< 26 March	28 March >

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 00:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey Joseph[edit]

Not notable--doesn't meet WP:LIVING. There are seemingly no second or third-party sources visible in the top 50 search engine results for the subject's name, other than what is potentially a self-provided biography on the local city website. Additionally, it cites no references at all and it appears to include original research. Lastly, the original author's userid "Oh Audi" might imply that it is autobiographical. Doughnut4020 (talk) 03:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've read quite a few stories about her and she's had a long long career in the entertainment industry. I think first as some sort of record producer in the early disco era then producing events and running two or possibly more of the largest dance clubs on the west coast; as far as I know she's also a city commissioner on the Entertainment Commission. I think she also producers stages at the city's largest LGBT events - which, by default, are also the largest LGBT events on the US West Coast. This, this, these, these, these, these, and these should quell any misgivings. And there are quite a few SF media I didn't even check. Her profile at the city's website should be a clue of her notability as well - she's even holding a proclamation from the California Assembly in the picture. -- Banjeboi 15:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an entirely unsourced BLP? (As in not one source) and apparent conflict of interest to boot? What is there to discuss. It's not clear to me if there are any sources that might make an article about this person possible, but this article is garbage and should go. if someone wants to work to write a real article with actual sources, that effort can be assessed on its merits if and when it happens.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, just wondering of the hundred or so sources I posted above you don't see any of those as helping establish notability? And BLP isn't a reason to delete an entire article that is true, notable and sourceable, ergo fixable; it's a policy to help guide how to present content. I'm not seeing anything that is so negative it needs to be removed - I'm not sure if any of is negative in fact. And nom's statement the original author's userid "Oh Audi" might imply that it is autobiographical is a great example of bad faith and you've just added more of the same by suggesting were now at COI. I see you're busy wholesale removing information so I'll wait until you've moved on to restore and source it all back. -- Banjeboi 16:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're stating your intention to "restore" uncited/unsourced information into a BLP? Good luck with that. As for COI -- brand new user account that writes a long, laudatory article, has no other edits and has a username that sounds like a nickname for the users first name? Thinking there's likely a conflict of interest isn't bad faith -- it's common sense.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm stating my intent to repair what I see as your damage to the article thus restoring accurate and verifiable content. Per WP:AGF we don't jump from 0 to COI without good reason, and in this case we have little to nothing but a suspicion which fails the WP:Duck test. -- Banjeboi 19:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 21:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of a wall of "cites" that at first glance look useless to me and whining about "good faith" owed to SPA's that write articles about themselves, why don't you include sourced, specific information in this article you want to save. Everything i've looked at just mentions that she owned a club, or promoted a party, etc... The 6 (not "100s") of cites you provided up above look like weak sauce to me. I found you accusaion that removing unsourced material from a BLP, providing it's first (and so far only) inline citations from what i could verify, creating a reflist, and cleaning up its advertorial language as "damage" you need a new hobby.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bali ultimate, please, your being uncivil to almost everyone involved in this. Above I provide links to 87 sources, not 6. And assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. Claiming COI without compelling evidence against the article creator is unhelpful. -- Banjeboi 18:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've turned up this, which is a full article devoted to this person, containing a biography. I'll add it to the article; I think that, along with the weight of the other less focused sources, it indicates notability. Gonzonoir (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yup, that's a biography by a newspaper staff writer so it's a reliable source. In other news, WP:COI is not grounds for deletion.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - many good sources exist, and have been found already. This is a perfect example of WP:BEFORE - I found this on Google news. Bearian (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator, I made good-faith effort to follow WP:BEFORE, including looking for sources as indicated in my original nomination, making sure that the article was tagged with a question about notability as well as the existing reference issues, noting the issue on the talk page, etc. Please note that the Google News article that you cited didn't exist until the day before my nomination and I suspect it was not even indexed when I did my search. I agree that the links provided by Banjeboi et al. are obviously very helpful in establishing references. Doughnut4020 (talk) 05:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this as good faith, personally I just missed the talkpage comment. And she is mainly discussed in obscure industry publications about clubs/entertainment and LGBT media which generally aren't in google news search. -- Banjeboi 05:40, 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. Valley2city^‽ 15:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Queensland August 2005 by-elections[edit]

Originally nominated for speedy deletion, it was changed to a disambiguation page by admin User:Stifle. But I don't think a disambiguation page is appropriate. The title of the article isn't something people are likely to search on. Plus I've altered all links to the article to point to Chatsworth state by-election, 2005 or Redcliffe state by-election, 2005. Now that those two articles have been created, I can't see any reason to keep this page. Digestible (talk) 00:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Digestible (talk) 00:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Orderinchaos 01:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. (i.e. Delete) The only thing they have in common was that they happened to be on the same date - they were otherwise unrelated (and that relationship can simply be noted by a link to each other on each of the two pages). Orderinchaos 01:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree with nominatior, this is hardly a likely search term (especially now that no article-space pages link to it), and the two articles already reference each other. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete List of Queensland state by-elections does the same thing and does it better. As with the dab page, there is always the frightening 50-50 possibility that someone might click on the wrong August 2005 Queensland by-election, and then say, "Oh no, it must have been the other August 2005 by-election, I can't do anything right!" Mandsford (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The category Queensland state by-elections provides a comprehensive listing of all such elections. This disambiguation page is unnecessary. Dolphin51 (talk) 01:29, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Animas-La Plata Water Project[edit]

Blatant opinion piece. Not sure this is notable? No sources. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 23:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it is notable, as there are a few news written about it: [1] [2]. However it's pure WP:OR at the moment, so I think most if not all of the text can be deleted and replaced with a short stub based on the two previous links. Laurent (talk) 11:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could it be merged in Animas? Laurent (talk) 11:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quick gsearch shows it's notable. I was bold and took a chainsaw to the thing to get rid of the POV problems.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm! I should have looked at the history first. Looks like the article was hijacked in this edit. If anyone prefers the March 13 version to mine, feel free to go back to that one.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The pre-hijacked version seems to be okay (could do with more sources, but there's nothing that makes it qualify for deletion). I suggest we go back to that revision. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 22:47, 28 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 00:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revert and Keep: Revert to the March the 13th version, then keep it as it seems to be notable, passing WP:GNG as it has been subject of secondary sources. Although, it could use a little bit of love and care even after, if, a revert is preformed. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. could have easily been speedy a7ed, but now it has officially been !voted deleted through an AfD, so now it will carry an automatic G4 too. Valley2city^‽ 19:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xjetco[edit]

No evidence of notability, a Google search finds virtually nothing. No sources. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 23:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Markovich292 05:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7, or at least delete per nomination. This article is a mess of incoherency, and certainly isn't written in an encyclopedic style. TheFeds 20:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, should probably have been speedy deleted per A7, but lets just go through this. LK (talk) 08:57, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli Football Hall of Fame[edit]

No third party notability. This thing was launched on March 11, 2009, so the thing is two weeks old. It seems to be a promotion for a TV station. The only sources listed are from the organizations promoting it. John Nagle (talk) 23:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Google News search turns up nothing, at least in English-language media. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to John - Not a promotion for no TV channel. It's a new project, and I just couldn't find enough info to create a good article. But I agree it might not be notable enough for an article. RaLo18 (talk with me • my contributions) 10:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does this "Hall of Fame" have any physical existence, like a building? Wikipedia has the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum (Cooperstown, NY), the Pro Football Hall of Fame (Canton, OH), the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame (Cleveland, OH), and a List of halls and walks of fame. Most of them have a physical existence. The Australian Football (soccer) Hall of Fame apparently does not, but it's been around since 1999. This new thing is now three weeks old. --John Nagle (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are association football Halls of Fame for the United States, England, Australia...why can't Israel also have one? Just because the first inductees are being chosen by a TV show doesn't negate from it's notablity. Giant Snowman 21:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a Canadian one, and also one for a club - Rangers of Scotland. Giant Snowman 21:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Canadian one has a museum in Vaughan, Ontario.[3]. The Rangers one probably could be merged into the team article. --John Nagle (talk) 22:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would ordinarily say merge the Rangers one into the team article, but I believe it is sufficient on its own because it relates to a single, notable organization (the Rangers) and the article and the added content would make the article itself too long, so it's fine to set it aside in a well-linked article. This is NOT the case here, where this Hall of Fame is by a TV station with a few paragraphs of material on that page. If anything, I'm sure IFPA should be notable, so there should be an article there and this can go on it. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 18:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Notable members of a class or group do not automatically make all other members of that class or group notable, so if the above mentioned halls of fame are notable, that does not automatically make this one so. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 23:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for the same reason I removed the prod: I find it incredibly hard to believe that this hasn't received coverage in the Israeli press. I don't know enough to search for those sources, but unless somebody convinces me that they do know how to search for them and have attempted unsuccessfully, I'll be in favour of keeping. Making a good-faith effort to search for sources before nominating is a requirement, and I'd say in this case searching in Hebrew is an important part of that. JulesH (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've managed to find one English language reference this morning so it seems this thing is starting to get some attention, and the number of available sources will probably increase when the other inductees are announced. Like Jules said, there's probably some Hebrew sources as well which could be used to improve the article. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 08:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What we have now is something from Ynetnews: "The channel will carry a special broadcast every Thursday, made to present the viewers with the "candidates." The list will also be available on the channel's website. ... The IFPA will also undertake advancing the physical construction of the hall, in hopes of making it a future public attraction." So we have a future TV show and a talk of a possible future building. That's not yet notable. It's still just a publicity campaign. Maybe this should be revisited in a year, per WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. If they actually build a Hall of Fame museum, I'd say that it becomes notable on opening day. --John Nagle (talk) 17:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a physical building is necessary to make a Hall of Fame notable. I'm not sure too many halls of fame started with a building until the number of nominees grew beyond the first few inductees. But the insitution itself is notable without a physical building. Rlendog (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per User:GiantSnowman and JulesH. English Google is not necessarily an appropriate barometer for the notability of an Israeli institution. Rlendog (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is very new (on the order of a couple weeks) and needs more significant independent sources. I think good faith has been exercised to find sources before nomination. This is the English Wikipedia and there is no reasonable expectation for people to search non-English sources. That onus should be on the editor that created the article and those who want it to stay. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" per WP:V. If anything, since this is the pet project of Sports 5, which has an article, it could potentially be merged there or to the IFPA (not sure if an article exists). Also, the existence of other articles that should not be on Wikipedia is NOT an excuse to have more. Nor is it a reason to say that "blank has one, why shouldn't blank?". This is tantamount to using a random vandalism page created 5 minutes ago to justify making another vandalism page. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 18:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IFPA (which is the player's union) doesn't have an article, but the Israeli Premier League (the club operators' organization) does. Maybe this should go in there. --John Nagle (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V does not require English sources. It only states that English sources are prefered to non-English ones of the same reliability. Rlendog (talk) 02:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying there is a requirement for English sources. I am saying that there is no obligation for searching non-English sources when considering deletion. That lies with the article creator or those who want the content included in Wikipedia. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 05:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requirement that "When nominating an article for deletion due to sourcing concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources aren't likely to exist." A good faith effort to conform that sources aren't likely to exist for an institution in a non-English speaking country involves checking for souces in an appropriate language. Rlendog (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is hardly a sourcing concern, which stems from WP:V. There is no issue that this is a verifiable organization. The issue is whether its existence is notable. Further, searching sources in English (which, let's face it, is pretty universal) is a good method because it helps deal with sources that are beyond being merely local. "Attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability". This is not to say that English sources are required, but it's definitely a good thing. Also, let's face it, good faith does not require you to go beyond your means, which for your average English WP user means searching in English. If the nom was done by someone who speaks the local language, I'd say that's bad faith to only search in English. As it is anyway, I don't see anything here to indicate that the nomination was done as such...another editor that DID NOT nominate the article did the google news search in English. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 18:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But a nomination for an article for which it is clear that most sources are likely to be non-English ought to make an effort to find sources in the appropriate language. There are various ways that can be done. For example, Google has a translation facility. That can be dangerous of course. Better would be to try to get some Wikipedians who speak the appropriate language involved in the process. For example, the participants in WP:ISRAEL may be a good place to look to find a couple of Wikipedians who may well be able to search for sources in the appropriate language. After all, if the 6 or 8 people who are currently involved in this AfD are not capable of understanding the sources that could demonstrate notability (or not), then we are not an appropriate group to determine a consensus on that matter for Wikipedia as a whole. But if some Hebrew-speaking Wikipedians get involved and cannot find evidence of notability, then there is a good chance that this article is non-notable. But a lack of English sources on Google for this article proves absolutely nothing. Rlendog (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well one way or another, the AfD has started (I think properly), so short of getting this AfD withdrawn on speculation of bad faith, the burden is on those who want this article to stay to present sources. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 23:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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^‽ 20:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uranium stocks[edit]

