The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Mummy (franchise)#Future. MBisanz ^talk 23:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Mummy: Rise of the Aztecs[edit]

The Mummy: Rise of the Aztecs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Rumour, fails WP:NFF. Jenuk1985 | Talk 23:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to The Mummy (1999 film); a web search shows that this movie may indeed be under consideration by this name [1], but fails WP:NFF for the nonce. JJL (talk) 23:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - There is some discussion at The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor about it, so it should be redirred there. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 00:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Rumor, fails WP:CRYSTAL; if it ever gets made we can have an article, but this ain't Daily Variety. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:27, 26 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 ^Talk · ^Review 00:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree with Orange Mike: fails WP:CRYSTAL. I don't see any reason to Redirect for an as-yet unshot film. Pigman☿/talk 01:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The Mummy (franchise)#Future. Clearly fails WP:NFF at this time, so there shouldn't be a separate article. However, several variations of this title already redirect to the franchise article, and this one seems like a reasonable enough variation to redirect as well. Admittedly I'd feel better about it with a better source, but redirects are cheap and this does seem to be the name that's being used elsewhere on the Internet. BryanG (talk) 01:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:CRYSTAL. A-Kartoffel (talk) 07:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The Mummy (franchise)#Future. The WP:NF and WP:CRYSTAL guidelines support the idea not to have a separate article, but they don't preclude notable speculation from multiple reliable sources to be mentioned briefly in a larger article. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, non notable, crystal ball. Short notice in The Mummy (franchise)#Future should be enough. Deletion Mutation 17:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Blocked sockpuppet. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 20:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: rumours, no evidence this is notable. JamesBurns (talk) 08:53, 29 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 | ^Talk 00:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Stick[edit]

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

Baseball player bio that provides no evidence of notability. The claimed involvement with the Chicago Cubs, is not borne out by searching for him in past team members on the Cubs' official website. However, the article does appear to be advertising his role as owner of a franchised sports medicine facility. Astronaut (talk) 23:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A search of baseball-reference.com shows nothing either. Any article that starts out with the claim that someone "was a Major League Baseball outfielder" is going to be checked on Wikipedia, so don't use that as a pickup line either. It would be poetic justice to redirect this to Microphone gaffe for anyone thinking of a "stuck mike". Mandsford (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As Mandsford said, b-r shows nothing, including no minor league appearances. Gnews search gets no hits after 1995, his last year in college, and those 9 gnews hits are all passing mentions.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A little more research: Also can't find a gnews/web hit that shows Stick ever signed with the Cubs at all, even a minor league contract. The Creighton 2006 media guide says he did, but that's the only place I can find it. Since that info was probably supplied by Stick, I don't think we can use that as an independent source.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is no evidence that he was an actual MLB player, nor any other notable actions. blackngold29 18:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Here is his professional record: [2] Kinston eagle (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. My guess, given the timeline, is that he was brought into camp as a replacement player by the Cubs during the strike in 1995. Those guys generally aren't considered notable (or counted as MLB players unless they appeared in real MLB games before or after), so I think this probably fails on notability and should be deleted. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 03:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - just another wannabe scab, never actually got to The Big Game. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:45, 30 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 01:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Post literacy[edit]

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

Original research Nerfari (talk) 23:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete, agree WP:OR Jezhotwells (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and clean up, add more sources. Certainly should be rescued as a possibly encyclopedic topic. Bearian (talk) 00:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and stubbify. It's clearly got an OR problem, but the sources to support an article exist. Saving a stub instead of wasting time on a deletion discussion seems to be the most sensible option. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: My fear, after looking at the existing sources which are tangential at best, and googling the phrase, is that there is nothing worth keeping. Google hits refer to a few such speculative essays as this, but mostly this is a term of art in literacy education programs, as "here's what we do with folks after we've taught basic literacy". I don't like doing things unilaterally, but I'm tempted to blank this article and write two referenced sentences explaining the above usage. Everything here (that I read: I nodded off a bit in the middle) is a personal essay speculating on the anthropology of the distant future. T L Miles (talk) 14:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've blanked most of this and will rewrite. Doing research, this is notable as a literacy education term which has been "drafted" by Michael Ridley, Chief Librarian at the University of Guelph, for a class and a paper (which he has posted EVERYWHERE) to discuss cybernetics. This usage is slightly more than a neologism, but not notable (as I can't find anyone not in his class who uses it thus). T L Miles (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I found one usage of it in Ridley's sense, as the title of a review article in a journal for the 1980s, that then does not use it again even in the course of the review. Unless we can find more, it's a neologism and I'll convert this to the literacy education usage, which is quite common (I've given up after a dozen books and peer reviewed articles that use it in the title). T L Miles (talk) 15:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: I've completely rewritten this article as a stub on the more notable meaning. I've left a paragraph in on this fella at Guelph's neologism, commented out, with one reference. I may add the ref to his paper, but its unpublished presentation notes, and unless it can be backed up by someone else, I think its a neologism that should be excluded. Please take a look at the current article before closing this AfD.T L Miles (talk)
  • I went ahead and took out the final vestige of the previous topic. Details, and links to the poor references for that meaning are on Talk:Post literacy. T L Miles (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per User:T L Miles's excellent work. JulesH (talk) 18:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This should be an easy keep now -- the delete !votes above were based on a completely different version of the article. Plenty of good sources now. Looie496 (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on T L Miles' rewrite. Radiopathy (talk) 15:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I can't help but feel the "keep" voters have missed a crucial part of the debate here. Nerfari (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query: which would be? T L Miles (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well you still seem to be !voting to delete. Have you changed your mind? If so, I would like to withdraw my nomination. Nerfari (talk) 20:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Sorry. I Struck that comment -- which of course is not a vote. I don't feel like I should express an opinion on the current content, as I mostly wrote it and decided that it was an appropriate topic for this title. We can as an administrator to take a look if you want to close it, or relist it, or you can withdraw it, or whatever you feel is best! T L Miles (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Comment: So is this a withdraw? I can mark it as such instead of keep if you wish me to officially withdraw the AfD. Valley2city^‽ 01:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would like to withdraw now. Thank you for the rewrite T L Miles. Nerfari (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as interesting article on an interesting topic. -65.246.126.130 (talk) 20:08, 31 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. Xclamation point 01:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FV Monte Galineiro[edit]

FV Monte Galineiro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

As far as I can see, this is a truely minor incident in the grandn scheme of things. True, this is WP:NOTPAPER, but we are WP:NOTNEWS either. I just can't see any evidence of longterm or far-reaching notability. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Probably hundreds of fishing vessels sink every year; I don't see this one as being any more notable than any of the others. Parsecboy (talk) 23:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep' - This article is no different from other articles covering similar vessels and the FV Monte Galineiro was a 30 metre sea vessel, not exactly a small size. OOODDD (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Possible move? This article in its current state is more like a recap of the event rather than an article about the ship. Perhaps the event should be noted in the article about the CCGS_Leonard_J._Cowley with appropriate redirect? Otherwise this article needs more history on the ship itself. --Brad (talk) 15:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge info into CCGS Leonard J. Cowley. Mjroots (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems notable enough. ResMar 17:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - A normal accident. 98.119.177.171 (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge i agree with Mjroots (talk), and Brad (talk) it sould be merged into CCGS Leonard J. Cowley. Cheers Kyle1278 02:36, 30 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 Stonehill College. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008-09 Stonehill Skyhawks men's basketball team[edit]

2008-09 Stonehill Skyhawks men's basketball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article about a low-tier (division II) basketball program which does not assert notability. TM 22:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - AFD tag not on article. Nothing in history that indicates it was put there to begin with. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (talk) 02:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Stonehill College. There's no need to go through AfD for an article like this. There is a possibility that an article on the Skyhawks basketball team will be notable enough that an article can be written about it and also quite likely that someone will seek information on the Stonehill Skyhawks men's basketball team, so why not direct them to the college? DoubleBlue (talk) 02:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect As you'll see I redirected it a while back to Stonehill Skyhawks men's basketball team, but it was moved back because I didn't do the necessary changes to make it that way since I didn't know I had to (I'd only been here for like a month at the time), so per DoubleBlue this should be redirected to Stonehill College not deleted.--Giants27 ^T/C 12:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well let us speedily close this and redirect then.--TM 12:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah.--Giants27 ^T/C 12:44, 27 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. Valley2city^‽ 18:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second city[edit]

