sniedovich's work. Matt (talk) 07:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: G7 (Author requests deletion) – sorry about this; I created this article by forking it off from Info-gap decision theory (not understanding that NPOV includes "No POV forks"). The entire Info-gap decision theory article was (and remains) very long and inaccessible, as reflected by its history (Talk:Info-gap decision theory), but should be fixed on the main page, not by POV forking. (I’ve merged the content back to the main page – shall I delete the forked page?) Sorry for the hassle. —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, why not. Go ahead and slap a G7 tag on it if you've merged the content back so we can close this debate. Quantumobserver (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the subject is not notable; consensus also holds that the book's article, Lysergically Yours, should also be deleted. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Duff (writer)[edit]

An article that provides no evidence of notability. The author of a book, Lysergically Yours that has not been reviewed by a single mainstream outlet, is not recognized by the country's two largest booksellers (Chapters and Amazon.ca) and, according to Worldcat is held only by Library and Archives Canada (as required by all Canadian titles awarded ISBNs) and the University of Toronto Thomas Fisher Rare Book Room. A clear failure of WP:BIO Victoriagirl (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for reasons already presented - fails WP:BK:

Oppose. The author's book Lysergically Yours was reviewed on the front page of Slashdot and seems to have entered the word "Lysergically" into the lexicon (as evidenced by the song "Lysergically Yours, My Psychedelic Bride" by An Albatross as well as having been an early pioneer of declaring commercial works Creative Commons concurrent with a print release. Furthermore, his article "A Coder in Courierland" was an internet sensation and was reprinted in Wired Magazine. Figarofigaro (talk) 02:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC) — Figarofigaro (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: While I can't agree that the word "lysergically" has entered into the lexicon, I note that usage pre-dates Frank Duff's book. If "A Coder in Courierland" was indeed "an internet sensation" there would have been a great deal of coverage of the work and its author - yet a google news search for "A Coder in Courierland" brings not a single hit. Victoriagirl (talk) 11:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Unnotable author and extremely unnotable book. Fails WP:BIO/WP:CREATIVE and WP:BK, respectively. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. A google search turns up no evidence for the notability of either author or novel. While "A Coder in Courierland" does appear to have gained some degree of popularity, I don't see any discussion of it in reliable sources. I can also find no evidence that it was published in Wired; every reference I see to it in an appropriate google search links to the kuro5hin.org original, and none mention it having been reprinted in Wired. A search for it on Wired's web site (which apparently carries all of their stories since 1993) turns up nothing. Yes, the novel was reviewed on slashdot, but as most of slashdot's articles are user submitted they cannot be considered a reliable source. Apart from anything else, there's no way of knowing whether or not the review in question was simply the result of some sly self-promotion. I've also tagged the publisher, No Media Kings for notability and prodded it. JulesH (talk) 12:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - current sources do not support WP:N, happy to reconsider given new sources. Artw (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is the wrong way round—the way it works is, first the book becomes significant or important in some way, then it gets a wikipedia article. You don't get to put the article up in the hope that the book then goes on to achieve great things. We have to have that rule to keep Wikipedia from drowning in promotional material.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:Creative. A google search was unable to locate any independent sources to support notability. Untick (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. I originally PRODed both of these articles back in February. As I wrote then, Duff fails the notability criteria for both WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. All his work is self-published on the internet. The few reviews, such as [52], [53], are self-submitted blogs. No significant coverage or reliable sourcing has been found. I'm not certain why these articles were never deleted after their PRODs expired, but there has been no improvement since. This Afd is nomination is correct — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is just to clarify my initial confusion about why these articles weren't deleted previously. In fact, they were. I have now determined that these articles had been deleted after the PRODing in early February. However, they were restored a few days ago when an IP user complained about those deletions. So... let the Afd proceed. — CactusWriter | ^needles 16:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No consensus to delete. However, I concur with Pastor Theo, the article needs sources and needs to be re-written from a neutral point of view (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gayle Edlund Wilson[edit]

If spouses of state governors are inherently notable, then this absurdly POV piece needs drastic reworking. If not (and I would contend they are not), then deletion is the solution. Sure, she's done all the things expected of a political wife - served on the foundations, established the chapters of other foundations, advocated for the noble causes - but once we cut through the puffery, there really isn't much left. So delete, per WP:BIO. Biruitorul ^Talk 07:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The First Lady of California is notable.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Purely for that reason? I'm a bit sceptical of the claim. Sure, we have 102 other US gubernatorial spouse biographies (which means many, many more are missing, and I'd wager rightly so), but some (by no means all, but some) of those have actually done something meaningful besides being married to a governor. Aside from the obvious ones (Laura Bush, Hillary Clinton, Eleanor Roosevelt), there's Bill Shaheen (political operative), Nellie Connally (present at JFK's assassination), Lenore Romney (Senate candidate, activist) and Phyllis George (Miss America). Mrs. Wilson hardly rises to that level. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Forbes Magazine profiled her because of her association with Gilead Sciences. I think her work with many important American companies makes her notable even if she had not been the First Lady of California.Broadweighbabe (talk) 04:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, so she serves on Gilead's board. Surely we could add a line on that, citing Forbes, in Pete Wilson's biography? It still doesn't seem to justify a separate article. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets the criteria at WP:Notability. A quick google news search shows she has a fair amount of media coverage [54]. She's also been profiled by multiple buisness magazines, journals, and websites. Here is just a few examples of many: businessweek, allbusiness.com, tradevibes.com, etc.Nrswanson (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge With the article on her husband, former Gov. Wilson. The Forbes coverage is not a profile, but a C.V. that it runs with anyone who is a director of a company. The article does not pass WP:RS (the references link to a non-profit web site). The article could also use some significant rewriting -- it is a little too gushy for an encyclopedia. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the governors of some of the major states with extensive press coverage may be like Presidents in the respect of the attention awarded their family. Any, she in particular does in fact have such coverage. Nobody but the nominator said delete, so I am not sure why a relist was thought necessary. DGG (talk) 01:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the number of reliable and verifiable sources found in a Google / News / Archive search about the subject, establishing independent notability. Alansohn (talk) 03:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 23:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rottrevore[edit]