Should there be an article on every possible kind of "stock"? RenegadeMonster (talk) 23:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No, there probably shouldn't, especially if you can't cite any sources about that type of stock. Zetawoof_(ζ) 04:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reason that the producers-explorers comment can't be mentioned in List of uranium mines. Mandsford (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Markovich292 05:03, 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 speedy keep. DGG (talk) 02:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Discovery of France[edit]

Probable Hoax. Silk Knot (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both Google Books and Amazon turned up this title when I searched. It's not a hoax, as far as I know, but it might have a notability issue. —LedgendGamer 22:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is definetly not a hoax; I own a copy of this book. Nick-D (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pretty easy to verify it's not a hoax. It has won an award from the Royal Society of Literature so it appears to pass WP:N. I42 (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep http://www.rslit.org/index.php?n=Awards.Ondaatje No hoax - unless of a vastly higher standard than I am used to here. Peridon (talk) 23:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reviewed by the New York Times, The Sunday Times, International Herald Tribune, Powell's Books, The Guardian, and I'm sure a lot more. -Atmoz (talk) 23:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per the reviews. --J.Mundo (talk) 01:26, 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 List of wiki software. MBisanz ^talk 00:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SnipSnap[edit]

Notability: questionable reliability of references. The fact that development of this project ceased in 2007 doesn't help with establishing notability. Dandv (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Dandv (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of wiki software where it is also mentioned. Clearly not something that had any impact - there are no 3rd party refs, nor could I find any - insufficient notability for a page of its own. I42 (talk) 23:35, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect:I agree with I42's statement here, SnipSnap does not appear to pass WP:GNG, thus does not have enough notability to justify a page of its own, nor in my opinion a merge, therefore I think a simple redirect is in order Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Credit policy institute[edit]

This is not an encyclopedia article, but reads like a text written for some other purpose. Wikipedia is neither for original research nor for promoting one's own organization (see [4]). Sandstein 21:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. WP:SPAM, WP:NPOV, WP:COI. The author has admitted to being the executive director of said institution. I42 (talk) 23:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Self Advertising.Jamiebijania (talk) 01:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Could be a viable article with some work, but I don't foresee third-party editors stepping forward to resolve the issues mentioned above anytime in the near future. Markovich292 05:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero reliable sources exist; searches on Google web reveal 8 Ghits and Google news reveal none at all. Organization appears to have been founded about two weeks ago - and WP is not a news source itself. Bearian (talk) 21:23, 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 19:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anki[edit]

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

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

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

This is part of an ongoing cleanup of Wikipedia to remove articles about minor products. By precedence, me-too articles about flash-card software do not qualify when only blogs are referenced for notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homeboyfrisco (talk • contribs) 15:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC) — Homeboyfrisco (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Precedence is not a reason to flag an article for deletion. Next time you wish to flag an article for deletion, please follow the guidelines here. Notably: "If the article is not already tagged to note a problem, apply a tag, such as ((notability)), ((hoax)), ((original research)) ((unencyclopedic)), or ((advert)); this ensures that everyone viewing the article is aware of the problem and may act to remedy it." Finally, looking at your user page, you have few edits besides the above mention Crammage page you appear to have written and the addition of this notification for deletion. Please work on that.Porco-esphino (talk) 04:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC) -- Thanks for the pointers. I added the tags to the article as well (they were pointed out here). The precedence reference was simply to point out that the good people here at Wikipedia already had almost the same discussion for an almost identical me-too, blog-referenced product advertisement (except the lobbyist mysteriously seem to have changed positions as the products changed...)[reply]

Folks, it's silly, and completely irrelevant, to spin an ongoing clean-up as tit-for-tat. Wikipedia has too many me-too products advertising themselves here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homeboyfrisco (talk • contribs) 16:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And please stop the mudslinging (especially from the Keep lobby) and phony delete-because-I'm-jealous posts.

I pray before the honorable people of Wikipedia that individual products' pages be immediately deleted, but links to outside webpages on the spaced repetition article be retained. As a matter of fact, it should be better if the spaced repetition article have no product links. This erects a passive barrier preventing the plebeian plenitude (particularly those that hail from the Philippines/China/Taiwan) from using these products and would comparatively increase my market value. -- previously 119.92.180.15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.92.187.220 (talk • contribs) — 119.92.187.220 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete as not notable. --Thomas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasjnewsome (talk • contribs) 17:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep I have always used Wikipedia to find GPL and open source software which I find useful, through the category and "See Also" articles. Indeed, I discovered Anki, software which I now use, through the article on Spaced Repetition software. (i.e., this article was useful to me.) While I don't have so many objections to removing commercial plugs for software, freely available GPL software is in the Wikipedia spirit of spreading knowledge and information! Keep. Rucky (talk) 05:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Anki is highly innovative. Being able to define multi-dimensional facts from which multiple cards can be derived is a brilliant development. I believe this is driving it's popularity, and why it's under such active development. There's no other SRS with this advanced knowledge management mechanism. It is particularly popular for language learning. 206.126.170.20 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I respectfully disagree. SuperMemo has that "advanced knowledge management mechanism" and more. Seriously, have you tried SuperMemo? Of course, the masses would get messed up in SuperMemo's muddled UI that they would immediately quit spaced repetition (which is my ulterior motive). -- previously 119.92.180.15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.92.187.220 (talk • contribs) — 119.92.187.220 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Yes I was a paid user of SuperMemo. Have you tried Anki? SuperMemo does not have the same power to organize facts and derive multiple cards from them.

KEEP I have never used SuperMemo myself because I am using a MacOS, and SuperMemo is Windows only. Anki is free, open-source, cross-platform (Windows, Linux, MacOS, iPhone, smartphones), translated into 16 languages, and also a very active project (there are numerous updates since I started using the program 6 months ago, and lively daily newsgroup discussions). I first learned about this software at Foolsworkshop, and the product has been through numerous updates since that review. Anki is also mentioned in here, here, and here Ld99 (talk) 11:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussion referenced above. There are strict requirements for notability and reliable sources -- also see requirements for no original research. Anki fails on all three, and only one failure is sufficient cause for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.152.178 (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC) — 98.210.152.178 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Since it fails on all three, then there is prima facie evidence that this ridiculously rubbish of an article be immediately consigned into the dustbin of history while the rest of us make history. -- previously 119.92.180.15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.92.187.220 (talk • contribs) — 119.92.187.220 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Weak delete. Yes, there's the coverage at Lifehacker, but it's only one source. —C.Fred (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember it clearly, but I recall that the motivation for the Anki post on Lifehacker was a previous post on SuperMemo. -- previously 119.92.180.15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.92.187.220 (talk • contribs) — 119.92.187.220 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ——C.Fred (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe that lifehacker and other referenced review sites provide sufficient notability. If paper sources are required, there is also an article due out in a Japanese journal in June, but unfortunately that is too late to be useful for this AfD.

This AfD seems to have been created out of spite and a number of 'Keep' voters on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Crammage page are now voting 'Delete'. (I did not participate in that AfD). I acknowledge that Anki may be a borderline case, but it would be a shame to see it go because a few people with a "if we can't be here, nobody can" attitude have tipped the scales.

Oh - and Anki was included in the April 2008 issue of the German c't magazine. It also ships with 3 of the major Linux distributions (Ubuntu, Fedora and Debian). You can find it talked about on many language learning forums. Perhaps not arguments for notability in wikipedia's official guidelines, but a demonstration of notability none the less. 58.3.182.104 (talk) 00:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)— 58.3.182.104 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I respectfully disagree. Wikipedia has those guidelines for the protection of the marauding masses from rubbish. If the article is not notable according to Wikipedia's guidelines, then it must be removed regardless of its real-world notability. The less people know about these things, then less effort needed to improve my skills to compete in the global jungle. This means more leisure time for the enjoyment of Daoist philosophy, laughter of children, rustling of the wind, mountain air, Chinese poetry, and analysis of economic behavior. -- previously 119.92.180.15
Can you please post at least the name of the journal? Just to keep us informed. :) -- previously 119.92.180.15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.92.187.220 (talk • contribs) — 119.92.187.220 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It's called 月刊日本語. http://www.alc.co.jp/gn/index.html - but it doesn't contribute much to the discussion as the writer said her article will appear in the June edition. 58.3.182.104 (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC) — 58.3.182.104 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 01:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable and no proper references 114.158.117.221 (talk) 06:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— 114.158.117.221 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Weak Keep; Whilst the mass of language blog reviews may not be enough to tip the notability scales, I believe this article in The Hindu lends a bit of weight. I'll continue to look for sources, but for the moment it's still a weak one. Not too impressed by the very pointy nom and the gaggle of associated SPAs, but I guess what I'm even less impressed with is the possibility of this being some corporate tit-for-tat, following the Crammage AFD. one brave monkey 07:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOT Lol, The Hindu and c't (both!) are AdSense-based republications of random blog posts! I think Onebravemonkey's credibility is shot at this point.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.82.5 (talk • contribs) — 76.14.82.5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Er... I would disagree with my learned, single-purpose colleague by saying that, amongst the large number of things about me which are "shot", my credibility is so far not one of them. :-D Those sources are stable, as it goes. one brave monkey 21:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the coverage in The Hindu isn't the most expansive, it tells me that coverage is out there, and coupled with the mention in c't (which I have not seen to verify), the article should be improved rather than deleted.

I agree with Onebravemonkey's assessment that this nomination is tit-for-tat over the deletion of Crammage; however, I don't think it's a bad-faith nomination, so I'm considering the matter solely on the issue of notability and verifiability of this article. Precendent may be useful as a guideline, but other stuff exists, so articles have to be evaluated on a stand-alone basis. —C.Fred (talk) 13:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOT See comment above about The Hindu and c't being an AdSense-based republication of random blog posts. In my mind, this questions C.Fred's credibility as well.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.82.5 (talk • contribs) — 76.14.82.5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Newspaper publication has not gone so downhill as to render leading daily newspapers as "AdSense-based republications of random blog posts"; see the linked article on The Hindu. —C.Fred (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the blog section originally: http://blogs.thehindu.com/delhi/?p=14846—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.82.5 (talk • contribs) — 76.14.82.5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Why not email J. Murali at The Hindu and ask him to pen an article about Crammage? Apparently, that's all that's necessary to keep a page. -- previously 119.92.180.15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.92.187.220 (talk • contribs) — 119.92.187.220 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete -- no reliable sources. Thinly vailed advertisement. --John Hwang —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.201.171.128 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— 76.201.171.128 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

To be fair, Anki's not really for sale, and I really appreciate the author's efforts in providing a software solution for my leaky memory. -- previously 119.92.180.15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.92.187.220 (talk • contribs) — 119.92.187.220 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep; An Anki screenshot is the screenshot image on Wikipedia's own Spaced Repetition page, and Anki is widely recognized as the only FOSS alternative to SuperMemo. While I agree that Spaced Repetition itself may be a small field, Anki is a major player in that small field. If Anki does not meet Notability guidelines, then neither does the Spaced Repetition learning technique. In fact, the Spaced Repetition page links to Sebastian Leitner, Cecil Alec Mace, the Pimsleur language learning system, and Paul Pimsleur, all of which should be deleted for non-Notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dotancohen (talk • contribs) 13:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha. Then delete the screenshot image. -- previously 119.92.180.15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.92.187.220 (talk • contribs) — 119.92.187.220 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

To be fair, Mnemosyne_(software) is also a notable FOSS alternative to SuperMemo, and has been around for longer than Anki - so I wouldn't call Anki the 'only' alternative.58.3.182.104 (talk) 13:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Truer words have never been spoken. -- previously 119.92.180.15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.92.187.220 (talk • contribs) — 119.92.187.220 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete. The less people know about this software, the better it is for me (my comparative advantage increases). Maybe I'll start deleting all the spaced repetition links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.92.180.15 (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC) — 119.92.180.15 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

And now we've had an IP declare that they have a conflict of interest with the subject. —C.Fred (talk) 21:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lol again. I took it as a sarcastic post from the Anki people suggesting tit-for-tat again... but perhaps they actually tried to frame someone from the clean-up effort, trying to make it look like a serious post? Yeah... let's watch that IP! ;v)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.82.5 (talk • contribs) — 76.14.82.5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It does look like sarcasm, and it's a shame the poster couldn't have worded their argument more constructively. On the other hand, I believe it is intellectually dishonest of you to label this deletion request as an "ongoing deletion effort". A page you had a vested interest in was deleted, and you turned around and submitted the Anki page for deletion the next day. This is no 'ongoing deletion effort' - it's an act of spite. Furthermore, you and the other accounts that were created at similar times and mysteriously appeared on the wiki recently, seem to have decided that Anki is to blame for your article being deleted, despite the fact that I never voted on the Crammage AFD page, and the person who deleted the Crammage page this time - and last time - had to the best of my knowledge nothing to do with Anki at all. This assumption on your part is reflected by the fact that Anki was the article you submitted for deletion, despite the fact that the Mnemosyne article has arguably fewer sources to back up its notability.58.3.182.104 (talk) 21:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC) — 58.3.182.104 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I'm watching that IP too. But I'm too lazy to delete the SRS links. Is anyone up to the challenge? It is written:

Anki article
Sacrifice on the altar
One for the many

Let thy will be done, and let thou be deleted. -- previously 119.92.180.15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.92.187.220 (talk • contribs) — 119.92.187.220 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep; When it comes to articles on pieces of software, surely the best determinant of notability would be the size of the user base. I suppose it's possible to have a notable piece of software with a very small user base but this would be an exception to the norm. With that in mind, if you're going to have articles on spaced repetition software, and software for language learning, one of the best ways to decide which piece of software gets an article, would be to look at the number of users it has. You can then decide on a minimum and if Anki falls below that minimum then the article should be deleted along with all of the other software articles which fail that test. I suspect that Anki has more users than crammage.