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

An unreferenced, unmaintainable, incomplete and subjective list of cities Untick (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - A referenced, maintained, near-complete and near-NPOV list of cities. It has a few problems and needs some more sources but most of the articles on wiki do too. A delete would be plain stupid when it is a fairly decent article with sources. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 22:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per Joshii, no reason to delete as far as I can see. Jenuk1985 | Talk 23:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Has issues, but I don't think it's unsalvageable. Gigs (talk) 23:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it's not completely unreferenced and being unreferenced is not in itself a reason for deletion. I don't see why it would be unmaintainable. Incomplete is also not a reason for deleting wikipedia lists or they would never get started. Subjectivity can be addressed by the use of reliable sources. There might be a notability issue in that question of the second city of some countries is a big deal, but that's not necessarily the case in every country. However reliable sources discussing the topic rather than merely mentioning it could be required if you wanted to be ultra-strict. Nerfari (talk) 23:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article needs some work but nothing bad enough to require deletion. Fraggle81 (talk) 15:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Well referenced, informative, not indiscriminte. I42 (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as List of second cities? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:52, 30 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. . It seemed to be deleted already per WP:SNOW but now formalizing the close. Valley2city^‽ 18:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vendetta: a christmas story[edit]

Vendetta: a christmas story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Short film that fails to meet WP:MOVIE criteria. No major coverage or awards found on Google. Film has IMDB entry, but not much more. ttonyb1 (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Budget: $100", best sentence: "On January 24, 2000, the Internet Movie Databse (IMDb) added Vendetta to its listings, officially acknowledging Vendetta as a proper film." Priceless. Delete -- Noroton (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 22:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a non-notable film. Skier Dude (talk) 22:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Also recommend sending link to this AFD to inclusionists for even more lulz. Ryan4314 (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Oh, the humanity! And the lack of significance. Fails WP:N among others. Pigman☿/talk 01:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unverifiable by independent sources. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article was probably written by the person who donated the $100 budget. LargoLarry (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - IMDb entry doesn't actually mean film is a "real film" (e.g. proper film, studio production, etc.) Based on its official site, it appears to just be some persons homemade movie that they are giving away for free.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of notability. Having a page at IMDb does not at all establish notability since the database attempts to be comprehensive, not encyclopedic like we are. Looks like snow to me... —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, even speedy G11, nothing but someone's personal creation they are not attempting to promote here to give some attempt at legitimacy. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Leave it for a while I'm gonna be perfectly straight here. I'm the one who made the article. I'm NOT the creator of the film, I'm just a fan of it because I think it's funny. Honestly, the only reason I made the article at all is because I had to make a Wikipedia article about something for a school assignment. Just leave it for like 2 more weeks so I can do my assignment. Haha, a little sympathy please? Fruhtloops514 (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If you want to create a Wikipedia article successfully, the topic has to be notable. The consensus does not look in your favor, honestly! If this is for a school assignment and if you want to cover a film, I suggest visiting Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Requests and doing a search engine test for any one of these topics to see if any of them are notable enough to write. At least this way you will have an article that will stick around Wikipedia permanently! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Can you imagine if every teacher decided creating a Wikipedia article was a good assignment???!!! The AfD pages would go on forever. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 12:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable, and inclusion on IMDb does not make it so. I42 (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Snow delete, non notable, no 3rd party coverage. Deletion Mutation 17:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC) N.B. !vote of sockpuppet of blocked users struck through. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:58, 28 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 both a7, no indication of notability, no support for implausible claims of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Hedderman[edit]

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

No references can be found to verify claims of being "Dublin Champion" for boxing in 2007, or being in the All-Ireland tournament. Google search for "Richard Hedderman" boxing results in 4 links, one of them being this article. (I also checked "Rich Hedderman", "Richie Hedderman", and "Dick Hedderman" with no success.) Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 21:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Eoin Hannon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – Non-notable boxer from the same club. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Cunard (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This individual certainly exists but the information about him being "one of the youngest contenders to enter a National Championship" cannot be verified. He seems to be participating in junior boxing matches, so he fails WP:ATHLETE. Cunard (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Eoin Hannon is from the same club and appears to be non-notable as well. I've added him to the deletion discussion. Cunard (talk) 22:32, 26 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 01:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Norton Insight[edit]

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

No assertion of notability. TechOutsider (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, delete my insight. OK. Fine. See if I care. How can I possibly vote on this without there being a conflict of interest? I'd nominate your insight for deletion, TechOutsider, but nobody ever wrote an article about your insight. -- Noroton (talk) 21:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge/redirect to list of Symantec products— Preceding unsigned comment added by SF007 (talk • contribs)
• Comment Why did you create it then, TechOutsider? Am I missing something here? Gigs (talk) 23:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply I am now more NPOV. Considering that I created it and was its editor 99% of the time; deletion should be a no-brainer TechOutsider (talk) 04:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)TechOutsdier[reply]
• Anyone? No more votes?
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Third party coverage indicates notability. Being 'more NPOV' now is not a reason for deletion, it is a reason for copyediting - deletion is not a substitute for manual editing. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 08:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think he's arguing that he created this article as POV-pushing, and now wants to right that wrong. I'm not sure I buy that though. Gigs (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply Thank you. It's just a stub and likely to remain one. Should be deleted. TechOutsider (talk) 00:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider[reply]

• Keep That it will remain a stub is not a reason for deletion. DGG (talk) 22:34, 30 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 | ^Talk 00:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haragei[edit]

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

Nonsense. Please see the discussion here. Oda Mari (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 23:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'd have to agree with the discussion referenced. Best deleted. Pigman☿/talk 01:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article makes no sense. Mantokun (talk) 05:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The dictionary definition part of the article doesn't belong in Wikipedia. The attempts to go beyond a dictionary definition are questionable. There's an awe-inspiring Buddhist image, but what does it have to do with haragei? The two parts, dictionary definition and beyond, have little relationship. The article is a dictionary definition that focuses on none of its meanings, but something else that someone wants it to mean. This makes it a coatrack. Fg2 (talk) 01:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The Buddhist/martial parts of the same concept are discussed more seriously (and verifiably) at Dantian. Jpatokal (talk) 02:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Appears to be a mistaken version of what we have already at Dantian, which covers the verifiable aspects of this concept adequately. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:22, 28 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 WP:SNOW. NAC. JulesH (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

À la carte[edit]

À la carte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This page is just a dictionary definition. It seems to clearly fall under things Wikipedia is Not. According to the talk page it has already been transwikied to Wiktionary. Seems like a clear candidate for deletion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Locke9k (talk • contribs) 26 March 2009

• Speedy keep - you're kidding, right? You're right in that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but this phrase does have a legitimate status for an encyclopedia article to document the phrase and its usage itself, not just the definition. Jd027 (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Sorry, I'm not sure I understand your point. "The phrase and its usage" is the definition of a definition. What distinction are you attempting to make here? Locke9k (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm trying to say is that the article is about the concept "À la carte" not the phrase "À la carte." See the difference here. Jd027 (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Dictionary definition, unsuitable sourcing (sources must be about the subject term, not just use the subject term). Already in Wiktionary, just link to wiktionary from disambig page instead. Gigs (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A mere mention isn't enough, but the article doesn't have to be about the subject either. There is a middle road. The article can be about something else and still make verifiable statements about the subject that go beyond trivial mentions. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - is not a dictionary definition, unless one uses a highly non-dictionary definition of dictionary definition. WilyD 20:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as notable as Blue-plate special and is mentioned in that entry for historical significance. Personally, the phrase is contained in one of my favorite quotes: "I never married, I always live a la carte" (Professional Boxer cited in Sports Illustrated, recited in the book A Neutral Corner. Has significance outside of restaurants; e.g., in the ongoing debate over bundling cable channels (channel bundles versus a la carte pricing). TNplinko (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep already a bit better than a dictionary definition, could easily be expanded further. --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. AfD evaluates whether Wikipedia should have an article with this title. It doesn't evaluate the current content. I agree the current content's a dicdef, but I think it would be possible to write an encyclopaedic article called a la carte. — S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question what encyclopedic substance might such an article ever contain? Gigs (talk)