I'm actually basically neutral regarding this article, but it has been speedily deleted a couple of times as far as I can see and the material simply recreated; I would suggest that this in itself is grounds for a further speedy but prepared to take it here instead following comment on the talk page. The argument is that the band fails WP:MUSIC... there is little or no significant independent, third-party coverage in reliable sources, and the band have not released multiple albums on a notable label (EPs and compilation appearances obviously don't count). There is also no claim to notability (simply stating that they're influential without a source is pretty weak). All I could see was an interview in an online fanzine and some reviews, which strikes me as being insufficient, but I remain basically neutral for the time being. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep With all due respect, the nominator's statement that the article was deleted "a couple of times so far" is misleading. It was deleted three times today]. Once as a copyright violation, once as A7 and once by me after I goofed in restoring the page. I don't know the band. I restored the page as a stub after removing the bulk of the text which was indeed a copyright violation. As admins can verify, it was the text available on the MySpace fan page (warning: loud metal music) [55]. I would add that death metal never top the charts so looking for gold records is not a good yardstick. But I think it makes sense to keep the article: reasonably long career, associated with two relatively well-known metal labels, still remembered 15 years after they disbanded [56] [57] [58] [59] (and actually remembered by people speaking French and Spanish). Most of the above don't qualify as good sources (and some are not even sources) but it's a bit unfair to look for online interviews with a band that disbanded in the mid 90s. But it's evidence that the band was meaningful. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I sympathise with the above, and finding sources for pre-Internet underground bands is obviously a problem, but burden of proof is still on the claimants. They haven't released multiple albums on a notable underground label; in fact, they haven't released a single record on a notable underground label... they have an EP on Relapse and that's it. Gold records don't come into it; which bit of WP:MUSIC or WP:GNG do they pass? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a claimant, in fact I have zero interest in this article so I'm not sure what "burden of proof" means here. I rarely visit AfD nowadays but I don't remember it being so legalistic. All I'm saying if that if a band that disbanded 10 years ago still has its singles re-released on a compilation of an established death metal label [60] then we should err on the side of keeping the article. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 21:53, 15 March 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 00:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete but I can be swayed by one (or two) articles in fairly reliable sources. That one Relapse EP is nice, but the rerelease, that's just one single. And BMBaz isn't being legalistic--he's simply applying the rules. You have to admit, Pascal, the article is woefully undersourced. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The band is important enough to be remembered today. I added a link to an interview in a German Metal website.--H8erade (talk) 02:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord ² 16:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article is a clear improvement of the encyclopedia. If someone looked through old issues of Guitar and Metal related magazines, they would sure find significant coverage. Internet coverage is a bit hard to find because of their disbanding in early web history and the record label by the same name. While you find little about the band itself, many other bands and musicians call them a "legendary act". I found [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67]. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord ² 18:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia Grant (British child actress)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Recreated after speedy deletion, this article describes a non-notable actor. Bongo matic 18:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Grant appears to be a regular cast member of Half Moon Investigations (TV series) which is made and broadcast by the BBC. Seems to satisfy the notability requirements for actors.Nrswanson (talk) 23:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep About Half-Moon investigations: She is a regular cast member and a major one too (the note '13 episodes' is misleading because those are all the episodes of the season, so it's not some bit part). Also, her role in Tracey Beaker was quite significant (didn't even notice she was the same kid). Two significant roles means she's notable. I'll dig up some sources. (If I'm late and people are particularly impatient, please userfy) - Mgm|^(talk) 23:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 17 March 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 00:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mgm. Fourth credited character in Half Moon Investigations, so that role is significant, and BBC's website on The Story of Tracy Beaker carries a bio of her character, so that's probably a significant role also. Accordingly, she satisfies WP:ENTERTAINER. Baileypalblue (talk) 01:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Danczuk[edit]