I have been a user of Anki for several years now and this is one of the very few pieces of software that I have unfailingly used every day. I'm not alone in having this experience and that in itself makes this software (and other spaced repetition software) seem notable to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrightak (talk • contribs) 14:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - The brief article in The Hindu mentioned above is the only reliable source that comments on Anki, so far as I can tell. Lifehacker, as one of the Gawker Media blogs, does *not* look to be a safe bet as a reliable source, and we have no article on the reviewer Kevin Purdy, so Wikipedia does not recognize him yet as an expert. If Anki goes into wider use it may eventually attract mainstream coverage that would justify an article, but I don't think it is there yet. The article on spaced repetition seems OK because it is well-sourced. Unfortunately it often happens that FOSS software, even when it is well-regarded by a number of people, just doesn't get noticed by mainstream media. However, Ubuntu *does* make the grade, so the more successful FOSS products do wind up getting articles. EdJohnston (talk) 22:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Anki is the best and most fast developing flashcard program. This overview and discussion proves it: http://foolsworkshop.com/reviews/anki-review. And this program is free. It's a must application for everyone learning a foreign language. It's the only application where I can learn several languages at once using spaced repetition algorithm. Don't delete the page about it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.145.158.18 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— 213.145.158.18 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep - Anki is widely used in our university. Some people use Supermemo but that program does not run on Ubunutu, so about half the university uses Anki. Not a day goes by that I don't open the program or hear someone talking about it. I find it unusual that it could be "not notable". The Cunning Linguist website had an Anki article recently, if you want something solid: http://www.cunning-linguist.co.uk/anki/

Sorry I can't log in, I'm in the library and I don't know my wp password! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.68.4.151 (talk) 09:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no original research.--Christian Metter

External references okay to allow in the original SuperMemo article. While none of the products advertising themselves here warrant a separate article, I think an external link for each will allow readers to find more or less equivalent implementations. Thus existence of a product is notable, while the marketing material about the product is not notable. (This may also calm some of the emotions around here...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.189.162.6 (talk) 17:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user once tried to blank out the Anki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anki&diff=prev&oldid=274253326 58.3.182.104 (talk) 22:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC) — 58.3.182.104 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep per the spirit of the Notability policies for articles on open-source software discussion on WikiEN-l, and the arguments brought therein. -- Dandv (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So guys, what's the consensus? --119.92.182.172 (talk) 12:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't see any guideline arguments for keeping it, only blog posts and original research. I say delete the article, but create external references in the SuperMemo article that describes the algorithm implemented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homeboyfrisco (talk • contribs) 15:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - the comment just above contains a link to a forum post, but deceptively displays the words 'notability policies.' Wikipedia does not have special treatment of open-source project advertisements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homeboyfrisco (talk • contribs) 15:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate "delete" struck since this commenter is the nominator. —C.Fred (talk) 16:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure) KuroiShiroi (contribs) 20:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mongelli incest case[edit]

Not notable, doesn't meet WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ONEEVENT. Spring and Port Wine (talk) 21:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per coverage in most news agencies, per Fritzl case and per hasty nomination.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above. Seems like a story that will grow and grow.--Judo112 (talk) 21:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Article seems to be referenced.Wacko Jack O 22:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as sufficiently important with major international coverage that seems very likely to continue. DGG (talk) 02:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per DGG. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:28, 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 per CSD#G11, clear case of advertising. No need for AfD. Chillum 01:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Everex Products[edit]

Non-notable list of products per WP:NOT an indiscriminate directory and per WP:ADVERT. MBisanz ^talk 21:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Non notable product directory, basically an advertisement for the companies products.Wacko Jack O 22:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam (and now tagged as such). Every link takes you to everexstore.com. I42 (talk) 23:45, 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 per CSD#A7, Company with no assertion of notability. Chillum 00:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Microban[edit]

Article about a company with no assertion of notability. The company's products use a notable chemical, triclosan which is already covered in its own article. I suggest that we delete the non-notable company info and redirect to triclosan. Papa November (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- fr33k man -s- 21:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, triclosan already covered, non notable company.Wacko Jack O 22:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable corp; no need to redirect. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:44, 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. Icewedge (talk) 05:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bogsy[edit]

Non notable acronym. Only reference is to non-reliable source, no claim of notability, but speedied once already so decided to bring it here. Absolutely no evidence of any coverage of third-party, reliable sources. The Seeker 4 Talk 19:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable neologism and WP:MADEUP. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm finding no google hits for any of the three phrases, it seems someone just made it up and typed it into Wikipedia. Can we make this speedy? Cazort (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google comes up with nothing credible. Not to mention it seems to fail WP:NEO and WP:MADEUP. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 20:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNon notable, probably a hoax anywayCssiitcic (talk) 21:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:MADEUP Tavix (talk) 22:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Markovich292 05:21, 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 00:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ki Cuyler's Sports Bar and Grill[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ki Cuyler's Sports Bar and Grill

Anecdotal article on a non-notable restaurant. Accounts of ghosts are interesting, but this article reads more like a magazine article or something and has a highly unencyclopedic tone ("Believed by many to be a kind and gentle spirit…") Furthermore, it asserts no notability beyond being named for a baseball player, and there are absolutely no reliable sources. So it's haunted, big whoop. So is the former Arby's in Oscoda. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An old promo from 2006, not even worth a mention in the article Kiki Cuyler. As for the haunted Arby's, four words: "Slimed by Horsey Sauce" Mandsford (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I lol'd. Hard. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reason for notability, no sources at all. black ngold29 23:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete like most non-chain restaurants: non-notable. Many venues have unique stories, however, that does not confer notability. Icewedge (talk) 05:16, 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 delete as part of a pattern of vandalism. I was about to nominate this myself, when I noticed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bh6thman/Archive, Giambigarchy, Giambigarchy 2, and Giambiarchy. Compare Special:Contributions/Giambs0099 and Special:Contributions/Giambs009; and read this edit. This is silly and persistent vandalism, by someone who isn't genuinely attempting to collaborate in writing encyclopaedia articles, plain and simple. I was about to note this on User talk:Fabrictramp#CSD / PROD for Giambracy. But this AFD nomination appeared as I was writing there. So I'm writing the explanation here instead. ☺ To add to that conversation: There's no need to look for an extension to the criteria. We have criterion #G3 already. Uncle G (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giambracy[edit]

Fan club / religious movement with exactly 0 non-wiki ghits and 0 gnews hits. WP:NFT probably applies here. Prod contested by IP user without comment. Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Straightforward NFT case. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:26, 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. MBisanz ^talk 19:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ossama alsaadawi[edit]

Fails WP:Notability. This is a fringe writer so fringe that other fringe writers don't seem interested in them . His books don't show up on Google books, and in fact don't seem to show up anywhere except on the Arab World Books site (see [5] which is some sort of club/bookstore/whatever and I see no evidence that his books are not self-published - they don't even seem to have ISBN numbers. Dougweller (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of any particular notability. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 20:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Eubulides (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Lyons[edit]

The subject of this orphan article doesn't appear to be notable taking into account the recommendations at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability — Rod ^talk 19:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: isn't he on the very edge of passing the (admittedly very liberal indeed) standard you describe? If I read the soccerbase ref correctly, he played 11 games for Torquay United F.C., who at the time were members of The Football League. Doesn't that mean "a fully professional club at a national level"? Soccerbase says he was a "trainee", which I suppose counts as professional football. To my mind this falls squarely into the "why would anyone except his mum care?" territory, but (if I understand the notability standard properly, which I quite possibly don't) then he's just inside it. 87.114.147.43 (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response I'm not sure if the page at WikiProject football counts as a "standard" but to my mind being a trainee doesn't make him a professional, but the fact none of the club articles, including Torquay, link to the articles indicates he was not very senior/notable.— Rod ^talk 22:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - played nine times in a fully professional league (The Football League) so handily passes WP:ATHLETE even without taking WP:FOOTYN into account, which for the record was rejected by the community months and months ago and is never cited by any WP:FOOTY regulars. The "trainee" reference on Soccerbase means that he joined the club as a trainee, not that he was one at the time he played for the club's first team (see for example David Beckham, whose Man U career is shown in the same way) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has made nine fully-professional appearances. It would be impossible for clubs to all link to all players who played for them in their main articles. matt91486 (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 14:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, fully professional appearances in league, FA cup and FL trophy, passes WP:ATHLETE.--ClubOranje^T 00:40, 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 Redirected to Butterfly effect. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonfly Effect[edit]

This appears to be pure WP:OR. I attempted to redirect to Butterfly effect, but that attempt was repeatedly reverted. The primary source for the quote of the term "Dragonfly effect" is Thomas Oliverius, which is a page which has been deleted twice. I would tag for speedy deletion, but I wasn't sure which category would apply (if any). Plastikspork (talk) 18:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and perhaps a salted redirect, although I get a hit on google scholar that posits it as a different name for the lotus effect. Hiding T 18:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article seems to be a joke. Redddogg (talk) 18:51, 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. Notability is not inherited. Tone 19:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Kevin Jonas Sr[edit]

I really don't think we need a separate page for the father; we can just merge into another page, or delete all together. After all, it is a unsourced stub. Cssiitcic (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is not inherited, goes both ways. Article fails to establish notability for the father. This might even be a speedy A7 case.MLauba (talk) 17:48, 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. MBisanz ^talk 19:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Journey to Fearless: The Black Butterfly[edit]

Non-notable unreleased album with little media coverage of significance. Fails WP:NALBUMS. TheJazzDalek (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 17:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' - Non-notable unreleased album. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 17:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability is yet to be established. JamesBurns (talk) 06:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable, crystal ball. Deletion Mutation 17:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Blocked sockpuppet. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 20:31, 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) 22:07, 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. MBisanz ^talk 19:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Triple gold[edit]