I should imagine people from the relevant WikiProject would be best placed to answer that. I've dropped a message on their talk page accordingly. — S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I just delsorted it too. Gigs (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - why is this even nominated?! Jenuk1985 | Talk 23:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — Gigs (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• An obvious keep- the potential for encyclopedic expansion is significant, that is the historic prevalence and evolution of the a la carte restaurant comes to mind. Although it does make me wonder in some ways whether the subject is so tightly entwined with the history of restaurants that a merge to the parent article might be an option. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Definitely keep because the subject has worth enough to have its own article. If the nominator had a little bit of interest in gastronomy, he would have not nominate it for deletion.--Caspian blue 23:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. notable cuisine-related subject. Badagnani (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - see WP:BEFORE. Bearian (talk) 00:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki and redirect to the disambiguation page. I don't see anywhere this article can reasonably go beyond the definition of the term. I see a number of people arguing that the article has greater potential, but these arguments have not taken the form of additional sources or content in the article that would not be at home in wiktionary. If the article survives the AfD in its current form, and is not substantially expanded, it's bound to be re-nominated. --Shunpiker (talk) 02:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Google returns 7,910,000 for it, so it is a common phrase. I never heard of it before, but a lot of people apparently use it. Dream Focus 04:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is a difference between dictionary definitions and stub articles. This one I would classify as a stub article. The phrase is used a lot and needs to be documented. Tavix (talk) 05:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Transwiki to French Wikitonary. See User:Tavix, where there is a diffrence upon dicitonary vs stub. Junk Police (talk) 06:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow keep. Oodles of possibilities to make this much more than a dictdef. -- Banjeboi 12:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'd suggest that this could be merged with menu and redirected without loss of information; some time ago I did some cleanup on that page. But this is not the place. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Definitely keep. Dining à la carte is a far more recent phenomenon than one realises. There are many historic, gastronomic, and sociological paths to expanding this article. Rhinoracer (talk) 15:14, 27 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 20:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence kushnick[edit]

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

Original research, non-notable person. Jd027 (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. The guy is promoting himself. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - unnotable, unreferenced autobiography. . . Rcawsey (talk) 20:29, 26 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 as G3 by Ged UK (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. KuroiShiroi (contribs) 21:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dropped a bag of corn[edit]

Dropped a bag of corn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not for "something made up one day". Wperdue (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not a list of things made up one day. CTJF83Talk 20:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - original research, Wikipedia is not for things made up in one day. Jd027 (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't find anything at all. Hobit (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete (G3) and the vanity articles linked from it too. Gigs (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per Gigs (talk · contribs). ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 21:32, 26 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. Xclamation point 01:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Top Down View Games[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic, no reason to have a list specifically for top view video games. CTJF83Talk 19:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete better as category --MASEM (t) 23:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is that better? A category wouldn't give the platform, developer, release dates etc. Nerfari (talk) 23:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it were a true genre of video games (like first-person shooter), then I can reasonably see a list being helpful because being a similar playstyle, one can use the list to track how the genre changed over time or the major publishers for it. But a list of games that are related not by play style but by a choice of presentation is not helpful. We might as well have a list of sprite-based games, a list of games that use 3D, etc. A category is fine, since it is a valid aspect of the video game presentation, but not for a list. --MASEM (t) 18:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, too broad/indiscriminate, and not well-defined. Depending on interpretation could easily contain somewhere between one and two-thirds of all video games ever created. Nifboy (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Nerfari is correct in saying that a category isn't better over a list with this amount of information, but especially in the early computer days, most games would be of this nature. A list of this kind would soon grow too large with little advantages from having it in the first place. (If it is kept for some reason, someone should find out its proper name and retitle it). - Mgm|^(talk) 10:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, 'no reason to have a list specifically for top view video games' - it's not too broad as it only covers games that have birds eye view perspective.. a lot of the old games are side-view games. This list is for people who are interested & like top-down view games... similarly to people who like first-person shooters, third-person shooters, or side-scrollers. Ah-ha found the correct category Category:Video_games_by_graphical_style and Top-down_perspective. Hmm.. so this should be a category than a table like Category:Video_games_with_isometric_graphics ? Andwan0 (talk) 12:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because we have categories that you mentioned, doesn't mean they belong on Wikipedia. CTJF83Talk 00:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Original research based around a broad, largely unverifiable and subjective context. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 02:16, 30 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 Journeyman (sports). MBisanz ^talk 01:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Journeyman (football)[edit]

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

Article has nothing except an imprecise definition, contrary to What Wikipedia is not, and a list with no clear criteria (which is original research) and a very heavy UK bias. Kevin McE (talk) 19:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Journeyman is here to stay. The term is a frequently used by pundits and commentators and it seems perfectly valid that someone should be able to look up the term and see some notable examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.86.45 (talk • contribs)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per nomination, although intro might be kept and used in Football Terminology article. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge somewhere Redirect to Journeyman (sports) as per TJ Spyke - don't merge, the definition is essentially wrong and the great long (mostly unsourced) list adds nothing to the reader's understanding, and some of the examples of alleged "journeyman" players are frankly ludicrous -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect to Journeyman (sports). Article is nothing more than a stub with a list of players. The list of players is not needed and it can be mentioned on the sports page. TJ Spyke 21:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to existing article located at Journeyman (sports). GiantSnowman 21:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Journeyman (sports) per above.... simply makes sense, "Journeyman (football)" is not quite right and there is already an article which explains it. List of players is a) fairly superfluous, and b) not consistent with true definition.--ClubOranje^T 08:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was unaware of Journeyman (sports) when I proposed this for deletion, but I wonder whether the redirect would be of much use:"Journeyman (football)" is a fairly unlikely set to keystrokes if one did not know that the article was thus named. Kevin McE (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A redirect would be pointless, per Kevin McE's argument above. JulesH (talk) 17:59, 27 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 lack of independent sourcing in a subject like this is a serious issue, and none have been found in spite of attempts during the course of the debate. The secondary sourcing alluded to by Gigs has not materialized. Hence, the delete opinions get the nod on this one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kevan Shaw[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article about a lighting design consultant. Some passing references turn up in Google news searches, but no significant coverage. Contested prod. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Seems to be notable enough to have a good scattering of secondary source coverage. Should be trimmed down to WP:NPF standards though. Gigs (talk) 00:07, 27 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 | ^Talk 00:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Since I posted this article, I clearly think it is valid. I have cut it right sown to its core as suggested by Gigs.Fiunary (talk) 20:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Much of the article is unsourced, and I can't find independent sources other than those that establish his existence. Sancho 00:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I went through the first few pages of google hits for "Kevan Shaw" and couldn't find anything that would qualify as significant coverage in independent secondary sources. Yilloslime ^T_C 04:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no evidence of meeting WP:BIO Secret ^account 14:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Secretalt (talk • contribs) [reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW delete as probable hoax. Eluchil404 (talk · contribs) - 06:55, March 29, 2009

Aabir[edit]

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

Blatant hoax. First, take a look at the "Reception" section; those reviews are impossible. Second, I could find no indication of this movie existing when coupling the movie title with any of its "stars". KuroiShiroi (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this hoax. Salih (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: obvious nonsense given some of the details, like a running time of "4 years". So tagged. Zetawoof_(ζ) 20:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Note, the CSD tag for nonsense is very specific. It is only applicable to uncomprehensible material, which this is not. While this is nonsense and should be deleted as a hoax, please allow it to go through AfD or at least hit WP:SNOW. KuroiShiroi (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Wrong criterion (my goof), but it's my understanding that obvious hoaxes can be speedied as vandalism. Zetawoof_(ζ) 11:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've seen weirder things. Before I was on Wikipedia I would've considered anything high on the List of longest films by running time to be a hoax. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete "325 crore in it's first hour" (sic)? 325 crore what? Rupees or old Zimbabwe dollars? I can't find any ghits - and am not bothering to look again. Drivel. Peridon (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete non-notable, no refrences, hoaxalicious. Skier Dude (talk)`
• Delete Complete bollocks. pablo_hablo. 23:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per Skier Dude. Deletion Mutation 15:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC) N.B. !vote of sockpuppet of blocked user struck through. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:25, 28 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 Żnin. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leszek Jakubowski[edit]

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

Two-sentence stub about a mayor of a small town. Per WP:BIO, just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability. Notability not established otherwise. — Kpalion^(talk) 10:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —Ouro (blah blah) 12:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - mayor of a small town, who doesn't even have an article of his own over at pl.wiki. Not much more can be said. --Ouro (blah blah) 12:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge To Żnin. Room there for inclusion of mayor. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per ChildofMidnight.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete - non-notable bio; could have been speedied. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:18, 26 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 ^Talk · ^Review 18:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per ChildofMidnight. Skier Dude (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I agree with ChildofMidnight's assessment. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:30, 27 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 Userfy. Moved to User:Southidaho/Salt lake eagle gate apartments (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salt lake eagle gate apartments[edit]