Fluff piece written for a Parliamentary candidate. Wikipedia policy says that Parliamentary candidates are not deemed in themselves notable, nor are local councillors. "Vision Twentyone", apparently a Labour-leaning consultancy firm, of which he is the director, is probably not notable either. Little of the information in the article comes from neutral sources. Wereon (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth noting that the creator of and primary contributor to the article is User:JonMulligan; a Jonathan Mulligan is one of Danczuk's employers at Vision Twentyone [68]. Wereon (talk) 17:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And also that the article has been tagged as non-notable before, but JonMulligan removed the tag: [69]. Wereon (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Knowing Simon personally, I don't intend to express a formal view, but I've replaced most sources with neutral ones. I've not done this for his writings, but have listed two publications found on the web. By the way, I'm not sure there's any reason to comment on the professionalism/partiality of his company, as no one is claiming notability for it. MikeHobday (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My reasoning was that, were it notable enough, he might inherit notability from it. Wereon (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 16 March 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 00:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable.Nrswanson (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Howrah. MBisanz ^talk 00:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of towns in Howrah[edit]

Only Amta is a town and has a separate page. Belur, Shibpur, Santragachhi, Liluah are neighbourhoods of either Howrah or Bally and not towns by themselves. Buxarah is a neighbourhood of Howrah. This page was created for temporarily moving away 'places of interest' section from the Howrah page. This page is not required any more (see talk). Plus, there is no ref here, a lot of vandalism (addition of useless unsourced claims), and also some of the text here is possibly copy-pasted from some websites. GDibyendu (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why not merge it back into Howrah as a "places of interest" section, trim it down, and mark it with ((refimprove))? — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because these are not towns and not all are located in Howrah. Whatever should be mentioned is already mentioned there with ref. Also, don't need to merge unsourced text there. And, other than Buxarah, all have their own pages.--GDibyendu (talk) 05:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unlikely search term, sounds like there is no need to merge. Nerfari (talk) 22:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs specific sources, but I see nothing wrong with t it otherwise.DGG (talk) 08:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Main thing which is wrong is that these are not towns.--GDibyendu (talk) 08:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - evidence? DGG (talk) 01:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Check here for List of towns in Howrah district, as noted in census 2001. Search for 'Haora'. Have you found any evidence to prove that the towns listed in the article are actually towns? The article is still unsourced.--GDibyendu (talk) 13:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:Original Research.Nrswanson (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. List appears to be inaccurately represented.Broadweighbabe (talk) 02:55, 20 March 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 00:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Delete Merge the important bits that are worth keeping and delete the rest --Anti I A (talk) 11:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge should happen only if sources are found. Unreferenced text should not be merged.--GDibyendu (talk) 13:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge No reason to lose encyclopedic and valuable bits. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You probably did not read the above discussion. These are not towns except Amta, which has a separate page. Can you please provide references to substantiate your claim that these are 'encyclopedic and valuable bits'? Currently, the article is unreferenced. Thanks. --GDibyendu (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of settlements in Howrah. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Or possibly List of settlements in Howrah district as some of these places are outside the city of Howrah, but inside Howrah district. This district has high population density and as many as 53 towns (as noted in Census 2001) apart from these neighbourhoods. I think this name change sounds good as settlements can include neighbourhoods also.--GDibyendu (talk) 04:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salvatore Culosi[edit]

Lack of actual notability. The incident was covered by media, but the incident is what is more notable, not the man. I don't mean to sound crass, but his "notability" is solely based on having been killed accidentally. Unlike other accidental killings (Diallo for example)), there were no criminal charges, not big protests, not even a big lawsuit. There was a 3 week suspension and it was done. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:ONEEVENT.
Delete per above --Muhammad(talk) 04:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge Fits well with the article. Reliable sources are sufficient and notability is average. I do agree it isn't particularly "necessary" but I don't believe it meets the qualifications for deletion. If it isn't kept, it should be merged and expanded in the SWAT article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but consider renaming for event. Lots of coverage, might have legs. -- 7triton7 (talk) 04:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's never been disputed that it was covered. The question is one of notability. The coverage was limited mostly to a 50 mile radius. By comparison, the Diallo shooting was covered nationally. I hate to make it sound like one person is more important than the other, but if there was something that notable about it, wouldn't it have garnered more national coverage, especially since it was in a suburb of DC? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:23, 14 March 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, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AGREE WITH KEEP OR MERGE as per above Lx 121 (talk) 01:26, 15 March 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 00:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)#Criteria for inclusion of articles on participants. Culosi's status as a victim does not make him notable. "Victims of high-profile crimes do not automatically qualify as notable enough to have a stand-alone article solely based on their status as victims. Notability with regards to this is normally defined as satisfying some other aspect of the notability of persons guideline that does not relate to the crime in question. As such, a victim of a crime should normally only be the subject of an article where an article that satisfied notability criteria existed, or could have properly been created prior to the crime's commission."Nrswanson (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a proper use of ONEVENT, for incidental victims of a crime. DGG (talk) 01:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG and nrswanson.Broadweighbabe (talk) 02:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DANICS[edit]