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

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

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

Nonnotable mixed drink (which is basically just mixing 3 brands of light beer); sources aren't reliable. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of my friends and I love triple gold. Its not what you would think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.142.209 (talk) 17:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This has just as many references as irish car bomb, but yet you are challenging it. Obviously, you've never heard of it, but it is widely known to be a funny concoction that is surprisingly good. Please don't delete this- it's a relevant part of beer history, regardless of the quality of ingredients. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BeerHistoryProf (talk • contribs) 17:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- — BeerHistoryProf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment Quality of ingredients doesn't mean anything, and other stuff exists is generally not considered a valid argument in AFD's. Please provide any sources you can to indicate the notability of this drink, or it will likely be deleted. I am neutral myself at this point. The Seeker 4 Talk 17:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not a drink I'd bother with. Looks like a lot of work to get something that doesn't taste of anything much when you've done it. Might look pretty. As to the article, the UrbanDictionary entry was posted by BeerHistory Prof on March 26th 2009. Oh, isn't that a coincidence - this article was created and mainly edited by someone using the name BeerHistory Prof on March 27th 2009. There's no posting info for DrinksMixer available to me, but I think I can guess. Both the references given are at submit-an-entry sites, and do not count as reliable. Blogs don't either, to save some more creations. Peridon (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As to the Irish Car Bomb article, you're right about its references. I'm now thinking seriously about bringing it to Articles for Deletion. Dreadful waste of whiskey apart from lack of notability. Peridon (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only two references I can find for it are provided with the article, but given that they're both user submitted, I don't think they're reliable. Without other evidence, I have to conclude this isn't notable. Rnb (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did enter the entry on UrbanDictionary.com - as soon as I noticed that this wasn't on UrbanDictionary or Wikipedia I thought it my duty to note it. Still looking for better sources- hang tight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BeerHistoryProf (talk • contribs) 18:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Im from a Missouri farm town where Triple Gold was consumed regularly. It may seem like a gross drink, but it is actually somewhat tasteless and definitely refreshing.Cardsfan101 (talk • contribs)
- — Cardsfan101 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment I have been ordering Triple Gold from my local bar in Dallas (on lower Greenville) for years. I was introduced to the drink by the bartender one when I was slightly buzzed. Believe it or not, it made the buzz stronger without getting me drunk. Those who are having trouble finding sources need stop drinking the Google Kool-aid out of the small of Al Gore's back without a straw and do some REAL research at your local bars and taverns. I don't usually get involved with these self-moderated sites because it is impossible to overcome the volume of the yelping ignorant, but this is an issue that I have lots (probably more than I can remember) of experience with and the truth must be told! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.40.156.136 (talk) 13:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I hadn't heard about this phenomenon until about a month ago, but it is the real deal. While others may find the drink itself unremarkable, subjective opinions on the quality of the drink should not be used to remove its entry here. It is an order-able drink with real ingredients, etc. The fact that it was only added recently to online drink databases does not negate the actual existence of the drink, merely its rarity (especially given that the large majority of bars never have all of the big 3 light beers on tap). Being a beer snob myself, I don't usually go for lagers, especially the light stuff, but this drink actually does provide an interesting formula that really outdoes any of the singular elements used to make it. Don't hate on the Triple Gold!Sanchoelancho (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact that I would only accept (and would not buy for myself) any of the ingredients of this alleged drink (and then only if desperate on a very hot day) does not impinge on my view of its notability. The Coors, Budweiser and Miller producers are themselves quite notable despite (or perhaps because of...) the stuff they produce (allegedly beer). This mixture of their stuff does not appear to be, as the only references are not reliable and independent. Produce some that fit the bill and we'll consider them. There are many drink mixtures - I used to enjoy a really refreshing one made from bottled Guinness and bitter lemon. Despite a local vogue for a time it never received a distinctive name and has died out. I feel 'Triple Gold' is one similar, (but cannot (personally) see how tasteless + tasteless + tasteless = drinkable). Still, up to you. Produce INDEPENDENT OUTSIDE sources. No matter how many people post to say THEY drink it, they won't count. Peridon (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe that the accounts of these posters are equally independent, outside, and sources. BeerHistoryProf (talk) 17:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Duke of Wellington was approached one day by a man who said, "Mr Smith, I believe.". The Duke's reply was, "If you believe that, sir, you will believe anything.". Please look at what Wikipedia considers independent, reliable sources. If someone sent you an email saying "I've discovered this fantastic new way of making money - send me ten dollars and I'll double your money in a week!" would you believe it? No (I hope). But that's outside, independent and a source by your reckoning. It's not reliable. That's the important bit. They are one purpose accounts - no edits anywhere else on Wikipedia. Just like yours, I'm afraid. They may well be total strangers who are enthusiasts for this mixture and who just happened to wander in off the web and find that this article was being considered for deletion. They could equally easily be your mates - or even you. They don't carry the weight of a serious article in the NY Times (for example). If they are indeed independent people, they are entitled to put their views forward. They will be treated as views - and given the benefit of the doubt - but NOT treated as reliable outside sources. This is Wikipedia. It runs by its own rules. One of these is reliable referencing - verifiable referencing. Please read the policies. Peridon (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and discussion so far. No reliable references seem to be forthcoming. Peridon (talk) 20:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Listen, I understand the guidelines and understand that the sources presented don't fit the necessary strength of criteria that you demand. I'm just giving it my best within the means I have because of how I've seen this seemingly stupid drink be used so often. If you are looking for a drink that I've read about in a paper - I obviously can't find that article. However, I know this drink to have been relevant over the past 7 years and had to give a go for it. If you all decide to delete the article until Triple Gold get's published, I get it. BeerHistoryProf (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the basis of the borderline citations and the below borderline content. The alleged merits in the article have no substantiation, except to the plausible extend to which the odd taste of one low quality beer will cancel out that of another. I'll believe it, all right, when some regularly reliable source talks about it. Urban dictionary is extremely useful, but does not establish notability. DGG (talk) 08:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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^‽ 06:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Morton Kaplan[edit]

This person does not seem to meet WP:Notability. He was a professor and the editor of an minor magazine but no other information about him is given. There are also no secondary sources. Borock (talk) 16:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (Change to Keep) I met this person, but that does not make him notable. A couple of years ago I questioned this article on its talk page and nothing has been done to help it since. As the nominator says there is no substantial information or sources. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I met him when he spoke at our church in Chicago. I thought he was just an opinionated college professor, although a nice guy, and had no idea of his importance in the world of political science. Now that I have learned more I am changing my vote to keep. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to be widely cited, and I'm turning up things like [6]. This might be puffery, but it's there. He's described in this paper as influential in his field. I think that's a peer reviewed journal article. I think that about meets Wikipedia:Notability (academics). I think teh shame here is that this is the sort of person we should have an article on, and we're failing, not that this should be deleted. Hiding T 19:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I didn't have an opinion, but after just looking around the web for a few minutes, it's clear he meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Here's some of what I found:

There's also a physicist named "Morton Kaplan," but our Morton Kaplan seems to have authored at least half of the 258 publications that come up in an advanced Google Scholar search.
He "held numerous academic and administrative posts" including: Chairman of Committee on International Relations, University of Chicago. Director of Faculty Arms Control and Foreign Policy Seminar, Center for Policy Study, University of Chicago. Board of Governors and the Research Committee, STRATIS, The Israeli Institute for Strategic Studies and Policy Analysis.
Dr. Kaplan is referenced in Who's Who in America, American Men of Science, Who's Who in World Science from Antiquity to the Present, and Who's Who in the World.

The fact that the article is woefully inadequate has no bearing on the notability issue. -Exucmember (talk) 03:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional keep I did a quick run through ProQuest, and found a book review in National Review and a mention of him in The Atlantic--both from 1977. I don't see any direct evidence of him meeting WP:ACADEMIC, but he may well meet the GNG, per the relevant hits in google news. Jclemens (talk) 07:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep An exceptionally distinguished political scientist, with dozens of major books to his credit: I added them all. . The publication of this may academic books from high quality specialized publishers shows acceptance as an authority. I didnt look up holdings, and reviews orf them, because it seemed a little unnecessary to show the extent to which he is regarded as an authority. That information should be added , though, for completeness., I point out that being included in any Whos Who is not aken here to mean very much, as the are considered both unreliable and somewhat indiscriminate. AMS (now SMWS) is fairly reliable, but not at all selective.DGG (talk) 08:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wasn't aware of much of this information when I nominated the article for deletion. Maybe the article should be kept. But shouldn't there be something that sources have said about him? Even reviews of his books? Otherwise WP is just a Who's who. Borock (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There has been a trend in the last two years of deleting anyone associated with Rev. Moon, apparently on the grounds that Wikipedia should not be used for endorsing him. Well, I say that if the person is prominent enough for an article, than our guidelines say to keep the article. It's just too bad for people who are trying to marginalize Moon and his movement. If prominent people choose to associate themselves with him, that's their business. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't nominate Dr. Kaplan's article in order to persecute the Unification Church. When I made the nomination it had no sources and almost no information. Some information has now been added, but still no secondary sources which discuss him in depth.Borock (talk) 10:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed), and possibly other criteria as well. Citation impact indicates notability. Has at least one book, The Many faces of communism, currently in more than 1,000 libraries worldwide according to WorldCat. The article is a mess; I went ahead and did some serious editing.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found this on the PWPA web site:

"His path-breaking book, System and Process in International Politics (1957), began the scientific study of international relations. It was one of the first three volumes republished by the European Consortium for Political Research in their classics of political science series. His numerous other books include Science, Language and the Human Condition, and Law in a Democratic Society. He is one of the few writers who has taken a synoptic approach to philosophy while using analytic techniques."

Although an independent source should be found before similar claims be put in a Wikipedia article, you'd have to believe that PWPA was wildly lying to assert that he's not notable. -Exucmember (talk) 07:00, 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. Valley2city^‽ 06:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colombia–Estonia relations[edit]

Yet another one of the (thankfully permanently banned) Groubani series of international relations articles. The one definitely fails WP:N, because (as proven by discussions like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canada–Moldova relations and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laos-Romania relations), mere relations don't confer notability, and I think, in this instance, we don't even have relations between these two countries other than the former recognising the latter's independence from the Soviet Union. Further more, the two don't have embassies in the other country - indeed, Estonia doesn't have a representative for Colombia anywhere. The link provided adds another strike against it by saying, "There are no agreements concluded between Estonia and Colombia." If that little sentence proves this article's non-notability, then I don't know what does. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - When one side of the relations doesn't even have contact with the other country through an embassy, this set of relations is not notable. Also, per the link above. Jd027 (talk) 16:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am glad the two nations have good relations. However this does not seem important enough to write an article about. Maybe a mention in the history of Estonia's independence from the USSR. Borock (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After doing several searches and finding absolutely nothing notable about Columbia-Estonia relations (and zero google hits outside of this article for the term itself), I am in total agreement. Cazort (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Estonia doesn't have an embassy in Colombia, and Colombia doesn't have an embassy in Estonia. Neither country has an embassy on Mars, but that doesn't mean that we need an article called Colombia-Mars relations. The articles about the diplomatic missions for both nations are sufficient, and unless there is something newsworthy-- Colombia-Venezuela relations is relevant-- one doesn't need an article about for every possible combination of nation X and nation Y. Mandsford (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. They don't have embassies with each other, and there is nothing to suggest that the relations between the two countries are notable. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 20:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; there's nothing notable here. It's a shame that rubbish like this can't be speedy deleted or deleted via prod. Nick-D (talk) 23:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How many of these whimsical articles are there? Pastor Theo (talk) 01:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - totally random and non-notable, as shown by firm consensus. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, we can also include Estonia–South Africa relations‎ too for deletion. Martintg (talk) 03:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I've seen that it's been proded. If that gets removed, I expect it will be soon up for deletion as well. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Further comment - Also, I'm off work all week and - with the exception of Wednesday and Thursday am - I've got no plans. So it's quite possible that you'll get quite a few "Random Country A-Random Country B relations" articles that I've nominated this week. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Content-free article with little potential for growth; the relations are very minor in notability. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 04:36, 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 delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Little Horn[edit]

No establishment of notability at all. Songs are not inherently notable, and virtually nothing to merge back into the album article. Wizardman 15:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because of lack of notability for this particular song, and the vague conjecture in the article. ←Spidern → 15:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability, seems to fail WP:N. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 16:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, OR & N. Deletion Mutation 16:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Blocked sockpuppet. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 20:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Markovich292 05:30, 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 00:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan's effect[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Dylan's effect

Non-notable term. Appears to be a neologism originating from Japan. ←Spidern → 15:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Arguably speedy as being incoherent. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per reasons stated above. T-95 (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a translation of an article on the Japanese Wikipedia. That, itself, has been challenged, on its talk page, for being original research — a Wikipedia editor's own anaylsis of something that can be found in a comic. There are no real sources documenting any such effect — as the article itself notes, in fact. (This is another point queried at the Japanese Wikipedia.)
This is unsurprising. The widely-accepted explanation of how songs become stuck in one's head is based upon Baddeley's model of working memory. (Précis: Part of the song becomes stuck in the phonological loop because the rehearsal process keeps triggering probes into long-term memory that keep referencing the song.) It has nothing to do with either Bob Dylan or Anne McCaffrey, or indeed with the quality of the song. (Want to know more? Read chapter 1 of ISBN 9780415942454.)
This is original research and not worth saving. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Uncle G--- I have wondered what the scientific name is for the phenomenon of hearing the same song in one's mind, over and over. Everybody can describe it, but the name for it isn't well known. I've never heard it called Dylan's effect, anymore than it could be called the "Mickey effect" from a scene in Wayne's World, the only pop culture reference I can think of. Mandsford (talk) 20:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete completely incoherent, can't even understand what it is. Google comes up with only false positives. Seems to fail WP:NEO in any case. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 20:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete okey, its was an oversight WP:NEO. and could not other source as yet. --Chiether (talk) 14:53, 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. Valley2city^‽ 20:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Know-it-all[edit]