Salt lake eagle gate apartments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

CSD for notability declined by DGG (talk · contribs) (fine, it's not technically CSD-able). Non-notable apartment complex containing biographies of non-notable people. KuroiShiroi (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not sure where this falls. The writing of the article is so bad it is hard to tell the exact meaning that is intended. However, some notability seems to be asserted, such as being the home of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints (though the current president doesn't live there). Definately needs a rewrite, both to understand the content and to remove the POV language ("the prophet") from the article. Not sure if this is a keep or delete, but most likely delete. The Seeker 4 Talk 18:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep if sourced My only problem here is with sources. IF they can be found to support the material in the article, the apartments are notable for the very high concentration of notable figures living there, as a major residential center for Mormon dignitaries. DGG (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Aside from being totally unclear there doesn't seem to be any meaningful assertion of notability here. The fact that several 'church leaders' are asserted to have lived there at some point is not adequate grounds for notability. As far as I can tell there are no news articles on this complex or anything similar source-wise to establish notability or even to verify the article. As a result, in addition to the notability issue, it appears that the article is likely entirely original research. Locke9k (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It doesn't seem to have anything notable about it, other than it seems to be residence of some higher ups in the LDS church. Some clarity on this would be a good thing. Just because Spencer W. Kimball lived there, though, doesn't mean it's notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy. The article has its faults, but it's been around for just a day without any significant edits by anyone besides Southidaho (talk · contribs) (the original creator). Let's not be bitey and give them a chance to fix it. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• userfy per MacGyverMagic. It looks likely to be notable, but I can't prove it. so let the author try to do so. Hobit (talk) 15:18, 29 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. Xclamation point 01:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of current NHL goaltenders[edit]

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

outdated and unmaintainable list. Previously prodded, but removed with a sofixit explanation. I say that, by nature, this subject matter is constantly changing and therefore unmaintainable. The list is obscure and is practically an orphan, so the cost of maintaining for outweighs the rewards. ccwaters (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —Djsasso (talk) 12:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This infomation is already contained in the List of current NHL team rosters. There is no reason this info needs repeated, or any reason why goalies should have a list and not right wingers, centeres, etc. Setting a precedent here could spread to every position in every sport and I see no reason to believe all of those lists would be kept current. blackngold29 17:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Blackngold29. Unnecessary page. Skudrafan1 (talk) 20:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a content fork per above. Resolute 13:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I completely agree wtih Blackgold Mandsford (talk) 17:58, 27 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. Xclamation point 01:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William George Pye[edit]

William George Pye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Weak Delete I'm not sure how notable the topic is. Cssiitcic (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep I find some book results that all seem to mention this person here. Article needs citations and some work, but I don't think it fails WP:N. The Seeker 4 Talk 18:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There seem to be enough sources to build a good article, and the subject is notable enough for Oxford Biography, and probably notable enough for us. Gigs (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We should always cover material already in other noteworthy encyclopedia-like publications like the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Also, when you're not sure if someone is notable enough, you should at the very least try a Google search or make some other attempt to find out. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep An article in ODNB, as in any other selective national biography, is definitive evidence of notability. If you like the GNG, think of it as one ultra-reliable source. DGG (talk) 22:37, 30 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 01:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Debt evasion[edit]

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

Unsourced. I'm not sure how notable this is; it can probably be merged into another article of some sort. Cssiitcic (talk) 17:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Speedy delete per the PROD tag you seem to have missed ;-) ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 17:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I meant to say "delete" all along, wasn't thinking straight. Sorry!! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 17:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• D'oh! I removed the prod tag due to this AfD being open. Reason for prod was: "Seems to be a non-notable topic, original research etc." KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It's fine, I kind of suspected that it would end up at AfD anyway!! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 17:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. In addition to arguments already put forth, the article seems to be taking a how-to or how-not-to tone. Borderline WP:NOTHOWTO. KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A search here indicates this term is used fairly often, yet no in-depth, third party publication seems to deal with the word itself; everything seems to be simply using the term, not describing it. This means the article fails WP:NEO and deletion is in order. The Seeker 4 Talk 18:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, so is not supposed to be about the term, but about the subject of debt evasion. Many of those sources do provide substantial discussion of the subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: While a google search of the exact term yields 1290 hits, which vary in reliability, a google news archive search with all date yields 48, a google books search yields 221, and a google scholar search yields 54. Within these, it is likely enough reliable sources can be found. Hellno2 (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep I was in the middle of writing this article when someone just went and proposed it for deletion without even giving it a chance. It takes time to write an article. And I did not have a chance to place references here. I do indeed have some sources. But they are not in front of me now. If you want to be really kind, close this out as a keep, and give me a chance. I will award you a barnstar if you do. Then I can work on this at my own pace. Boston south station (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Please continue to work on the article while the discussion is ongoing. At the very least your content may be useful to merge into Debtor. At best, we will have a reliably sourced article on this subject. –xeno (talk) 01:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As Hellno2 points out, this is a widely-discussed topic, and there are no shortage of sources. Looking through the article, I see no problems with a 'howto' tone as suggested. Additional sources are required, but that isn't grounds for deletion. JulesH (talk) 18:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional sources may be found using other terms, as well, of course. There are plenty of hits for "debt avoidance" as well, and I'm sure other terms can be used to search for documents on this topic too. JulesH (talk) 18:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Apart from the clear notability seen by glancing through the snippets displayed by Google in the searches above, here's a whole book on the subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:50, 30 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^‽ 01:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Foods with Nationality Names[edit]

Foods with Nationality Names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Trivial list (see WP:NOT). No other articles link to here. (Author contested PROD). Radiant chains (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Orphan list and for seemingly good reason, this is near nonsense and a list for the sake of making a list. treelo _radda 16:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 16:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 16:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nonsensical list--Caspian blue 16:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT#DIR, Wikipedia is not the place for a arbitrary lists like this.
• Delete while not an indiscriminate list, I fail to see how this list could be useful to anyone—even if fully completed, which it is not close to right now. However, it is a list of loosely associated topics. Fails WP:NOT#DIR -Atmoz (talk) 17:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unencyclopedic cross-categorization. Locke9k (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, a loose association of topics like list of foods named after people. Benefix (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might be loosely associated, but a list like that is a lot more informative and useful than this one. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as all entries are obvious (e.g., "Columbian Coffee" could also be "Any other country Coffee") and a very loose association. TNplinko (talk) 21:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Violates WP:NOT#DIR, of practically no encyclopedic value. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 21:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT#DIR ````
• Delete. It's interesting as trivia, but little else - and there's no real explanation as to the source of names. Sure, I can fix it, but even so, I see a prediction of a snow storm. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Completely trivial and doesn't take into account regional varieties of language. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/merge Geographical indications of this sort are of major economic, cultural and legal significance and so we have several substantial articles upon the general topic including: Appellation, Appellation d'origine contrôlée, Protected geographical indications in the European Union, Protected designation of origin, Country of origin and Terroir. This list provides a good start for a useful index of foods of this sort and still has more to be added, e.g. Cornish pasty. The arguments above such as trivia, nonsensical and unencyclopedic say nothing of this and so seem to be personal opinions of no value, i.e. WP:IDONTLIKEIT. We should retain this article for consolidation into the others which seem to need list and links to assist navigation around them. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete'. It's not a good start on the completely different article Colonel Warden talks about. And it's not much of an article on its own. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it certainly is a good start towards the index Colonel Warden is talking about, and explanations can only be added if there is a framework to build on. RenegadeMonster (talk) 12:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The sort of nationality foods are foods named for their origin and branded as such, not dishes named after a place. There is one single thing on this list (Colombian coffee) that is relevant to the topic he's talking about. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 19:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename to list of foods named after places to complement list of foods named after people. I think the non-arbitrary nature of the list topic has been proved. It's unfortunate that it's merely a list of links but per WP:CLN "building a rudimentary list of links is a necessary first step in the construction of an enhanced list" Nerfari (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Irish coffee, french fries, and danishes have nothing in common. One is named after an ingredient, one is named after the language of the name that stuck to the dish, and one is named after the origin of the dish. The rest of the list, indeed, is a hodgepodge of random dishes that share names with places or nationalities, with a variety of origins and meanings. How are they part of one topic? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:IAR Jwray (talk) 06:07, 30 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 01:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forge Radio[edit]