Contested prod. Reads like a career info pamphlet, with no assertion of notability for the positions one might occupy there. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to this but I reached here from a valid category in wikipedia and it does seem to provide valid information. Why delete it when it is linked and is providing correct info? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.179.2 (talk) 05:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:NOTWEBHOST. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No it does not. There is not one single morsel of instructional content in the article, nor (looking at its edit history) has there ever been. And this is not a random personal image file or other non-encyclopaedic content that Wikipedia is being abused as a free WWW host for. It is an encyclopaedic treatment, placed properly in our article namespace, of a subject named DANICS, which the article tells us to be the civil service of the union territories of Delhi and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands — as, indeed, so do the sources that it cites. Uncle G (talk) 12:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course a stub encyclopaedia article on the pay grades, admissions procedures, and structure of a particular civil service is going to look like an "info pamphlet". Containing that sort of information about that sort of subject is what an encyclopaedia article does. And of course a stub is going to be an incomplete discussion of the subject, to the point of just containing a disconnected selection of facts. Our Wikipedia:Editing policy tells us that. Articles start out like this. See this version of Her Majesty's Civil Service for example. Wikipedia:Deletion policy is clear that we don't delete them unless it is impossible to grow them, as the latter article has, indeed, grown in the intervening years.
There's no valid reason to think that a article on DANICS will not grow in the same way. (Eurocentric/Americentric bias is not a valid reason.) There's no valid reason to think that the civil service of India, including such parts as DANICS, the Indian Administrative Service, the Indian Postal Service, the Indian Ordinance Service, and the Indian Railway Personnel Service, is not capable of being as fully covered as, say, the civil services of the U.S. and the U.K. are. (Indeed, it took the HMCS article almost a year to expand from 2 sentences to the number of paragraphs that this article already has. And that was with systemic bias working in its favour.) There is, on the contrary, every reason, given that sources exist from articles in The Hindu (one of which being already cited in the article), through Indian government official reports and documents (such as this rulebook), to books on Indian public administration such as ISBN 9788121205689, to think otherwise. Uncle G (talk) 12:23, 16 March 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 00:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per Uncle G.Nrswanson (talk) 00:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per comments from previous editors --H8erade (talk) 02:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep' It's a poor article however that sint a reason for deletion, this seems like it should be notable and it is mentioned in sources [70] --neon white talk 08:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Uncle_G's completely annihilated the case for deletion. :)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in agreement with S Marshall, who's in agreement with Uncle G, who's in agreement with WP policies. Drmies (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tele-Rilevamento Europa - TRE[edit]

The creator has been moving this article in the right direction since this article was tagged db-spam, so I'm moving it from the speedy deletion queue to AfD. I have a rough idea where consensus lies on this, but I'd appreciate feedback: we have to have independent, knowledgeable editors who can assess the technology and write a neutral article, otherwise we feel the risk is too high that articles like this one simply function as billboards for a company and not as serious, vetted information about the technology. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 00:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete still smells very spammy, but I admit that that I know very little about the field. The author may be taking advantage of other editors' collective ignorance regarding this subject. -Drdisque (talk) 03:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Last[edit]

Doesn't fit criteria from WP:BIO, basic or additional. Nathanhillinbl (talk) 18:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable -Drdisque (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC) Vote retracted, I don't know enough about this subject to vote accurately. -Drdisque (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: AFDs are discussions. Neither the nominator nor the commenter properly explained why they believed this article did or didn't meet inclusion guidelines and unless improved upon, these opinions should be discounted by the closing administrator. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The person is not notable in several independent sources (When Googled, the only page about this subject is his official site.)
(Under the Entertainer additional guidelines) "Has had significant roles in MULTIPLE notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions." Only appeared in one show, not multiple. Appeared in a film, which does not seem to be notable. Nathanhillinbl (talk) 12:39, 16 March 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 00:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO - article does not fulfill any of the criteria for "Entertainers". Tim Pierce (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Skins (TV series). MBisanz ^talk 23:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Backwell[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The actress plays a notable character on a notable television series.Broadweighbabe (talk) 04:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:44, 16 March 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 00:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Skins (TV series). Subject lacks sufficient reliable source coverage to justify an independent article, and her only notability is in the context of her sole significant role on the aforementioned TV series. Article can be re-established as a stand-alone once her career develops further; when she has another significant role she will satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER. Baileypalblue (talk) 06:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Starring in a notable, award-winning TV series by past consensus establishes notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not transferable. Would need to prove this person is notable, not that the TV show was notable. A single role on a single program in a single season is pretty nonnotable for an actres. Maybe some day she will meet our criteria, but it's not there yet. A redirect could work also. DreamGuy (talk) 22:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:Creative. Her only acting roles as Pandora in "Skins" is not a "significant roles". Untick (talk) 04:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terri Clark (author)[edit]