Just a dictionary definition. No real potential for expansion. Article already exists at Wiktionary. Powers ^T 14:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteIt is already in Wikitionary.Jamiebijania (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While this is currently nothing more than a dictionary definition, it most definitely has the potential to be expanded. If you look through the article's history, you'll see that it once had a *lot* more information, which for one reason or another has been removed. The question to ask is should Wikipedia have an article with this title?, and for me that is an easy yes. This means the article should be improved, sourced, and expanded; not deleted. The first step would be for someone to go through the page history and resurrect all the bits and pieces that are worthy of inclusion in the article, while sourcing them. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Valid though Linguist's point is, in this case I'm tempted to suggest a redirect to Smart alec. What do you think, Linguist?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a possibility too, although I'd have to think about how close in meaning smart alec and know-it-all are. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per LaL. —Angr 16:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, let's merge Nerd girl, Besserwisser, Smart alec and Know-it-all. I bet we can get one encyclopaedic article out of all those, but we don't need a separate article for every synonym; that's Wiktionary's bag, not ours.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Strong agree Yes. What is needed is an article on the concept or stereotype, not each expression.Borock (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Smart alec. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 16:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - (2 edit conflicts grrr) Here are a couple of revisions that show more material, that, while not sourced, probably can be. [7], [8]. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Room for development, as for a great many dicdefs. possible redirect can be considered on the talk p. DGG (talk) 16:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable neologism that can be expanded/improved. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My first thought was that if you know where to put the hyphens, then you know what this means. However, know-it-all is linked from a wide variety of articles, usually character lists where one person happens to be a know-it-all. Mandsford (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- … which was the problem with the article. It was, in its earliest versions, a classic example of cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing, being a long list of occurrences of know-it-alls in fiction that editors were hoping would magically, through gaining some mysterious critical mass, turn into an encyclopaedia article. An encyclopaedia article is written, as demonstrated, by finding sources that discuss the subject of know-it-alls.
  And the surprise (at least to everyone here who has been mis-led by the writings of the cargo cultists) is that it's not actually addressed in sources as a fictional character stereotype at all. Uncle G (talk) 12:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean "delete"?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ or redirect, I don't think things should be kept around indefinitely because you think they "probably" can sourced. How old is this now? Find reliable sources discussing the topic of know-it-alls or lose it. RenegadeMonster (talk) 00:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see it's been rewritten and I suppose we have to keep it now. Looking at the contents page of the Pincus book I see we also have scope for articles on "silent types", "social butterflies" (blue link!) and "overly sensitive persons" among others. RenegadeMonster (talk) 10:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The rewrite's got some worthy stuff in it, but I'm still of the view that we don't need separate short articles on Smart alec and Know-it-all and Nerd girl, and I still think we'd be better off with one medium-length article addressing the whole concept.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I still prefer merging to a having a standalone article. RenegadeMonster (talk) 09:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Markovich292 05:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — When I created this article several years ago, I had eventually envisioned this article as including statements (sourced from psychological journals and magazine articles) more accurately defining the term, describing why people sometimes behave as know-it-alls, how one can deal with such people, etc. Yes, there was the list of fictional know-it-alls (a valid part of the article to an extent), and unsourced statements (some, admittedly, were mine), etc. This article is certainly more than a dicdef, and definitely has potential to be expanded. With some effort can even be written into a good article. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 22:23, 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 redirect to UCSB. MBisanz ^talk 00:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UCSB Hillel[edit]

A local branch of a larger student organization. No claims to meeting WP:ORG itself and the sources provided are all connected to the subject. Nuttah (talk) 14:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a tricky/borderline case in my opinion. The huge objection I see here is that all the sources are all on-campus UCSB sources. But I am swung to a keep because: (1) I think the current article is decent in quality, (2) there are numerous articles written covering the organization in detail in the student paper: [9]. Two more sources: [10], [11], mentioning a lecture. (3) The fact that the organization has built and owns its building, esp. since it has used green building practices. Also, the fact that they sponsor salsa is highly interesting to me, due to the connection with Argentine Jews. In short, this article has the potential to tie in with other topics, in ways that are referencable, and that is one of the key aspects of notability for me. Cazort (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local college chapters of national organizations are not usually notable; this is a good example of that. Almost everything discussed here is entirely campus-related. The wider activism discussed is pretty standard for a group of this sort--for example, they hold a Holocaust Remembrance event, and they provide space for other Jewish groups' programs. Student paper coverage of student events is generally indiscriminateNo sources outside the immediate community, and no particular reason why there should be any. . DGG (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment Here's a single, minor mention of the group's Rabbi in a non-university source: [12]. Perhaps more importantly, here is an external source that documents in more detail the green building practices I mentioned: [13]. That source is external to the university and the coverage there is fairly extensive. Cazort (talk) 22:48, 28 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, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 06:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not seeing anything that strongly distinguishes this chapter from any local college organization. I agree with DGG. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can the material here be pared down and merged, most of the material into UCSB, and some of it into Hillel: The Foundation for Jewish Campus Life? I still want to keep, but would strongly prefer a Merge over a delete. Cazort (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 19:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Serene: Music for Spas[edit]

No context to this article. Simply a tracklising with no valuable information. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG with no coverage in reliable third party sources. Also nominating related articles below. Nouse4aname (talk) 14:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete. One of many thousands of muzak compilations. NVO (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: no charts, article fails to establish why it's notable. JamesBurns (talk) 08:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Deletion Mutation 17:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Blocked sockpuppet. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 20:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, the articles fail to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Markovich292 05:34, 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 00:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emerald Monkey[edit]

Not notable. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Google search shows negligible third-party references to the band. Fails WP:N and WP:BAND. Not notable. Anti venin 14:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NOTE and WP:BAND. ←Spidern → 15:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as another myspace band and per Antivenin's web search. Tavix (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete just another MySapce combo. Deletion Mutation 16:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC) N.B. !vote of sockpuppet of blocked user struck through. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:44, 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. MBisanz ^talk 19:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Kamboj educationists and writers[edit]

Not notable. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm curious. Did you Google "Indian Kamboj educationists and writers"? Because then you definitely wouldn't get any hits. If you look at the article though, the people mentioned are certainly notable, and the article is sourced to a limited extent. Thus, I vote Keep. Anti venin 14:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Interesting topic!Jamiebijania (talk) 14:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though possibly a mix w.r.t. notability, any subpopulation producing a high proportion of educators, writers, and scientists should be notable in WP, a quality we'd hope other subpopulations emulate. -MBHiii (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and split the notable educationists and writers to their own articles. -Atmoz (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think the confusion may stem from a misunderstanding of the role of intellectuals in keeping regional languages alive. "Educationalists" and other intellectuals who use these "minor" languages play a crucial role in keeping languages alive and promoting regional cultures. Along with mass media, they are the most important factor in doing so, and thus are quite notable. T L Miles (talk) 13:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —T L Miles (talk) 17:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 19:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Authors with mental illness[edit]

Various concerns here. Firstly, this list is overly broad. Something like 40% of people have "mental illness" at some point. As the normal definition includes depression, and post-natal along with high level psychosis. Secondly, the people in category X who have Y, formula is limitless. Should we have "Authors who have diabetes" and "Bankers who have mental illness" - where do we stop. Thirdly, there is a BLP issue here. Whilst a certain author may have spoken openly of some mental illness, a list without qualification means that someone who admitted Post-natal depression for 3 months is put indistinguishably with someone who was psychotic. Fourthly, the list has few citations. Whilst only people with articles are included it is impossible to check whether the citation is on the article, and, even if it once was, it may well have been removed from the article as erronious and no one would notice the list. That's why we normally use categories for these things, so that the "listing" is on the same page as the citation, and if the citation is missing, we are more likely to spot it.

All said, delete. Scott Mac (Doc) 13:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't care. This was created from listification of a category that was deleted. I don't care what you do with it. --Kbdank71 13:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps I wasn't clear. I closed a CFD discussion that ended in "listify". If you view the deleted edits of Category:Authors with mental illness, you'll see that I merely copied and pasted the category text into the list. The category (and said text) was created by User:P L Logan, not me. --Kbdank71 14:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to article author - we don't write articles to "make a point" or "acknowledge" things, or to advocate for recognition. ("This list is to acknowledge the wealth of literature that has come from those who struggled with mental illness. Earlier figures were often reluctant to discuss or seek treatment for mental illness due to social stigma about the condition, or due to ignorance of diagnosis or treatments").

That said, this for me comes under "non encyclopedic cross categorization", or in the nominator's terms "people in group X with attribute Y". Hence delete. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Afterthought on nomination point about indiscriminate nature of list: I don't mind the large size of the potential list, but the page title is "with mental illness" - present tense. "Authors who have at some time had mental illness" is more accurate. But that makes even more clear that this is likely to be too open-ended to be genuinely appropriate and encyclopedic. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Delete per well-presented nomination. 67.79.157.50 (talk) 14:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:LISTCRUFT + WP:BLP issues with such a list. —Capricorn42^Talk 14:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't give a damn What is this?Jamiebijania (talk) 14:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your point being...? AlexTiefling (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Potential BLP issues are worrying, as is the width of the list (which leads back to the BLP issues). Nor, as others has said, is it encyclopedic. Dougweller (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The individual authors here are pretty well known for this, and there should be no difficulty in actually documenting it with whatever source was used to document the main articles on them. If there is any that cant be, they should be removed. As the authors are limited to those considered notable for Wikipedia purposes, it's not indiscriminate. DGG (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Except, about 40% of our bio subjects will have had some form of mental illness, and in a celebrity confession culture, 10's of thousands will have admitted it. It is indiscriminate to collect people with one publicised bout of depression with paranoid schizophrenics.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a POV and BLP minefield, as well as being too broad to maintain, bordering on the indiscriminate. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BLP concerns. There's a good advert going around with Stephen Fry in that shows how prevalent mental illness is: "one in three have dandruff. One in four have a mental illness. I have both." Sceptre ^(talk) 18:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion either way, but just want to challenge couple of flawed notions in the nomination. We don't, and shouldn't normally use categories for these things, because the "listing" is not on the same page as the citation, as anyone who has ever visited a category would know. Second, a list is a far better way to handle this stuff, and it better meets our BLP obligations, since with a list the addition of a name has to be cited right next to that person's name to qualify the addition. Now yes, there may well be issues of someone with post-natal depression being on a list with someone who is psychotic, but that's not an inherent flaw in lists, that's an inherent flaw in the Wiki process. It's no different to the Siegenthaler episode. Now maybe this is a bad list to have, but lets not start barking up the wrong tree as to why this is a bad list to have. Unless we follow the path to the logical conclusion and delete all BLP's because they are magnets for edits which breach WP:BLP. Bath water should be emptied, yes, but because we need to clean the bath, not because the doorbell rang. Hiding T 20:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it is a matter of realistic quality control. People will make bad edits, but if they wrongly add someone to a category, anyone later viewing the article can see the categorisation and examine whether there is referenced text to justify it. Plus the people who know about that person are more likely to read the bio and spot any falsehood. With an unreferenced list, the reader of the can't easily see whether the inclusion is appropriate, and the reader is less likely to be informed about any particular person listed. Lists thus have a lower ease of quality control, and more BLP dangers.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, it is a matter of quality control, but not for the reasons you list. I doubt that many people look at what categories are on a page, and I doubt many people check why all the articles in a given category are there. Anecdotally I can prove that through a wide number of cfd's. An entry needs very strong cites to be on a list, otherwise it should be removed. Unreferenced lists are just unreferenced articles. This isn't a problem because it is a list, and trying to make it a problem because it is a list is emptying the bathwater because the doorbell rang. Lists have the same quality control as articles, because lists are articles. Like I say, I am none too bothered with what is decided here, just that you decide it for the right reasons. Misapprehensions need to be challenged because of what they can lead to. I have no bother with you saying this is a bad list to have, but saying that's because lists are bad is akin to saying this is a bad article to have, because articles are bad to have. It doesn't work. The logical outcome of the argument is that Wikipedia is a bad thing to exist. Certainly that's an argument put forwards on a wide number of venues, but I would certainly hope it isn't one subscribed to by Wikipedians. Mind, it makes you think... Hiding T 09:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Something not being in a category is never a BLP issue. We damage people (generally) by wrongful inclusion not by omission. And, frankly, if wikipedia can't get a quality control system to protect living people that is realistic and generates low errors, then no, it should not exist.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the list has BLP issues. Tavix (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To be clear, this topic is perfectly notable/relevant per WP:SALAT (which is a Wiki policy and not an essay like WP:LISTCRUFT quoted above). However since this list cites barely any reliable sources, it should be deleted. I would, of course, prefer to keep this article with reliable sources added. Anti venin 05:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. The broad nature of the list and BLP issues are not of great concern IMHO (assuming there are proper sources), but the topic simply more suited to the use of a category. Markovich292 05:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although the category was deleted because the consensus was that it was more suited to a list. It'd be nice if we could have these conversations happen on the same page. Hiding T 18:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This has immense potential as a vehicle of BLP violations, particularly libel. Valley2city^‽ 06:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —J.Mundo (talk) 20:26, 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 delete a7, group with no indication of notability; also WP:NFT. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TGA or Terrible Golf Association[edit]