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

Contested prod. internet radio stations lacking significant coverage in verifiable 3rd party references are not notable RadioFan2 (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —RadioFan2 (talk) 00:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete Notability not particularly well established by current articles and sources. Gigs (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. In my opinion, college radio stations are always notable. You never know who might learn their trade there and go on to become famous. There are hundreds of articles about college radio stations. 199.125.109.58 (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a basic violation of policy and guidelines. We only cover things that are notable already or have been in the past because anything that might happen in the future is not verifiable. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per the above anon. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 26, 2009 @ 23:49
• Keep - There are plenty of worse articles on similar topics (i.e. student radio), focus your attention on them - Cockerney • Talk —Preceding undated comment added 00:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• Note: I have stripped Cockerney's signature on the !vote above of the potentially deceptive formatting that made it appear as if Neutralhomer had !voted twice. - Dravecky (talk) 06:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep as the BBC article reads as if the station is government licensed, or at least was at the time, and government licensed stations get a notability leg up on random internet radio stations. Better referencing for the article will prevent this from getting re-nommed in the future. - Dravecky (talk) 06:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment there is an implication of a license there, but it appears to be a quote from a student who are not always the most reliable sources. I'm not seeing Forge radio listed on the Ofcom so they dont appear to have a analog RSL, or Community broadcast license nor is there any mention of any broadcasting outside of internet streaming mentioned in the article. I'm no expert on UK Radio standards, but I dont think streaming audio is licensed by the govt there. If someone can point to a govt issued license for this station then yes it would be notable, otherwise, it's student run, internet only, streaming audio. The bbc.co.uk reference does show some coverage but its still not up to the significant coverage WP:N asks for. The arguments so far here for keeping this article that it might produce someone notable and that other stuff exists. I'm just not seeing that this subject is or could be notable.--RadioFan (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. While I think this could be at least a notable article, there is a lack of sources to back up most of the information given on it. The argument of other stuff exists isn't a valid one, and perhaps other student radio articles should be included in this deletion debate. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 17:30, 28 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 (non-admin closure). Ray^Talk 07:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stolnaya vodka[edit]

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

I originally speedied as G11. Speedy was declined. I suggest that this counts as blatant advertising that would require a rewrite to become encyclopedic. Additionally, there are severe notability issues as well -- Gnews gets 1 hit, but that might be a linguistic issue. Ray^Talk 15:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Comment I won't suggest a keep or delete yet, I have alerted Wikipedia:WikiProject Spirits to ask if there is anyone willing to have a go at rewriting the article, as I feel it may have potential, in my opinion it can be saved. If people start rewriting the article, please can I suggest a good faith keep, with a view to renominate in the future if it still isn't up to standard? Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now suggested keep, it now seems to be a valid stub that just needs expansion. Jenuk1985 | Talk 23:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure. I'll go to school now, and look at it again tonight, and if things look better then, I'll be happy to withdraw. Ray^Talk 16:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Delete - as it stands know it is copyright violation as it is an exact copy and paste from the North American distributors web page found here. However, if it is an award winning vodka there should be plenty of sources out there and could be saved. --Jeremy (blah blah) 18:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I've removed the copywritten material and added a couple references. The article is barely a stub but since it is no longer blantent advertising it'll do for now until it can be rewritten properly -- Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 19:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — Seems notable. I found a source to assert it. I don't have time to add it right now, though. Master&Expert (Talk) 21:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A consumer product for which independent reviews may be found, the brand also seems to have gotten some notice in reliable sources on account of its "stolnaya+vodka" potentially confusing trademark. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw nom. It looks better now. Sorry it took so long -- I clean forgot about this, for which I am sorry. Ray^Talk 07:34, 28 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 20:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LFC NYC Supporters' Club[edit]

LFC NYC Supporters' Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable fan club; fails WP:ORG. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete, created by user:LFCNYC, and non notable organization, probably formed today :>. chandler · 16:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It doesn't explain it's notability (so much so that User:Ukexpat has nominated for speedy deletion (Wikipedia:CSD#A7). It's also got some huge Wp:COI issues as well, being set up by User:LFCNYC. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. GiantSnowman 17:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per A7 as already tagged by me. ukexpat (talk) 20:17, 26 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. G11 Tone 20:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contego[edit]

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

Delete 2 year old software that has not received significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as G11, reads like a sales pamphlet to me so I've tagged it as such. treelo _radda 16:43, 26 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting Gazette[edit]

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

The tone sounds okay to me, and IPC Media is very notable. Too many ghits to assess notability, and can't db-inc a magazine, so taking to AfD - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- I see nothing wrong with this. Field sports may be politically incorrect, but that is no reason for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as nominator hasn't given any reason to delete it. It's a nationally-distributed printed magazine from a reputable publisher that's been going for 20 years so notability is surely not at issue. Article could certainly do with some editing for NPOV, but it's only 2 days old so I see no reason to bring it to AFD. Qwfp (talk) 16:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable magazine and I can't see any reason to delete / speedy / AfD it other than a WP:IDONTLIKEIT on shooting or field sports. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep no reason given to delete (tone being OK and inability to assess notability are not reasons to delete AFAIK) and the number of hits indicates the subject is notable. The Seeker 4 Talk 18:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Appears to meet the general notability guideline. ukexpat (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The nominator gave no valid policy-based reason to delete this. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Dank55 was nominating on behalf of ukexpat (talk · contribs), looking at the article's history. It appears ukexpat put a speedy deletion tag on it and Dank5 declined speedy deletion on the grounds he cited above.

Therefore, speedy keep per WP:SK ground 1: the nominator doesn't think the article should be deleted.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:28, 27 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 | ^Talk 00:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hustle Till I Die[edit]

Hustle Till I Die (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreleased album with little media coverage of substance. Fails WP:NALBUMS. TheJazzDalek (talk) 15:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 15:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unreleased without significant coverage. Gigs (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable at this point; welcome back if it's ever released & meets inclusion criteria. Skier Dude (talk) 22:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unreleased album with trivial coverage. Wait till it exists and does something. Duffbeerforme (talk) 04:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not notable. Deb (talk) 12:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non notable, crystal ball. Deletion Mutation 16:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC) N.B. !vote of sockpuppet of blocked user struck through. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blocked, not banned, which does not mean an automatic revert of all edits. Since the sockpuppet was not being used to game this AFD, his !vote should not be discounted. TheJazzDalek (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: apprently not according to some admins. A whole slew of AfDs were reverted even though some editors had already voted. As I understand it, once a second editor has voted the AfD process needs to go through and the tags maintained, even if the nominator is blocked. JamesBurns (talk) 08:31, 29 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Walzcak[edit]

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

Delete another professor where I declined a speedy request. He exists: [3], but again is lacking in significant coverage in reliable third party soucres. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can't even find a homepage for this prof. I found a couple papers (e.g. [4]) written by a Dr Michael Walzcak about chemistry, but not enough to establish a significant impact in their scholarly discipline. Fails WP:PROF. -Atmoz (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'd have to agree with Atmoz, this fails WP:PROF. Matt (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:Prof notability requirements. Full of peacock terms. Wperdue (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I cleaned up the article (and moved it to a non-misspelled title) but I didn't find any evidence of passing WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Scopus shows 4 papers, with citations 13, 12, 11, 2. All in very good journals, but all published in connection with his doctoral work. This is not enough for notability though it is certainly enough to warrant discussion rather than speedy. As a rough guide, associate professors at other than the most important research universities are almost always not considered notable here, unless they have an unusually distinguished record. DGG (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO.--Eric Yurken (talk) 00:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 29 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. Xclamation point 01:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Winblad[edit]

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

Delete was tagged for speedy deletion, which I declined as some people are convinced that all faculty of all universities are inherently notable. He is on faculty [5], but as far as I can find there is no significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  15:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There seem to be some Google scholar and Google books hits, but I'm having a hard time telling if this is the same person. For example, [6], [7]. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  15:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete The formatting is horrendous, it is one or two lines long, and is completely unsourced. Also, the article makes absolutely zero assertions that this article is notable.Cssiitcic (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Week keep I fixed formatting, and added sources, categories and a stub notice.--Auric (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Google Scholar finds only 2 articles, and a total of about 20 citations to them. (the searches above are pertinent, and there are a few more citations. There are not likely to be more than one person by that name working on Wittgenstein) This is enough to pass speedy, but not enough for notability. Though a first-rate college, Vassar is not a research university, and it is not likely that associate professors there would be notable.DGG (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Passes neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO. The searches above do not establish notability. Additionally, I could not find enough evidence for notability on WorldCat or Google News; actually, I could not find ANY evidence of notability.--Eric Yurken (talk) 00:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Eric - simply not notable.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 | ^Talk 18:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Albanian-Moldovan relations[edit]