Appears to fail WP:CREATIVE. Only two works, one a book and one a contribution to an anthology. No indication found in search that the person is widely cited or that they meet any criteria in WP:CREATIVE. Taroaldo (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree and delete per above. T-95 (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Her book is publshed by HarperCollins and can be found in your local WalMart, Borders, Barnes and Noble, etc. It may be a trashy teen novel but it has wide circulation.Inmysolitude (talk) 09:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article does not establish notability. I don't think every author of every random 'trashy teen novel' is notable just based on that. 129.105.104.246 (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - She has one novel published. I could find no articles written about her. I could find no significant reviews of her work. The most substantial review I could find was this very brief item from a monthly magazine proclaiming they review 250 books per issue. There are no reliable sources to establish notability, nor does the material indicate that her work is well-known. -- Whpq (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 00:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WorldCat currently shows only 57 copies, picayune for a current teen novel. --there may yet be more, and if there are eventually 3rd party reviews, it might possibly become notable. But romantic times is just the sort of nonselective review medium that does not serve as a Reliable source. DGG (talk) 01:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 23:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robina Suwol[edit]

Questionable notability. Need some more opinions on this. tedder (talk) 07:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Seems to meet notability requirements, but I wonder if the organization is more important than the person in this case (that's why I have the weak qualifier). Regardless, the article needs work.Vulture19 (talk) 07:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to California Safe Schools to avoid two parallel articles. Needs to be stubbed and rewritten, though. THF (talk) 02:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per THF, this article is almost entirely about the organisation, not the person. --Ged UK 12:50, 9 March 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 00:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 17:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do the two previous posters mean Move to California Safe Schools? The article does not currently exist so you can't redirect to it. SpinningSpark 22:34, 15 March 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 00:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly meets the requirements at WP:Notability. The article needs a significant re-write though with appropriate sourcing, wikifying, etc.Nrswanson (talk) 00:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shocker tv[edit]

Non notable musician. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:RS. No notable labels nor tours. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 06:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed, not notable. --♪♫The New Mikemoral^talk_contribs 06:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:N and WP:MUSIC cf38^talk 13:48, 15 March 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 00:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above.Nrswanson (talk) 00:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim that this group meets WP:MUSIC. -Drdisque (talk) 03:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abby (singer)[edit]

This article provides no reliable sources that establish notability. Searches for independent reliable sources have yielded nothing. Nrswanson (talk) 09:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching pulls up no reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Broadweighbabe (talk) 04:07, 16 March 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 00:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there was a page for the "Katsura Geinou Otose!" TV show she could be mentioned there but there is not enough for her own article. Duffbeerforme (talk) 04:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord ² 16:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. This is an intrinsically vague search term (which makes a reliable source search harder), but I'm hardly seeing her in any results. Coupling that along with the article's own info ("not much is known about Abby"), she doesn't seem to be notable for inclusion. Jamie^☆S93 19:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malaria labs[edit]

Nathanhillinbl (talk) 03:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC) Not sure whether this should be marked for deletion, or as a stub.[reply]

Delete No real indication of notability, no sign of significant independent coverage. Duffbeerforme (talk) 08:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 03:29, 17 March 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 00:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above.Nrswanson (talk) 04:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord ² 14:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 16:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Kimura[edit]

Non-notable martial artist, unsourced BLP article. Would redirect to the better-known father but he does not appear to have an article here, and notability is not inherited. JJL (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —JJL (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom LetsdrinkTea 16:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no assertion of notability: at least three degrees of separation from Bruce Lee. Bearian (talk) 17:50, 16 March 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 00:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Nrswanson (talk) 01:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 23:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9 O'clock Woman[edit]

Even though the anime has received one review from a reliable source, a search for additional reliable sources turns up nothing more then sales catalogs, copyvio websites, and self-published websites. Having only one review does not meet the significant coverage test in WP:NOTE, nor does a non-notable adaptation of a non-notable manga make the whole thing notable. --Farix (Talk) 01:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment I added a link to the Anime News Network, which has already been established as a notable third party media source. Also, was this thing released in English? Google returns plenty of hits in English, but most seem to be illegal download sites, which is common when there is no legal English release for something. Dream Focus 11:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANN's encyclopedia does not count towards notability. Never has, never will. It falls under Note 6 in WP:NOTE as a directory/database. --Farix (Talk) 12:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never has? Actually, I recall it having been used in several previous AFD debates. It is "The internet's most trusted anime news source" after all. Dream Focus 12:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The encyclopedia portion never did. The news and review sections are a different matter. --Farix (Talk) 13:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only one review does not meet WP:N. ANN having a directory listing does not count towards notability nor is its encyclopedia portion now considered an WP:RS beyond "it exists" which is of course not a reason to have an article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would very much dispute that anything a manga that has been adapted to an OVA is inherently not notable, I'd say quite the opposite. This has also been licensed in multiple countries/languages. I don't speak any French, surely there are some reviews in that language...? 159.182.1.4 (talk) 14:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's my question, actually -- have we tapped our resident Francophones for a search for reviews? —Quasirandom (talk) 14:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Found no French review. Difficult to get RS review for hentai regardless the language.
    - True, that -- much like most porn. In that case, though, delete as failing to have the significant coverage required by WP:BK. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This type of media isn't going to get reviewed in any third party media sources, so that requirement is ridiculous. It was a manga that got turned into three animated episodes, and if its been licensed in multiple languages and countries as mentioned above, that makes even more notable still. Dream Focus 17:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. The many notable manga/anime series articles with extensive third-party sources, including reviews from both websites and several well known books featuring hundreds of reviews clearly show otherwise. Its being made into an OVA does not meet the requirement of books regarding adaptations and the OVA is equally unnotable. Licensing in other countries has already been rejected as a notability criteria at WP:BK very recently, so also irrelevant. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2-3 OVA in French is weak evidence of notability. --KrebMarkt 19:25, 16 March 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 00:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to be one of the more globally notable examples of erotic anime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Figarofigaro (talk • contribs) 02:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And where/what are your sources to back up this claim? --Farix (Talk) 10:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that every single store that sells hentai sells it. You wouldn't find something sold in a thousand different stores, unless you were a major series. Some stores sell anything, but none sell everything. And would they order copies of the sequels to keep in stock, if the first one didn't sell? Dream Focus 12:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way to [WP:V|verify]] that claim. But it also makes for a lousy standard for notability. --Farix (Talk) 13:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Search turns up nothing to help with notability. -- Goodraise (talk) 03:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep because withdrawn by nom. Bongo matic 02:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Madeleine schlumberger[edit]