Declined speedy G3. Already speedied once for pure vandalism (see Terrible Golf Association). This is just something someone madeup one day, and the founder, according to the talk page, is "looking for exposure" - an attempt at promotion. MuZemike 13:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MADEUP. Bongo matic 13:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Jokes can be notable, but there's no showing that this one is. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've rarelt seen anything that says WP:NFT than "The TGA was founded in March 2009 by Jordan Carreno and Jake Tindol, during a friendly golf match.". DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it has WP:MADEUP written all over it per DitzyNizzy. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. appears to be a hoax. ←Spidern → 15:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Clearly non-notable, made up, and complete bollocks. ukexpat (talk) 15:51, 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. MBisanz ^talk 19:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Casamassima[edit]

Non-notable person. I'm not really sure what the claim to notability is. Mostly seems to be about his musical endeavors, but does not pass WP:MUSIC; appears to fail WP:BIO as well. Mostly edited by a series of single-purpose accounts. TheJazzDalek (talk) 13:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 13:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 13:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: trivial coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 06:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No hits in [14] news archive, no material claims of notability. Bongo matic 13:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I sorted out the long list of references and it appears that his sole claim to notability is his cross-country walk for MS in 2007. It did get limited local media coverage but nothing substantial enough to pass notability. TheJazzDalek (talk) 14:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've walked to raise money, everyone in more than one of my classes at school walked to raise money, we have also read books to raise money. None of that made us notable. It didn't make anyone else notable. that blp1e thing appears to apply here. Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable, one event. Deletion Mutation 16:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC) N.B. !vote of sockpuppet of blocked user struck through. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:46, 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) 00:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep - there are multiple, good sources already in the stub. This might be rescued. Bearian (talk) 21:33, 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 Nationwide Building Society. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FlexAccount[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Product does not appear notable. Maybe merge into a corporate wiki per Wikipedia:PRODUCT#Products_and_services if the company is notable in itself TrulyBlue (talk) 12:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC) TrulyBlue (talk) 13:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article is spam. There is nothing there except to promote the company and its product. LittleOldMe (talk) 13:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-consumer accounting software with not even a minimal showing of importance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nationwide Building Society. There's a very notable thing called a FlexAccount, which this article doesn't mention, and which per WP:BEFORE, the nominator should really have found out about.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I did know about the banking account, but didn't consider it notable. It gets one mention in the Nationwide Building Society wiki, and came up when I searched for the term, but I thought that I'd stick to the subject of this wiki. TrulyBlue (talk) 11:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per S Marshall's comments above, but Move the material somewhere, possibly to FlexSystem Limited. This source: [15] describes FlexSystem Limited as "one of the leading enterprise software solution providers in China". There are other sources, although not public access: [16] and [17] for the company, although I only find a single article mentioning this product: [18]. I don't think the product is notable but I think the company (barely) is. Cazort (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nationwide Building Society as suggested by S Marshall. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:42, 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. Valley2city^‽ 03:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saori Hayami[edit]

Thought about speedying this (actually, I did, but then thought better) because there's no strong claim of notability, but the rather thin-looking list of roles, which makes her look like little more than an extra, may be misleading me. Dweller (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep - Some of those look like major roles. The articles List of Sekirei characters and Touka Gettan describe the characters she plays as one of the main protagonists. Calathan (talk) 16:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After thinking about it more, I think the article should be kept. Having multiple significant rolls in notable TV series meets the criteria in WP:Entertainer. Calathan (talk) 05:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete for now - I can't verify much of anything here. No Gnews hits, the IMDB page is empty, and here's a small bio, but it is editable by anyone. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- IMDb is good for title released in English-speaking countries, but this base is very pure for titles released outside them. I agree, some facts can be disputed and can be marked as "source/citation needed". But it's cause to mark respective disputed facts for a start and not for deletion of article. For example her works in Sekirei and Wagaya no Oinarisama can be checked on official sites easily. Alex Spade (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 01:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've reorganized her filmography a bit, hopefully to make it clearer. ANN is identifying her roles in Touka Gettan, Indian Summer, Wagaya no Oinarisama., Sekirei, and Sora no Manimani as main roles. If you have an account with ANN, then you can see that most of those roles have been sourced, though they need to be verified by someone fluent in Japanese. I'll consider copying these sources over to the article shortly. --Farix (Talk) 21:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has been in many notable series. Actors and voice actors should have the same requirements. Dream Focus 21:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject has had a sufficient number of lead roles to pass WP:ENTERTAINER. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:33, 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 Closed as moot. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FlexAccount[edit]

Product does not appear notable. Maybe merge into a corporate wiki per Wikipedia:PRODUCT#Products_and_services if the company is notable in itself TrulyBlue (talk) 12:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment - please provide comments/votes on the second nomination - nominated twice in error. Admins can delete this nom, or tidy up as they see fit. Sorry, Twinkle had a fit of something on the first nom. TrulyBlue (talk) 13:07, 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. MBisanz ^talk 05:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Make Communications[edit]

This spammy article was created by a SPA and provides no evidence that the firm meets WP:ORG. The claims of notability mainly rest on citations which don't support them: [19] doesn't state that the company is 'one of Queensland's most notable and award-winning' marketing firms, [20] is a collection of photos of people at a party rather than proof that the firm was "listed as Queensland's most internationally award-winning agency for 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008" and [21] is another blog-like website which doesn't appear to verify that it declared this company the "number 1 independent agency in Queensland, and number 2 overall" and its unclear why that matters even if it did make that claim. The claim that the company was awarded the Australian Australian Marketing Institute’s Marketing Program of the Year award and won many other AMI awards in 2008 appears to be false as the source clearly states that a different two companies jointly won the top award [22] (though a member of Make Communications is included in the photo of winners) and Make isn't listed as being the winner in any of the categories. The other references are blog posts [23], press releases [24] and links to work the company has done, which it is claimed constitute its "Recent successes" (note the obviously biased heading and lack of independent sourcing). A search in Google Australia for "Make Communications" doesn't turn up any reliable sources on the firm other than its own website: "Make+Communications"&hl=en&cr=countryAU&safe=off&rlz=1C1GGLS_en-USAU291AU303&start=0&sa=N. As such, this seems to be an attempt by a non-notable marketing company to use Wikipedia to market themselves. Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, basically per Nick-D's excellent dissection above. Was not able to locate any additional sources, although I concede that the search term "make communications" introduces a lot of noise into any search. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nomination: yet another marketing firm using Wikipedia for self-promotion. As the business notability guideline says, purely local coverage does not make a case for notability, and as far as I am concerned, neither do minor awards or trade press coverage that no outsider is likely to have read, that appeared only in organs that serve a specific regional industry, make a case, either. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amended to fit criteria Hello, I'm the author of the article (and it's my first so please excuse my noobness). I've removed many of the claims made which cannot be verified (though I do know them to be true. The Campaign Brief hot to cold agency index is not available online, for instance. Can you list a publication as a reference if it appears in print, but not online?). One claim that I have kept in place is the Australian Marketing Institute winners, which are all verifiable through the link provided. Make was a joint winner of the Marketing Program of the Year for their client Youngcare and it is listed in the pdf document of winners as such.

I can understand how cynicism might exist, but I do also think that there some amount of over-correction here. For the record I am not an employee of Make (though I did used to work for them), I haven't listed anything that is false (though I understand that some things need to be more readily verifiable) and I discern a certain amount of 'race to the smackdown' malice that the facts do not account for. If, for instance, you were to google 'advertising depot' which, as the article states was the company's previous name, you would find a lot more sources of information.

I'd like to go through Nick-D's points one by one to clarify.

"[1] doesn't state that the company is 'one of Queensland's most notable and award-winning' marketing firms" I have removed the word 'notable' as it is not verifiable, and have included a citation for the Brisbane Advertising and Design club, which is Queensland's only creative advertising award show and the 2008 winners list shows that Make was the second-most awarded agency, as does the 2007 winners list (AMI is the only other Queensland-based awards show, and Make won Marketing program of the year in 2008 at AMI as per later citations).

"[2] is a collection of photos of people at a party rather than proof that the firm was "listed as Queensland's most internationally award-winning agency for 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008"" The link was to an AdNews publication called AdNews80 which listed Make as per the above in print. I have removed this aspect of the article because it's veracity cannot be shown online.

"[3] is another blog-like website which doesn't appear to verify that it declared this company the "number 1 independent agency in Queensland, and number 2 overall" and its unclear why that matters even if it did make that claim." This was in reference to the Campaign Brief hot to cold agency index, which is only available in print, thus I have removed the claim.

"The claim that the company was awarded the Australian Australian Marketing Institute’s Marketing Program of the Year award and won many other AMI awards in 2008 appears to be false as the source clearly states that a different two companies jointly won the top award. (though a member of Make Communications is included in the photo of winners) and Make isn't listed as being the winner in any of the categories." This comment is quite simply wrong, and it the comment for which I think that the dissection is somewhat biased and malicious. The winners list available at this link and shows that Make won marketing program of the year, as well as listing all other winners and finalists for the company. YoungCare is one of Make's clients, and the caption under the Marketing Progam of the Year winners image that Nick-D is referring to reads The happy winning team (from left): Rem Bruijin from make, and from Youngcare Nicholas Bonifant, Simon Lockyear, David Conry, and Matt Lawson'. If you search the pdf document of winners for 'Make', it shows that Make won a total of 7 awards, more than any other agency. To claim that "Make isn't listed as being the winner in any of the categories" crosses the line from simple bias to outright falsity.

If any further issues are a problem I'll be happy to amend the article. Softduality2 —Preceding undated comment added 02:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment The 2008 AMI awards link lists Make only as being among the 'finalists' in several categories, and not 'the winner' in any of them. The company only appears to have been nominated three times anyway by my count. The Marketing Program of the Year winners are clearly named on page 10 of [25] as "Youngcare, for Young people deserve young lives (New brand category winner)" and "University of Sydney Union, for USU Access Benefits Program Enriching the Student Experience (Relationship Marketing Category winner)" - Make Communications is not identified as being the winner of Yongcare's award, even if they had something to do with it. I note that you've just added a bunch of other links to the article which don't support the text they're being used to cite. For instance, [26] states that the firm had been nominated for a Golden Lion award and that the results were to be announced the next day, not that it had won the award as the article states, [27] is a dead link so doesn't verify any awards from the New York festival, [28] is claimed to prove that the company won a Claxton award but actually makes no mention of the company - it doesn't identify the winners and this company isn't even among the nominees, and [29] doesn't verify the claim that this is one of Queensland's most award winning advertising companies. Nick-D (talk) 03:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - doesn't seem to meet WP:ORG and concerns about self-promotion. Orderinchaos 18:18, 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 speedy redirect to Winston_Churchill#Marriage_and_children. On my talk page, the nominator said it was previously redirected to the father and that they don't mind a redirect, so I'll just reinstate that status quo. Mgm|^(talk) 12:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marigold Churchill[edit]

Previosuly PRODded, but PROD was removed by PabsP (talk · contribs) who simply said "we have Princess Johanna of Hesse and by Rhine after all". However, Marigold Churchill was NOT royalty, and nor is her article as well-referenced as the one on Princess Johanna. Marigold Churhcill is only famous because of her father, and notability is not inherited; Marigold therefore fails WP:N and WP:BIO. Giant Snowman 10:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Winston_Churchill#Marriage_and_children. Marigold is already discussed in this section. Some of this information might be merge-worthy. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:47, 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 delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Build It Fast And Fix It Later[edit]

Fullergalway is likely Robert Fuller, writing about his own personal philosophy. Even if not, it is original research with no verifiability. http://www.google.com/search?q="Build+It+Fast+And+Fix+It+Later" Habanero-tan (talk) 10:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes fullergalway is Robert Fuller, a reputable software engineer and currently Research Associate at Digital Enterprise Research Institute in Galway, Ireland. He has an undergraduate degree with focus on Philosophy from University of Waterloo, Canada and a Masters degree in Software Engineering from Galway-Mayo Institute of Technology. The article discusses a software development philosophy which has been in use over several decades and which is likely of interest to other software philosophers, designers and engineers.((talk) 11:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool, but as good as it is, there is a policy against writing your own ideas on Wikipedia: Wikipedia:No_original_research. We only accept ideas you get from other places, so it is easy for everyone to verify that it is correct. Habanero-tan (talk) 11:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with some regret. Software development "philosophies" seem to be as common as snowflakes in a blizzard, and they seem to be minimally differentiated, to put it mildly. This article at least has the virtue of being written in English, which is apparently a mighty achievement in the field. And being written in English, its obviousness is also apparent: the entire article is in some sense a restatement of the title, and no doubt this "philosophy" could be applied to fields outside software. It works well enough on Wikipedia itself. So my hat's off to Prof. Fuller, his article is better than 99% of the articles on such "philosophies", but it's still original research with no showing of current notability. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Presented as the idea of Robert Fuller, this doesn't make the grade and the title is not sufficiently distinct to be worth saving. The phrase in more use is just fix it later. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless reliable citations can be found in third party sources - in which case, I'd suggest fixing the article to include them sooner, rather than later. Otherwise it's just non-notable original research, I fear. Anaxial (talk) 13:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Topic is not the subject of independent reliable sources. Fails WP:V. -Atmoz (talk) 17:15, 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 delete. Vandalism Tone 19:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Akers[edit]