Albanian-Moldovan relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Mere existence of diplomatic relations is not notable; these two don't even have embassies with each other. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laos-Romania relations for very recent consensus on the matter. (I should note the pair have signed a free trade agreement, but Moldova has signed similar documents with Romania, Armenia, Serbia, Croatia, Macedonia, Bulgaria and Bosnia, so this is clearly nothing out of the ordinary, plus it's doubtful the two poorest countries in Europe do that much trade.)
And may I also point out that I prodded a few trivial articles of this nature yesterday (including this one), only to be reverted by User:WilyD with the dismissive edit summary "rm silliness": [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. So if you're wondering why this stuff is lying around for so long and keeps making its way through AfD despite broad consensus for swift deletion, there's the answer; it's certainly not the first time he's done it either. Biruitorul ^Talk 14:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - attacking me is not a substitute for a rationale for deletion (of course, with transparently notable articles, one probably have nothing better). Like almost every pairing of countries, easily meets and exceeds WP:N [14] [15][16][17][18][19] of course, the sources go on and on and on ... like any pairing, anyone who spends even a few minutes investigating will come to the unavoidable conclusion. I'm puzzled by the campaign to purge such useful, encyclopaedic articles from Wikipedia. WilyD 15:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) In no way did I "attack" you. 2) Of the six sources you gave, the third and the sixth tell us nothing. Three of the others talk about how the Albanian President (who, by the way, is more or less a figurehead) spent a couple of days in Moldova; and the final one about how the Moldovan President spent a day in Albania (where he didn't even meet his counterpart). This kind of stuff is purely symbolic and forms part of the normal course of international relations. It is not a substitute for an actual article. 3) You can't easily skirt the fact that they don't have embassies, or cultural/historic ties, or much at all to do with each other. Two short, ceremonial visits quickly forgotten can't make up for that. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Content-free article. Automatic pairing articles are not worth keeping around, especially if they don't say anything. (Of course, their tendency to creep up again and again points to a significant architectural flaw of MediaWiki, but that's a point for another day.) Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 19:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - another pair of random countries which really don't have any relations of which to speak. Jd027 (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I could find no sources establishing notability of this topic. Yilloslime ^T_C 20:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Generally speaking, any pair of countries which don't have embassies with each other are unlikely to have relations worthy of a separate article. . . Rcawsey (talk) 20:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- I agree wholeheartedly with Digwuren's analysis of these contentless country pairing articles, and with Biruitorul's analysis of the "sources" provided by WilyD. Reyk _YO! 21:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, given that there are 192 UN member countries, the possible number of articles is 192!/(192-2) = 1.868 x 10³⁵⁴. Not all of them are notable. Martintg (talk) 21:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, by my maths, the number of possible articles of this type is (192*191)/2=18336. Still a large number of mostly pointless articles, but nothing like the horror you're describing. Reyk _YO! 22:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Math was never my strong point, I based my calculation on Permutation#Counting_permutations but I probably mis-understood the concept. Martintg (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per others, little if any encyclopedic content. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 21:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence that this relationship is significant — it would be reasonable to have an article on Montenegro/Japan relations, due to the war between them that just concluded (see here), but I doubt that there's anything like this going on between these two. Nyttend (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. Relations are not shown to be notable. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 04:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The only non-trivial information in the article reveals the countries don't have actual embassies for the other inside their own borders which indicates the relations are most likely insignificant. The rest of the page gives no useful content at all. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - One of the reasons that I nominated Chile–Cyprus relations was that they don't have embassies in the other country. It applies here as well (Albania is represented in its embassy in Moscow, and Moldova is represented by it's Sofian embassy). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I find most such articles to be rather trivial and pointless. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 17:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I see no real value in such articles Rizos01 (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Delete as these countries don't have any notable relations. Tavix (talk) 00:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with User:DitzyNizzy, they don't have embassies in their respective countries. ΕλληνΚύπριος (talk) 17:29, 30 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) 02:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Backup Direct[edit]

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

Advertising a business Be-technical (talk) 14:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; fails WP:COMPANY. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is most likely notable. See the list of awards on Backup Direct's website; we would just need to verify these in reliable, independent sources. There also seem to be some news mentions that probably aren't press releases. [20]. Overall, this meets WP:WEB, if not WP:N. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  15:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  15:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per LinguistAtLarge Jenuk1985 | Talk 15:36, 26 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 | ^Talk 00:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Linguist. The article is a stub, so it's just missing references. It seems they do exist. Ancemy (talk) 00:21, 31 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 User:TerriersFan‎ (A1: Not enough context to identify article's subject. (non-admin closure) Wiggles_oinks^waddles 19:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anjuman Computer College Kahuta[edit]

Anjuman Computer College Kahuta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete not verifiable, not notable - this college appears to be a technical school rather than a post-secondary type school, and barely enough context here to know much about the place and google has nothing more. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 14:40, 26 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 close - Action from previous AfD already carried out (non admin closure) Jenuk1985 | Talk 15:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

100 Tiger Treasures[edit]

100 Tiger Treasures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article was AfD on 8 March 2009 as "merge or delete". It has not been merged. Could it now be deleted, please. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Tagishsimon (talk) 14:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Close Said AfD closed as merge, not delete. Don't use quotation marks to misrepresent the information! I have performed the merge myself, not sure why you couldn't have done this rather than create another AfD Jenuk1985 | Talk 14:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Close per Jenuk1985. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:03, 26 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. Xclamation point 01:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Norman[edit]

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

Declining db-spam speedy deletion, taking to AfD; the article was deleted 4 times in 2007 for non-notability (3 times as CSD A7), and it's not clear the problems are solved. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm leaning towards a keep on this one. Looking at the list of newspaper articles (at the bottom of the article), I see a dozen+ mentions that are slightly more than trivial. Most of the articles are about the subject's uncle, but they also mention Matt Norman, usually almost trivially, but a tiny bit more. I think this, along with some of his film credits is probably enough to establish notability. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  15:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the many on-topic references and links provided in the article show beyond a doubt that this actor has received significant attention worthy of being recorded. Satisfies WP:BIO. -Atmoz (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the problems with this page lie not with notability.--Perry Middlemiss (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Usual case of "article isn't great, but that isn't a reason to delete". Subject appears to satisfy notability. Orderinchaos 01:18, 28 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 News_style#Lead_or_intro. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Burying the lead[edit]

Burying the lead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is just a stub on the use of a term in journalism. It's just a WP:DICDEF. Any possible expansion of the the explanation should already be covered in the articles News style and Lead paragraph, so no reason why this should ever be a standalone article. DreamGuy (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:SNOW. I would say "merge into News style", but there isn't anything worth merging. Shreevatsa (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to News style or something appropriate like that. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 14:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete first off, it should be "burying the lede." Second off, it's just the definition of a term. I've already merged it here [21].Bali ultimate (talk) 15:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is some dispute about the spelling. Lead is far more common and certainly more correct. DreamGuy (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to News_style#Lead_or_intro seems like the most appropriate thing to do. This is a potential search term. Note that "lede" and "lead" are both valid spellings for this usage. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  15:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to News_style#Lead_or_intro or possibly another journalism article. This should defninitely not be a stand-alone article, as it's just a dictionary definition and Wiktionary already has an entry so there's no point transwiking it. On the other hand it is a plausible search term as pointed out above. Hut 8.5 16:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft redirect to wikt:bury the lede as plausible search term, but a better topic for Wiktionary. -Atmoz (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• comment I'd suggets a merge or redirect to lede, but for some reason we don't seem to have an article on that subject. Artw (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Lede (news) is a redirect to News style#Lead or intro. The news style article needs improvement, but I guess this isn't the place to discuss that :-) Shreevatsa (talk) 22:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect to News_style#Lead_or_intro per above - there's not much more to say than a dicdef. Bearian (talk) 00:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge/redirect per above. Deletion Mutation 15:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC) N.B. !vote of sockpuppet of blocked user struck through. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:38, 28 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. Xclamation point 01:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lal Babu[edit]