Good faith news archive search (probably not exhaustive, but did generate non-English hits) failed to identify any significant coverage in any sources (let alone reliable ones). Bongo matic 14:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems pretty notable. She wrote some notable books and some of her artwork is in notable museums like the Musée d'Art Moderne de la Ville de Paris. See here [71] and [72]. Google books has two of the books she wrote available. [73]. There is also an article at the French wikipedia [74] and the German wikipedia [75].Nrswanson (talk) 01:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how any of this satisfies WP:CREATIVE, but if you can connect the dots for me, I'd be happy to withdraw the nom. Bongo matic 01:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this case the artists work is "represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums" to satisfy WP:Creative. The French wikipedia article seems to indicate she is an important author as well, although probably moreso in France than outside it.Nrswanson (talk) 01:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris McCall[edit]

Good faith news archive search failed to generate any hint of notability of this working musician. Bongo matic 14:13, 15 March 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 00:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:N. Extensive searches for sources independent of the subject have yielded nothing.Nrswanson (talk) 01:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -Drdisque (talk) 03:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord ² 16:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - how important is Detroit’s Star Search winner[76]? Someone from Detroit available? How important is this? Or this? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord ² 16:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm from Detroit and I have never heard of this person nor the award. -Drdisque (talk) 17:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Larkin[edit]

Joey Larkin appears to be a student doing a media degree. Does not appear to be notable. The external links do not seem to show notability and a google search does not show any reliable third party links. The Radio presenter bit appears to be for a student radio station. noq (talk) 11:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Larkin also states he is a Film Maker, yet he has no creditable mention in any films. It only seems like he has produced student films. A student film maker / Student DJ is not a case of being a notable member for a former school. Joshua_Issac 12:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - weak claim to notability in the article, and a search for coverage provide no reliable sources writing about the subject. -- Whpq (talk) 17:39, 19 March 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 00:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of any real notability. Duffbeerforme (talk) 04:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless independent surces can be found that establish notability.Nrswanson (talk) 04:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Abubakar Durrani[edit]

I removed a prod template on this, but I can't link any of the claims of winning medals to any news source. In any case, winning medals at a national event does not really satisfy the notability guidelines for athletes. pablo_hablo. 10:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:Athlete as has not competed at World Championship or Olympic Games. No notability. Parslad (talk) 18:36, 16 March 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 00:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Parsald, you have comments about this young boy Muhammad Abubakar Durrani of age 14, but you don't know that can a boy of age 14 could take part in Olympic Games ?,please incurage young men of backward countries and back ward areas, to protect them from harm full social activities. Ali Mohammad Khilji ,

Mr Parsald,Juliancolton I have done my level best to improve this article and as far as I understand the information given in the article are true and correct to my knowledge, and this boy belong to the back ward province of Pakistan and due to lack of internet knowledge it is hard in Balochistan to connect it with Government relevant sites. for example the Federation of Kayaking in Pakistan even don't have own web site for record and even the Ministry of Sports and youth affairs Government of Balochistan also don't have its web site for information and record. except in Balochistan the only water sports academy which having the own web site ie hdwsa for information and record. it is therefore propose to please do not delete this article please remove the deletion tag from it and prevent it from deletion,

Mohammad Aslam Kassi Quetta Pakistan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aslam Kassi (talk • contribs) 21:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Who cares where he's from? Who cares how old he is? Who cares whether Pakistan is a backward country? Regardless of what he could do, he hasn't done anything that makes him notable. Nyttend (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet notability guidelines. Edward321 (talk) 01:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be Delete Mr. Nyttend, Pakistan is not backward country the place where the boy lives is backward in connection with internet facilities in the Government Departments which makes necessary notability links for confirmations of the status of the player, how ever I don't big you take care of this real champion, and you are not the only authority to decide by writing few baseless and unjustified words, Please be positive and there is, nod ought he is Pakistan's National Junior Champion he has many thing done that makes him notable. Ali Mohammad Khilji (talk) 23rd March 2009. —Preceding undated comment added 21:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Not for Delete Wow what a serious issue has been discussing here, wow fight for notability but in fact ignoring the reality, Aslam Kassi 23-3-2009 (UTC).