PROD was removed by article creator Ricardo0817 (talk · contribs) with no reason given; the creation of this article was said user's first edit. The subject in question is probably a hoax - there are precisely zero Google hits for "Aaron akers manchester united" - and even if he does exist, he fails WP:N and WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 10:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obvious total and utter bollocks. Apart from the total lack of sources for something that was supposedly announced at a press conference, Manchester United are not exactly short of players, it is beyond implausible that their response to Rooney's suspension would be to sign an unknown 17-year-old and stick him straight into the first team for a vital match in an extremely closely-fought race for the Premier League title -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The whole article reeks of BS - either that or a dairy farm has just passed outside my office window. For example, why would an English team pay their players in dollars, not pounds? Why would Ryan Giggs use the American way of saying dates (April 5th) instead of the British way (5th of April, or April the 5th)? And why does such an exciting prospect appear nowhere on the club's website? Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 11:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've just noticed this brilliant line - "But for April 5ths (sic) match there is no pressure, hes (sic) here to replace Rooney" - good to know that attempting to replace Wayne Rooney in the Man U team is a "no-pressure" job :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete It sounds like it was written by a publicist for a press release. 67.79.157.50 (talk) 14:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability here. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 16:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy as blatant vandalism. Powers ^T 18:09, 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, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maori outdoor education[edit]

Oh dear, methinks yet another tutor has gone and told their students to publish essays on Wikipedia. (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maori participation in sport and leisure) Topic is somewhat ill-defined, and we don't even have an Outdoor education in New Zealand yet, so I just don't see this ever being de-essay-ized enough to make a useful encyclopedia article. dramatic (talk) 10:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.
Transwiki and delete. Wikibooks has a section on Outdoor education around the world, and this text would likely make a valuable addition to that page. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I copied the text of this article to Wikibooks, where it may require further cleanup. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete now that it's been copied to Wikibooks.-gadfium 21:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a storage for your school essay. -Atmoz (talk) 23:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others, it has already been transwikied. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 00:08, 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. MuZemike 23:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nurse (Silent Hill)[edit]

Article is about a recurring enemy in the Silent Hill franchise, but comes across as more of a game guide on the appearances of each with a minimal reception section. Article has been tagged for cleanup since mid last year and hasn't really improved since. Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn per User:Someone another's points.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK, so it hasn't shifted, but are you convinced it can't be improved? Numerous reviews will at least mention them, and several (like Croshaw) will have an opinion on them. There's scads of data on cosplay and fan-generated nurse stuff, and there's also the role of the nurses in the film which is discussed in film related sources, and things like this will eventually stack up into a much clearer article. No standard enemy in RE comes close to this much coverage. Someone another 12:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. Withdrawing AfD nomination.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:59, 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 withdrawn by nominator. withdrawn by nominator Valley2city^‽ 19:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VG Braun-Dusemond[edit]

No google hits for, "Braun-Dusemond" or Braun-Dusemund, no references, original research Habanero-tan (talk) 10:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PN The author of this article has now included references. Please do not delete this piece about Braun-Dusemond. My colleagues and pupils and I are finding it very useful background to a study day at the Imperial War Museum sponsored by the Ben Uri Gallery and its exhibition - Forced Journeys. The IWM study day will take place on April 8th where there will be a talk entitled Captive in Africa: The Artistic Response of VG BRAUN (DUSEMOND) to the British Internment Camps of Kenya (1939-1942).

Internment Art is all the rage in London at the moment and a great deal of interest has recently been expressed about its production in the former British Empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conservateurd'art (talk • contribs) 19:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed--references needed. But otherwise good & useful. MS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.165.189.248 (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw nomination given the new edits and references. Habanero-tan (talk) 11:01, 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 Speedy delete a7, webcontent with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Cortez[edit]

Fictional Wrestler for a message board, doesn't even come close to WP:FICT. ∗ \ / (⁂) 09:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failing every policy I can think of -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (speedly if possible) - Since Wp:NFT. If this stays, then surely we can create articles for characters we've created in The Sims (series) (since it makes no difference which version it's in - none of them are real either). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to make an article on Blue Lantern, the extremely original and not at all derivative superhero I created when I was 8 :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Not even the message boards seem to be notable, so a mascot is even less so. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:14, 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 deleted under criteria Wikipedia:CSD#A7 by User:Mfield. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Scalera[edit]

Does not appear to be a notable person. Has appeared in only four bit parts according to imdb IndulgentReader (talk) 07:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- KuroiShiroi (contribs) 11:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- KuroiShiroi (contribs) 11:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable person. feydey (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I think I know who I am and have been in films, major and local and am pretty much well known in my state. It is really rude and predjuced for you to assume that I am a nobody you are probably from some other country, how could you possibly know what goes on about Rhode Island. Edit things and put in your 2 cents about things you actually know about! These editors who think they know it all are obviously biased and have no clue what they are doing! Time to find new editors!--72.200.180.60 (talk) 07:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— 72.200.180.60 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Really, wiki, you need new editors. I can get over 1,000 people on here to sign a petition verifying that Miss Melanie Scalera is pretty well known around here in this community! There is just no reason why these so called 'editors' should act like they know things they do not. If you don't know, then leave it alone!--Mellrocks (talk) 07:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Strong delete. Yes, she has four movies listed by her name at IMDB; however, three of those state she was "uncredited" for the part. The fourth, Unexpected Company, was an eight-minute short. Nothing in the article demonstrates that she meets WP:ENTERTAINER, and being well-known locally does not equate to notability in the Wikipedia sense. —C.Fred (talk) 12:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:PROMOTION, WP:CONFLICT. Failed an AfC request (apparently by the article's subject) on 20 April 2007; the admin closing it wrote in part, "Declined. This suggestion doesn't sufficiently explain the importance or significance of the subject." So, the subject, who uses at various times both an anon ip as well as User:Mellrocks, created the article herself in March 2009. Jim Ward (talk/stalk) 15:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You can't make your own page. Her IP address was used to create it, and then comment on the talk page stating she was the one the article was about. Dream Focus 21:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DREAM FOCUS IS ONE TO TALK...CHECK OUT THE GRAMMAR ON HIS OWN USER PAGE...HE ALSO STATES HE NOMINATED HIMSELF ON SOMETHING FOR WIKI? SOUNDS HYPOCRITICAL. DID WE MENTION HE IS WRONG? MELANIE DID NOT CREATE THE PAGE HERSELF. THIS IS A COMPUTER USED BY A RI FILM COMMUNITY!

STRONG KEEP FIRST OF ALL MELANIE SCALERA'S ARTICLE WAS NOT SUBMITTED AND WRITTEN BY HERSELF (SHE HAD WROTE POSTING SHE WAS HERSELF ONCE SHE SAW PEOPLE WANTING THIS DELETED-SHE GOT VERY OFFENDED; WE ARE A FILM GROUP AND CASTING AGENCY IN RI (RIFC AND LDI CASTING). APPARENTLY ALL EDITORS KNOW EVERYTHING THOUGH, RIGHT? FURTHERMORE, IF YOU KNEW ANYTHING, YOU CAN'T JUST POST YOURSELF ON IMDB. THERE HAS TO BE PROOF YOU WERE IN A FILM. WE TRIED TO POST A RANDOM NAME AND IT HAD TO BE UNCREDITED, SINCE YOU CREDITED ONES MUST BE SUBMITTED BY PUBLISHERS. AND IT WON'T ACCEPT UNCREDITED NAMES WITHOUT ANY CREDITED REFERENCES FIRST. ALSO, HER INFO ON IMDB AND THE REST OF THE ONLINE WORLD IN CONSTANTLY INCREASING, SINCE YOU NEED TO SEE MORE INTERNET REFERNCES. SO PLEASE DO NOT GET INVOLVED IN SOMETHING YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT ONCE AGAIN. WE THANK YOU.--RIFILM (talk) 03:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC) — RIFILM (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete, this should have been a speedy A7, not even an AfD. Ridiculously unnotable person and both accounts, IP should be blocked for sock/meat puppetry. Fails WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:NOT. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 03:19, 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. MBisanz ^talk 05:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Bouskill[edit]

No independent coverage whatsoever. Cited articles are written by Debra Corbiel and in one case Dave Bouskill as well. Google archive searches for

fail to generate anything helpful. Factiva search also doesn't appear to bring up anything. Bongo matic 07:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (on single nomination for Dave Bouskill) per nomination. Article reads like a self-promotional puff piece. 67.79.157.50 (talk) 14:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dave Keep Deb I agree the coverage is autobiographical, however she could be considered notable per for finishing first in the women's category of the Tour d'Afrique, he placed fifth overall. I would also argue that having a four-part series about you featured in Canada's highest circulating newspaper (even if it was self written) would establish notability. I still don't think that Dave is notable outside of being Deb's husband.--kelapstick (talk) 02:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for lack of notability. PK T(alk) 15:13, 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. DinajGao (talk) 16:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Ahmed (entrepreneur)[edit]

Re-creation of page deleted as "not notable": see
which were about the same man. I have undeleted those old deleted pages and histmerged them into Syed Ahmed (entrepreneur), so that non-admins can see them for this discussion. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - He is a very well known person in the UK, has appeared in many television series, and has been appearing a lot in the media in recent years, plus an entrepreneur biography. One evidence of the demand is that the article has once received over 700 views In 6 June 2008. I don't see why this article should be deleted, when articles such as Mario or Lisa Simpson are deemed as more important than an actual living person who is very notable in the UK (please type in Syed Ahmed on Google search, many pages) and please can you move this back to Syed Ahmed. DinajGao (talk) 11:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has a continued media profile following his Apprentice participation. David Underdown (talk) 13:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very well person biography, good television star appeared on many shows on TV, one of few success stories of British Bangladeshis in media. should be available on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.211.196.188 (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep - Just as for others who've commented, I have good reason to view this man with severe distaste. In a way it's a good idea to have people keep an eye on him. I do know this isn't a great reason to put him in an encyclopedia. Drewpuppy (talk) 16:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 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 speedy delete. clear copyvio, but an article or extended section on the plot of this famous novel at some reasonable degree of detail might be appropriate--not this much detail, but a little more than in the main article DGG (talk) 07:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The summary "Of Mice and Men"[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The summary "Of Mice and Men"

Do we really need a separate article for a summary of of mice and men? I think we should just merge (if even that) and delete this. —LedgendGamer 06:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I checked, the article is actually a copyvio of this. How do I withdraw an AfD and instead place a speedy G12 tag on the article? —LedgendGamer 06:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--you got the speedy up there, and I think that's all you can do. Of course, you could delete the entire content, and I was tempted to do so, but that would leave the AfD for the possible content of the article. Well, such possible content should be deleted: "Summary" is not an encyclopedic topic, and the author should consider English grammar as well. ("Summary" here is to be followed by the preposition "of.") I'm sure some goodwilling admin will come along and delete the whole thing--thanks for pointing out the article and following up on it. Drmies (talk) 06:47, 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 delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter & Imagination[edit]

Does not meet any of the criteria in WP:NB Egmontaz♤ ^talk 05:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G11 The article links to a commercial site to prove it exists, but there is no evidence this sold well or is reviewed in any reliable publication. The only ray of hope is that the publisher is a small press and not a vanity publisher. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No outside references, only one to Amazon. It exists, but its not notable. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 21:27, 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 redirect to Rockwood School District#Lasalle Springs Middle School. MBisanz ^talk 05:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lasalle Springs Middle School[edit]

Delete as this school makes no claims to notability. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Selvidge Middle School as another middle school article from the district that was deleted. Tavix (talk) 05:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article merely establishes the place exists, which is not enough to support an article. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. feydey (talk) 13:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another article about a non-notable school. Do teachers assign these articles for extra credit? LargoLarry (talk) 14:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Rockwood School District per usual practice with nn middle schools. TerriersFan (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to school district. Standard practice. Powers ^T 18:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Rockwood School District#Lasalle Springs Middle School per precedent. Cunard (talk) 18:38, 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 05:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008-2009 San Jose jr. Sharks Bantam AAA[edit]

Written more like a blog than an encyclopedia article. JaGa^talk 04:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Clearly unencyclopedic. I could go on with a ton of policies this fails, but it isn't worth the effort. Tavix (talk) 05:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Enough said, no original research, fails notability, and NPOV Nicholas.tan (talk) 05:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First contribution from a newcomer who is not acquainted with the encyclopedic style of writing or Wikipedia's rules. That said, this particular subject does not appear to be notable enough to rate its own separate article. Mandsford (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability, no sources, POV problems. Remove it! ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 20:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails everything. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 05:55, 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wethersfield Institute[edit]