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

Completely unverifiable. I have looked for info on this person through different angles, but have been unable to confirm that this person really existed or that at least the facts about him are correct. His supposed real name Achyutanand Choudhary gives no Wikipedia-independent Google hits[22], no Google News hits[23], ... There are quite a few hits for Lal Babu[24], but when trying to find any about the subject of the article, I again found no results. Hiw name plus that of his most famous song gives only 2 Google hits, both from Wikipedia[25]. The same for another song[26] or his famous book[27]. The article itself has no links or sources either. Fram (talk) 13:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unfortunately, I can't find anything on Google to even verify that this person existed or exists. I searched with both his nickname "Lal Babu" and real name "Achyutanand Choudhary". For all we can tell, this could even be a hoax. Given the old-looking photos, I might suspect that someone is trying to create a memorial for a family member. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  15:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

dear sir,

If person is not alive how you can search him? people are there in bihar who are very famous but not on internet..you mean people who are famous should be on internet and google search....sir to make a person famous google is not the way. I am trying to tell the world about Lal Babu using your medium, If you think so it should be deleted please delete it....but m sure he is famous n loving then your people on wikipedia. come to bhagalpur n ask peeople who is lalbabbu....thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.115.46 (talk) 07:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a huge amount of info on dead people available on the Internet, actually. Normally, a famous person who dies in 2009 gets remarked upon in at least some online available sources. But you are free to give us some info on offline sources (books, newspaper articles, ...) about Lal Babu. Fram (talk) 07:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I had the same lack of luck with internet sources as LinguistAtLarge and Fram. Unless independent, reliable sources show up, notability just isn't there.
• Delete: no significant coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 07:40, 30 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) 02:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St. Francis of Assisi Convent[edit]

St. Francis of Assisi Convent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Removing from db-spam queue, taking to AfD. See WP:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Education. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 12:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 13:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 13:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as a high school this is a significant institution in the city. Indian schools have a poor presence on the Internet and time should be given for local sources to be found to avoid systemic bias. This page was only created today so a deletion discussion is premature. TerriersFan (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are 4 pages of Google hits for "St. Francis of Assisi Convent" Navsari, all of the hits appear unreliable. I understand that there are likely to be useful printed sources for most high schools somewhere, but they may be hard to locate. What should we say to people who are trying to be careful with their CSD tagging work? Should we tell them that it's "premature" to bring an article to AfD if there's not a single useful Google hit and we don't know how to locate other sources? If this one was premature, then how about the other school articles I'm pulling out of the db-spam queue that have no notable ghits, most of which have a tone that strikes many Wikipedians as promotional? I'm fine with the general principle of "Don't bring it to AfD if the outcome is known in advance", and I'm sure there are some articles where I'm the only one in the discussion who didn't know the outcome in advance, but I'm not sure if this article is one of those. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would tell the CSD taggers to proceed more carefully in tagging tag perfectly legitimate articles for deletion. This article was not promotional when it was created. Cunard (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'm right with you on the systemic bias issue, especially as it applies to notable Indian institutions; I just left a reminder today at WT:INDIA for people to keep an eye on the list of India-related deletion discussions. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. As a practical matter, we're on more of a 10-day clock than a 5-day clock, because most of the admins who are closing these days will relist if it looks like more time is needed. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per TerriersFan. All high schools are notable. The existence of this school can be verified by this Google Books link. Cunard (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am in agreement with TerriersFan's assessment regarding high schools and notability. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question I understand that there's an argument that it's a waste of time to debate notability about high schools, and that it's highly likely that some kind of printed references might exist and someday be consulted for most high schools, at least in the countries I'm familiar with. My question is ... how do we write an article without sources? Since we can't find any reliable sources on Google for this school, and there's no assertion that sources exist (outside of the city government site, which only gives the name), what makes us believe that this article was written by someone neutral, rather than a booster or a rival of this school? The article "sounds" fine ... but is that how we judge NPOV these days, from the tone rather than the sources? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As the one who placed the speedy deletion tag onto the article's original form. I agree now the article should be kept because of its new revisions and added references bringing it to a encyclopedia appearance.--Rent A Troop (talk) 09:47, 27 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 08:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DeSoL[edit]

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

It may well be true that this band is well-known in some circles, but there is no evidence of notability in the article - which has been created and added to by a suspiciously large number of one-off users Deb (talk) 12:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment there seem to be a few news hits for them [28]. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  15:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  15:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Claim of billboard charting does not show up for me at billboard. What are Triple A charts? Two of their album articles claim allmusic professional reviews that do not exist. Allmusic [29] and short review [30] Duffbeerforme (talk) 04:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard AC Chart Listing and a blurb on Billboard commenting on it being the highest debut in AC history.

Does the Adult Contemporary Billboard chart count as a national music chart?

Here's two more articles from Billboard that discuss the band itself a bit more...although they seem like they might overlap a bit.

Washington Post article & New York Times article. --Onorem♠Dil 11:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I just checked the interwiki links and they are fake. Deb (talk) 12:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: trivial coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 08:01, 30 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 | ^Talk 00:02, 31 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, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Onorem. Coverage by Washington Post and New York Times makes them notable. Ancemy (talk) 00:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as they have a charted single on a major chart, coupled with significant source coverage. Hot AC is indeed a notable chart. Not sure where the AAA charts came from, but sure as heck not Billboard. Oh yeah, and having the highest AC debut in the history of that chart, isn't that a good assertation? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:54, 31 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 to delete, so kept through a merge and redirect to Takaful per debate below. Hiding T 09:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The World Takaful Conference[edit]

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

Declining db-spam and taking to AfD, I'd like comment from people from the region if possible. Google hits suggest this is probably nonnotable by our standards, but it's possible people from the region will have a different view. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 12:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 12:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to takaful. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There seems to be enough coverage found by Google News and Google Books to show notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:31, 30 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 | ^Talk 00:02, 31 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mietinen Young[edit]

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

Unsourced and never will be sourced. Doesn't exist, probable hoax. Never happened.

No version of history or documented sources support this article. Franamax (talk) 10:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I prodded this as a probable hoax a few days ago, I'm interested in early exploration and have encountered a number of fringe theories re pre-columbian ocean crossings, and this was a new one on me and one of the least credible. "In circa 1438 they accidentally crashed ashore of the Hudson bay". If there had been an expedition that long before columbus that mapped part of North America it would be sourcable. ϢereSpielChequers 11:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No sources, no ghits other than copies of this article. Probable hoax, since, as WereSpielChequers says above, you'd think there would be some references if it were true. Anaxial (talk) 11:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Quite probably a hoax, absolutely no Google search results outside of Wikipedia. ←Spidern→ 11:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, arguably speedily as a deliberate hoax. I have never encountered the personal name 'Mietinen' in English history, and my moderately extensive knowledge of North Atlantic exploration has never revealed any such incident as the one described. 'Bay of South'? Honestly, if you're going to hoax, learn to write convincing English. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mietinen, I would interpret as being a Finnish surname, it did show up when I was searching this in other contexts. Irrelevant though, unless sources are found - and pre-Columbian maps of Hudson Bay and sourced accounts of landing there, oh wouldn't we be smiling?!:) Not to be I suspect... Franamax (talk) 14:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete if you're sure no reliable soures can be found. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 14:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete probable hoax, if this was generally accepted or even a significant fringe view it would get at least one Google hit, so either it was made up or it has zero acceptance. Either way it shouldn't be here. Hut 8.5 16:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The only thing I can add is that there are also no hits in gbooks or gscholar. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- WP:HOAX. Reached Hudson's Bay about 50 years before Columbus reached West Indies! Wholly incredible. I know there are other contenders for the first to America, but this cannot be one of them. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:22, 29 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) 02:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Desert sand (color)[edit]

Desert sand (color) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Recreation of a deleted page Zinnwaldite (color) replacing the word Zinnwaldite with desert sand, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zinnwaldite (color) PaleAqua (talk) 09:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete: if that's correct, suggest delete under A4. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 11:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the article can be saved and improved, then that must be the preferable option. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 08:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep: See [31] and [32]. The AfD linked appears to be against a hoax article, yet this colour seems to exist? Not sure why this is nominated? Jenuk1985 | Talk 14:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • First link is to an unreliable source, anyone can add a color name to colourlovers at any coordinate. Second link is a cyclic source back to wikipedia itself. Finally the article contents is a straight recreation of the Zinnwaldite article. From the clam about the color of Pluto, and the bit about beige telephones not being beige. Even as the name of Crayola crayon color, there is already a list of them at List of Crayola crayon colors. Note the coordinates at that later page are mostly original research. PaleAqua (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well I'm really struggling to find anything to suggest this colour doesn't exist. Just type the hex code into Google, many of the pages call it desert sand. Jenuk1985 | Talk 15:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just looked through the first 3 pages of google results and they appear to be traceable back to wikipedia itself. PaleAqua (talk) 16:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're right that there are a lot of things, including the second source cited by Jenuk1985 (which actually corresponds to an earlier version of list of Crayola crayon colors, down to the two notes at the bottom), that are Wikipedia mirrors. It's also true that Keraunos, despite xyr claims to the contrary in the initial edit summary, has copied the deleted content of Zinnwaldite (color) almost exactly. (I just compared the two. The wikitexts of the parts about telephones, boots, and so forth are identical. This wasn't an original creation, despite the claim to being so in the edit summary.)