Calm down lads (or lad). Please read the guidelines at WP:Athlete and then tell us how Mr. Durrani fulfils them. I am sure that allowances will not be made for his background or internet access when he takes part in a a kayaking competition, and the same is true here; he has to qualify by his own merits. pablo_hablo. 23:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 16:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VBoxHeadless[edit]

This is just a copy of the command line usage info. It adds no value to Wikipedia or to the VirtualBox article as the same information can be obtained from the product's help pages. TimTay (talk) 10:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there not therefore a great likelihood of copyright violation? Peridon (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Also this falls foul of WP:NOTHOWTO --TimTay (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'd have to agree -- Speedy delete under WP:CSD#G12. Matt (talk) 18:37, 15 March 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 00:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 23:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simple and Fast Multimedia Library[edit]

Same rationale as previous Prod. There do not appear to be any reliable, independent sources for verification. Subject hasn't received any significant coverage, nor does the article make any indication of importance. Propose deletion on the grounds of WP:V and WP:N Marasmusine (talk) 09:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unable to find any reliable sources. JulesH (talk) 09:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems to be a reasonably well established library, which is used in many projects. I can find several websites and blogs that mention it (although I'm not sure if they can be considered reliable sources). For example: [77][78][79][80] Laurent (talk) 14:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's mentioned on Linuxfr too: [81]
  - Thanks for looking. Ideally we need something other than self-published sources. Marasmusine (talk) 17:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've come across several forums that recommend using SFML over the popular SDL. In effort to find more information about SFML, I headed over to wikipedia and was surprised to see that this article did not exist (even though it was menioned on the SDL). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slythfox (talk • contribs) 01:04, 20 March 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 00:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs improvement, but I think it is notable enough to be included. Aroni125 (talk) 19:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 23:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glow of hope[edit]

Well the article appears to go into some depth about the painting and the artist but I can find no evidence this painting is notable.

Yes, it's extremely likely it's a copyvio, but I can't find the source StarM 04:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 04:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 04:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to be notable apart from its dubious attribution, many sites refer to it as being by Raja Ravi Varma. pablo_hablo. 10:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in some form Notability should not be an issuec - see [82]. The painting is clearly famous in India. The dispute over the attribution needs more coverage, and the recent additions may be coipyvios, but the article has been in since 2005 & there are earlier versions that could be gone back to. Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment when you tweak the search so that it doesn't include anything with the word woman and lamp, there are far fewer results. I see evidence it exists, nothing that provides notability. Being around since 2005 is meaningless, standards were different then. I'm not saying it can't be saved -- maybe someone will find actual sources -- but just because it has been here for so long doesn't mean it should remain. I'm working on the 2007 notability backlog and there's a lot of junk there. StarM 15:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't look at the numbers - look at the results for the 1st 2 pages. It is clearly one of the sights of Mysore & so easily meets notability standards. Note esp. The Hindu, South India's best-selling English paper I think. There are more hits for the other title in fact. Johnbod (talk) 15:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. By all possibility, the painting in question does not belongs to S.L. Haldankar as claimed in the article. The only reliable source I could find is the Hindu article which attributes the paintings to Raja Ravi Varma. Salih (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it was a slip on my part. I searched the Hindu article with the keyword Haldankar (the spelling used in the article Glow of hope) and found no results. Salih (talk) 04:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok! ( ~~No it doesn't -~~ it says "This includes the famous "Lady with the lamp" painted by artist Haldenkar but mistaken to be a work of Raja Ravi Varma" (NB, that's a 3rd title!)). Johnbod (talk) 18:57, 15 March 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 00:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have found a couple of possibilities for the copyvio source. Take a look at this Google search, and look at especially the last result when the "similar results" are included. It seems that only the first paragraph is a copyright problem, though. Quantumobserver (talk) 07:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Copyvio fixed. Quantumobserver (talk) 07:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article in The Hindu and other sources found by Johnbod's search above already demonstrate notability, but for a bit of icing on the cake a Google Books search finds a couple of book sources describing this work as "famous" and "remarkable". Phil Bridger (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darin Yevonde[edit]

Musician that fails WP:BIO. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 02:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching pulls up no reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable outside of his band (not commenting on the band's notability here). Fails WP:MUSIC. Appears to be part of a walled garden about the band. TheJazzDalek (talk) 11:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now I'll say it. Dope Stars Inc. are not notable. TheJazzDalek (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 00:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability outside of non notable band. Duffbeerforme (talk) 04:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:Music.Nrswanson (talk) 04:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Khold[edit]

Musician that is not notable in any way. Fails WP:MUSIC. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 02:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching pulls up no reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable outside of his band (the notability of which I'm not commenting on here). Fails WP:MUSIC. TheJazzDalek (talk) 11:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now I'll say it. Dope Stars Inc. are not notable. TheJazzDalek (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 00:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability outside of non notable band. Duffbeerforme (talk) 04:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:Music.Nrswanson (talk) 04:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Ghimire[edit]

There are some claims of notability but no evidence. There are a few mentions of her human rights work but no evidence its notable. I'm aware of potential bias issues, but I think this award would have some coverage somewhere if it were notable. Thoughts? StarM 02:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 02:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 02:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - That is not enough to be called as notable - sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SlumdogAramis (talk • contribs) 17:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Recognizance (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Green Line (magazine)[edit]

Twinkle ate the first nom. A search is a challenge due to discussions of various green lines in and out of magazines. Qualifying with Jon Carpenter doesn't help much, and searching iwth Hunt produces many false positives as articles about his work with Green Anarchist, which *is* notable, mention his work with green line but aren't *about* Green Line. I can find no evidence that this magazine is notable. StarM 01:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article contains no sources and almost no information about the magazine. Northwestgnome (talk) 04:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of regnal numerals of future British monarchs[edit]

I rarely AFD articles, but hopefully this complies with procedure.
The article seems to to be based on a discussion here which was not made policy as the monarch (presumably via the Royal Prerogative) is not bound to follow the advice given (see Talk). As a whole, the article seems to violate WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR. As an alternative to deleting the article, I can only think it should be named something along the lines of List of possible numerals of future British monarchs, but even then I imagine it'd fall under WP:CRYSTAL. Craigy (talk) 03:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible keep This does seem to be an important topic. However the article was almost impossible to follow for me, a poor American. Perhaps an article on the general principles involved in British monarchical names is what is needed. Northwestgnome (talk) 04:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite and rename to List of multiply recurring regnal names of British monarchs and delete the top section that talks about the future theoretical monarchs should most of the Royal family die. 76.66.201.179 (talk) 06:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this appears to be original research and speculation (the give away phrases are: "According to Churchill's suggestion..." and "For the purposes of this table, it is assumed...") Nick-D (talk) 07:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree that this basically original research and doesn't have much encyclopedic worth. Adequately covered in the paragraph at List of British monarchs. I dont see much worth in all the speculation. --neon white talk 08:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite and simplify and as to sub page of the List of British Monarchs--Moloch09 (talk) 11:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Neon white. This is an obvious case of WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL. Given that the previous British ruler named Llewelyn was known as Llewelyn the Last, what does the rule say the next one should be called? Only guesswork and crystal balls can say. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It does explain this in the current "Monarchs of the United Kingdom" article rdunn PLIB 13:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganise/merge with Line of succession to the British throne, which is also an article that needs some help (not least because it's way too long). With all due respect to the previous posters, this is very far from "original research" because there's absolutely heaps of sources about the future of the monarchy. And it's not crystal ballery with such a well-established line of succession. So I'd !vote "keep and clean up" if it weren't for the fact that the Line of succession to the British throne could also use some major fixing. Note that I'm not saying merge to "Line of succession to the British throne", I'm suggesting rather that material from "Line of succession to the British throne" should be merged to this article.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What sources? The article currently contains no sources that discuss that. You will need to provide them here. I still maintain it is an original piece and speculatative. Although not a absolute analogy imagine a similar article concerning film sequels. --neon white talk 00:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is not about who succeeds. It's about what they might be called. If nothing else, all this talk of future monarches named 'Constantine IV' is a flagrant breach of WP:SYN. The line of succession has very little intrinsically to do with the content of this page, except for a bit of speculation about what certain current royals would be called if they kept their present names on accession. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're probably talking at cross-purposes. I believe you're criticising the current content of the article, and I agree there's a fair bit to criticise. My point of view is that Wikipedia could and probably should have an article with this title, but consisting of substantially different content largely drawn from Line of succession to the British throne, properly sourced and organised.

Because the title could support an article, I think the usual convention is that it's more constructive to fix the article rather than delete it.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Articles need references, and not just a title. Can you find some reliable refs on this topic? Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I should imagine so. What I had in mind was to limit the "list of regnal numbers" to the first dozen names on the list of successors at the Buckingham Palace website. It's not so much original research as basic arithmetic after that. The only problem arises where there are Scottish monarchs and English monarchs with the same names but different index numbers, and the pattern's established (and sourced) via Winston Churchill's Hansard Answer (cited on the article at the moment).

On the other hand, some genius will then go through my arithmetic and add ((proveit)) tags, which means the article will be full of phrases like "The next monarch called Charles after Charles II will be called Charles III^{[citation needed]}". I may not be able to find sources to prove that in matters of royal succession, as well as in pre-schooler arithmetic, 2+1=3; you'll just have to take my word for that.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To make that clearer—we both know that the next president of the USA after Barack Obama will be the 45th President, right? It wouldn't be controversial to say that, but you might struggle to find sources.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, an article about the potential ordinal number of future presidents wouldn't last long. --neon white talk 02:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-but-Rename or at worst Merge. This isn't a "List" article as we define them and the content appears to be notable. This may go on one of the British monarchy pages, but I'd hate to see the material go away entirely. I can't cite chapter and verse why this content should remain in Wikipedia, but I'm going to go with my gut on this one. (I offer no proposed alternate names, but if there's a British monarchy wikiproject they should be consulted.) JRP (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - it's an obviously useful list, but I'm not sure where it should go. Bearian (talk) 16:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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