          However, it's also true that this is a real colour. You've been looking for the wrong thing, partly because Keraunos has simply reintroduced deleted content under another title with the RGB value slightly altered, rather than writing a proper article. A good article, which this is far from being, would tell you that Desert Sand is a standard military camouflage colour, used by the U.S. Army and others, and specified in standards. (Color, marking, and camouflage pattern painting for armament command equipment, published by the United States Department of the Army in 1988, lists it as one of 12 standard camouflage colours. Other U.S. Army documents list it as colour number 23448, as defined by FED-STD-595A.) Its pantone number is 17-1524, according to page 149 of ISBN 9781931868259 (and 142-B according to page 174 of ISBN 9781892123008). It is colour number 313, according to the 1942 National Paint Bulletin. Its ISCC–NBS designation is 181 O 5-e, according to the 1955 NBS list.

          On the gripping hand, therefore, not only is this previously deleted content, it is also inaccurate content and badly sourced content. (Apparently, readers are supposed to look at pictures and repeat an original analysis of the colours of the things in those pictures.) The fact that this was inaccurate was pointed out in the prior AFD discussion. Since a good article would have to be created from scratch anyway, without any of this inaccurate and misleading content, whether we delete it (as a simple re-creation of deleted content) or blank the article and start from scratch is pretty much a toss-up. Uncle G (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

          • Some nice sources there. Replacing the article with a properly sourced one that was not misleading would be a good solution in my opinion. PaleAqua (talk) 00:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Did a quick trim and added at least the 12 standard camouflage colors bit. More of the above should probably be added. I'll probably withdraw my AFD if we can get a good article out of this. PaleAqua (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. This is not the imagainary color that was deleted previously, this a different color that is an actual color although its coordinates are very close to the deleted color. Thank you for the information about the camouflage colors. That is very important and useful. Keraunos (talk) 02:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found a website with color samples of the 12 official camouflage colors and I added it to the article as a reference. However, incorrectly I suspect, it shows desert sand and earth yellow as being the same color, whereas desert sand should be a paler and more beige color than earth yellow. The 12 official MERDC camouflage colors (color samples shown): Keraunos (talk) 04:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just added four new colors that are variations of desert sand to the article. Keraunos (talk) 06:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, with kudos to Keraunos and Pale Aqua for the rewrite. As one of the camo colors, this is a commonly used name (Rustoleum and Testors both have this as a ready-mixed color; Case used this as one of their official tractor colors), so it's logical that people will be searching for it.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:04, 27 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. pointy nom; snow (non-admin closure) Atmoz (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scareware[edit]

Look up scareware in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

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

neologism  kgrr ^talk 08:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Reliable sources use the scareware categorization, not just the internal spyware community. BaShildy (talk) 09:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • did you run it past EBSCOHost? Is it really used by academics in journal papers? It's recognized by urban dictionary  kgrr ^talk 10:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Is the nominator going to give a reason for nominating this article? In any event, notable due to high profile litigation against perpetrators and prevalence of the problem. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • An article created by the nominator, Hot stain (AfD discussion), was nominated for deletion for being a neologism. Within 10 minutes, xe in turn nominated 2 other articles for deletion, with the same one-word rationale: "neologism", later augmented with the same largely irrelevant "It's in Urban Dictionary." argument. Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point appears to apply, alas.

    But no, notability is not due to the litigation and the prevalence of the problem. Notability is not fame nor importance. As Wikipedia:Notability explains, notability is in-depth coverage in multiple independent published works that are independent of the subject, which this subject has. Some of them — not even all of them (as some quick research revealed) — are even cited in the "References" section of this very article. Uncle G (talk) 11:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep fairly well sourced article and prevalent problem. No arguments for deletion.--Moloch09 (talk) 10:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Term is well sourced in the article, so it clearly is not a neologism. Anaxial (talk) 11:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Like it or not, it's entered common usage. ←Spidern→ 12:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per others. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 14:32, 26 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) 02:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moonbat[edit]

Look up moonbat in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

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

Neologism  kgrr ^talk 08:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Urban dictionary has six entries for this neologism. Take your pick of which meaning to assign to this epithet. No way to write an Npov article on it. kgrr ^talk 10:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Not only was the assertion that this is a neologism refuted by Geogre in the first AFD discussion for this article, back in 2004, this discussion being the third, but the article itself even cites a source that supports this. It's the very first source cited, in fact. Inspired (by us, ironically) to do the proper research, William Safire, an identifiable expert in this field who has a reputation for accuracy to defend, did his own legwork, checked the facts, and published the result. (There's more on this subject than was in the column in his 2008 Political Dictionary, by the way.) You didn't read the sources to see what they said about the subject, or even the prior AFD discussions, did you?

  Personally, since the sources (c.f. Safire's dictionary, and this and this) treat them both as one and discuss them together, often in a wider context of epithets on web logs as a whole, I'd merge this with Wingnut and do the same, on the principle that Wikipedia should address subjects as sources do.

  But that's a matter of merger, not deletion. Even an editor without an account has all of the tools necessary to enact that. This is Articles for deletion, and repeatedly nominating an article for deletion on grounds that were shown to be wrong almost five years ago, and also shown to be wrong by the sources in the article, in the expectation of a different result the third time around, is not (shall we say?) the best of approaches. Uncle G (talk) 10:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Look, I don't like the term. It's slippery, as the nominator says. It's just a generalized pejorative. The only concrete definitions have to go back to "looney" and "lunatic" and combine those with "funny" comments on 1960's teenagers (and they're all retirees now). Oh, it's culture war. It's dumb. It's best left elsewhere. It is, however, neither neologism nor impossible to write properly. A proper article treats the term as a slippery term, as a term used, I believe, by Hunter S. Thompson, as incorporated into general apolitical discourse, and as a particularized term of opprobrium appropriated specifically by Rush Limbaugh. However, he and his usage will pass away like dry leaves in winter, and the term will likely remain in its light form ("amusing lunatic; an antic, usually young, pursuer of attractive ideas"). Geogre (talk) 11:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Pretty much agree with what George said; it seems to be used widely enough to justify having an article on it. The fact that it's pejorative isn't reason enough to have it deleted. Interestingly, Wikipedia's current definition of the term is quoted in this book. I do think that we need to expand our sourcing on the term and find a solid definition, though. It seems that a specific mode of usage, "barking moonbat", was coined by Perry de Havilland on his blog, Samizdata. A cursory google search reveals 104,000 results. ←Spidern→ 12:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep sufficiently stable for an article. Artw (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, not a neologism but needs more research. The 1940s experimental aircraft XP-67 Bat has also been called the "Moonbat", but I haven't found when that alternate name was first applied. The term, in any case, is more than fifty years old. 21:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as per most of the above  — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 00:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• Merge the content is all WP:DICDEF so the title should take us to a more general article such as Pejorative. We really shouldn't have separate articles for every insulting word as they are all much the same topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a dicdef. A dictionary definition contains multiple definitions for the term. There's only one definition of moonbat here. You could merge though; but the argument that it is dicdef is wrong; and you don't need to do an AFD to merge.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you call it if there's only one definition, then, if not a definition? Powers ^T 12:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basically all articles have to include a definition; they have to define what they mean by the title, and this is covered by WP:ISNOT. Then it would be a 'stub article'.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But not every article that consists solely of a single definition is a valid stub. Powers ^T 01:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]