Delete: fails to meet WP:ORG. Apparently defunct (no website, no apparent publications since 2001) organization that only garnered a few, very brief and insubstantial, mentions in sources even when it was in existence, ~~and whose profile it appears was so low that nobody noticed its demise.~~ Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a listing of what little the cited sources have to say on the topic on talk. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is some evidence that this organisation, and its lecture-series, still exists.[30] However there's no evidence that those after 2001 were published (and thus little likelihood that these latter series had any prominence). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve – an organisation which sponsored, and is apparently still sponsoring, lectures on various aspects of apologetics by experts including Stanley Jaki, R. V. Young and William A. Marra, including both sides of the creation-evolution controversy. The article gives useful clarification of the nature of the institute when presented in the title of books published up to 2001 which are still currently on sale. . dave souza, talk 11:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions: (i) Has this 'sponsorship' evoked significant coverage (per WP:ORG)? (~~ii) Have we any evidence that it is "apparently still sponsoring" these events (given the lack of any apparent publication in the last 8 years)?~~ Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Topic is sufficiently notable, as recent additions to the article show. I should also point out that the nom has been targeting for deletion articles created by the person who created this one, often on specious grounds it seems to me. This behavior is unacceptable. Odd nature (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that the most recent discussions that Odd Nature is talking about, WP:Articles for deletion/Leadership University (web portal) & Talk:Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns#Merger proposal both, far from finding my nominations to be "spurious", endorsed them. I would suggest it is this unfounded accusation that is "unacceptable", and that both Odd Nature and "the person who created this one" should pay closer attention to article talk -- where I gave ample warning that I had questions over the notability of the topic & later that I intended to nominate it for deletion. I would further point out that none of the "recent additions to the article" are third-party, so they do nothing whatsoever to establish that the topic meets WP:ORG. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:42, 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. Valley2city^‽ 15:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Michelle Gellar Boxoffice[edit]

This article is nothing more than a list of the box office grosses of all films in which Sarah Michelle Gellar has starred. The article violates WP:IINFO as Wikipedia is not a list of indiscriminate information, and I do not think that the data is appropriate for the Sarah Michelle Gellar article, and the data should only appear in the articles for the respective films. –Dream out loud (talk) 03:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The boxoffice amounts go in every film. Don't merge to actor article because the boxoffices don't appear in the actor's article unless there is some reason to cite a specific boxoffice for a specific film --Enric Naval (talk) 04:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a trivial intersection. The gross of a film is not directly related to the actor in it. Unless there is a particular proven link, box office results should be restricted to film articles (and if it was relevant it should've gone in Sarah Michelle Gellar and not a separate article. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because I haven't seen wikipedia record/present data like that. Seems quite unnecessary to me, even if it's all true. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per every argument above. LargoLarry (talk) 14:15, 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 This is just triviacruft. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 05:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. It might be useful to merge at least some of this information into Sarah_Michelle_Gellar#Boxoffice_Status and expand the section. Markovich292 05:50, 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 The result is that there is no consensus to delete Rostrata, but I will set about deleting the remaining article per the speedy deletion criterion due to the good faith request by the author. I would like to applaud participants in this discussion for helping the creator of these articles to understand the concerns and come to an amenable solution. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rostrata[edit]

per WP:DAB, specifically Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Partial title matches, "Rostrata" (or the others) is not a natural title for any of the articles listed in these dab page. Further, a species will never be referred to without its genus; no one will ever come searching for just the species epithet, such as "rostrata", to find any article on these dab pages. Doesn't seem useful. Rkitko ^(talk) 02:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC) ETA: After the editor's considerable effort on Rostrata, I still believe the fundamental purpose of these entries, whether tagged with ((dab)) or not, is inappropriate for Wikipedia. It currently stands as a dictionary definition and them some expanded usages. WP:NOTDICTIONARY is under discussion right now, but the sentiment remains. I applaud the work Hebrides has done to Rostrata and I of course don't expect a fully formed article overnight from a disambiguation page. The problem identified here, however, is that I don't believe an encyclopedia article can be made of this term; it cannot be anything more than a dictionary definition and usage guide, which belongs on Wiktionary. I hope that helps clarify the rationale for the one modified article in this nomination. --Rkitko ^(talk) 13:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – it seems like a bunch of trivial intersections from a lay-pesron's perspective, but I will abstain from any judgment on the article and let those more versed in taxidermy to determine. MuZemike 03:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep From a layman's perspective it seems perfectly useful. It's hard to remember latin names. What if you can only remember a species name? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSUSEFUL. I don't believe these "articles" fit in anywhere with our criteria for inclusion. They're not set indices, nor are they disambiguation pages, and they aren't cohesive stubs or lists. I don't know of any encyclopedia that indexes its articles by the species epithet. --Rkitko ^(talk) 14:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should be a category. I don't know enough about the topic to know if this could be salvaged as a "List of rostrata" article. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I've seen enough disambiguations to know that this is NOT one. None of the targets are known as "Rostrata". It could possibly be an index, but I'm not sure. Tavix (talk) 05:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to Keep after author made the Rostrata article encyclopedic. Tavix (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I created them. I tagged them ((dab)) in error - sorry. I agree they are not disambiguation pages. I've removed the tag. Hebrides (talk) 06:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If they are not disambiguation pages, what exactly are they? Would it be a list, an index, a category (of sorts)? Or possibly something else...? Tavix (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If they are lists, maybe renaming to "List of xxxxx" would be more appropriate, possibly with some tabulation and images?. I don't want to do anything without knowing what their intended purpose is, but if you tell us, I'm sure Rkitko would withdraw the nomination in good faith to allow us time to improve the articles, then renominate at a later date if he still feels they are inappropriate? Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem to that I see is that they are species in which the only thing in common is their name. For example: in the Rostrata "list", about half of them are plants, there are a few fishes, a wasp, a toad, a frog, and a snail. I really can't see this becoming a usable list. Tavix (talk) 16:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yes, they are not disambiguation pages, and they're not lists, since the items in the 'lists' are not named by the title of the article (the list of death metal bands consists of death metal bands). Therefore, delete, since I can't fathom what other purpose this enumeration (to stay on the safe side) might serve. Drmies (talk) 06:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - Can't really see any purpose. Jenuk1985 | Talk 13:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per improvements. I strongly suggest keeping all now in good faith, I believe this editor has adequately shown enough initiative to eventually bring all of these articles up to standard, it would be unfair of us to expect it overnight. Jenuk1985 | Talk 15:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Highly unlikely as a search term, and doesn't serve any other purpose that I can see. Makes no sense taxonomically. At best, this seems like a trivia list. Anaxial (talk) 18:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from page creator: I've now had time to work on the first of these articles (Rostrata) to start to assemble the material it should contain. Please take a look and let me know whether you still think it should be deleted. There is still a lot more work to be done. Maybe I should have got these pages ready in a sandbox before publishing them, but I had no idea that they would be nominated for deletion so rapidly. I only started the pages two days ago, and the process is quite time consuming. They belong in the Category:Latin adjectives in current use - I've put links to Wiktionary on several of the pages, but Wiktionary doesn't include the level of detail that can go into a Wikipedia article. I'm aware that your comments above relate to the initial page skeletons (Latin adjective + brief meaning + quick trawl of wikipedia for current usage), so maybe we could now discuss Rostrata and see if your comments are any different. I'll postpone work on the others until I know whether they are all going to be deleted. Best regards, Hebrides (talk) 21:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely an improvement and seems more like an article on the Latin word, but I'm still wary of it as a cohesive article. It seems like a wiktionary definition and then some usages, none of which are known independently of other words as "rostrata". It would seem more prudent to merge the info under "columna rostrata" to victory column (and redirect from Columna rostrata) and copy-to-wiktionary "corona rostrata". The species list species list still doesn't make sense to me. --Rkitko ^(talk) 12:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: thanks for your feedback. On reflection, I agree that the long list of species is not useful, so I've worked on that, removing the majority of entries, and leaving only those that have a demonstrable bearing on the current usage and meaning of the word rostrata. I do, however, consider that the article has an integrity of its own, so rather than splitting the content as you suggested, I've endeavoured to rework it to make its coherence more apparent. Here is what I suggest:
- that we keep the Rostrata article for the moment, to give more time for me and others to work on it
- that you delete all the other articles in the list above - I've copied these to my sandbox, and I agree that each of them needs a lot more work before it's ready to go 'live' in WP. I don't know when I'll have time to do them, as life is often quite busy. So this seems the best way forward.
- that you also delete the redirects to the other articles (e.g. Elongatus and Elongatum redirect to Elongata, etc).

I hope this suggestion meets with your approval, and I'm sorry to have taken your time by publishing articles before they were ready. Best regards - Hebrides (talk) 09:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really do appreciate the work you've done to it and I understand the lack of time and other commitments. I waited to respond to see what others had to say. I've edited the rationale above to consider the improvements you've made to Rostrata. If you haven't before, have a read through WP:NOTDICTIONARY when you've got a moment. I'm just not sure how this article could progress beyond a dictionary definition/usage guide. Having looked for references for Rostrata, were you able to identify any way this article could move toward the goals of Wikipedia rather than those of Wiktionary? --Rkitko ^(talk) 13:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really like what you did to the Rostrata article. It actually looks encyclopedic and I could see some actual use to it. I went ahead and changed my vote above and I'm rooting on you to get the rest done. Tavix (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found Rudis while looking for rudis: latin, as per the article definition but also note Lewis and Short at Perseus online - (but not their elementary dict) and the second meaning "a staff", whence rudis (a referee) and other transfered senses. Fortunately, these form a cluster which link to Gladiator. In other words, the use of this header requires further disambiguation. I can't help feeling that's going to give someone (probably Hebrides) a headache, but if the Rostrata article's anything to go by, it should be worthwhile. Good luck with it. As to worrying about half-prepared articles... just try the random article button. Haploidavey (talk) 23:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still delete. This is a prose dictionary entry. Hesperian 00:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikitionary Tim Vickers (talk) 22:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think these are quite useful pages (I know the objections above) and can act as somewhat enhanced disambiguation pages/mini-articles. Valley2city^‽ 08:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SNOW and CSD G3, A1 and A7. The article's creator has created several similar articles.. Nick-D (talk) 06:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Leask[edit]

Non-notable vanity page, but he claims he is "a very famous and good AFL star", which probably prevents speedy deletion. Grahame (talk) 01:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A Google result doesn't reveal anything about a "famous AFL player". I'm thinking that this is just a self-promotion page. TillsTalk 03:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (A7) – I cannot find anything showing that this person is remarkable in any way. MuZemike 03:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only source is a blog, looks suspiciously like a vanity page. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 03:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete plays for the "under 16 hawks"? A bit too young to be famous :D If he is really famous then he needs a agood source explaining how such a young person became famous. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:40, 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. Valley2city^‽ 15:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruwiki[edit]

Non-notable; project no longer maintained since 2004 Dandv (talk) 01:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 02:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I cannot find anything reliable (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) that can establish any notability (note that the Scholar hits are false positives; the one is mentioning ru.wiki, the Russian Wikipedia). MuZemike 03:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some Ruby project that got cut before it could stablish any client base and/or notability --Enric Naval (talk) 04:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Due to lack of notability. South Bay (talk) 07:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't seem to find any reliable sources to support a claim to notability. The fact that it's no longer under active development doesn't help either. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:12, 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 redirect to Education in Framingham, Massachusetts . MBisanz ^talk 06:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mcauliffe Regional CPS[edit]

Non-notable school. Absolutely no assertion of notability or sourcing. Wperdue (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete for lack of content, lack of notability and attempts to communicate. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Education in Framingham, Massachusetts. More information given over there. Looks like this article was just created for spam purposes, but salvageable as a redirect. MuZemike 03:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Education in Framingham, Massachusetts, as it's a somewhat plausible search term. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to Education in Framingham, Massachusetts per MuZemike. Cunard (talk) 21:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 21:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Education in Framingham, Massachusetts, obviously. TerriersFan (talk) 19:27, 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. Valley2city^‽ 15:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Frederick[edit]

Was originally a redirect. Article about a non-notable person; possibly a vanity article as it was the sole edit of a user back in February. Can't find any g-hits for her. -WarthogDemon 01:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems like a nice person, but I can't find any eliable sources covering her and none are provided within the article; unless some are unearthed, subject fails WP:BIO. – Toon ^(talk) 01:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This unsourced article appears to be promotion for the subject's nursing exam preparation service. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, unsourced and promotion. feydey (talk) 13:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm sure she's doing a good job, but it's unsourced, promotional, and I'm inclined to think she doesn't meet WP:N. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:32, 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 02:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chromium B.S.U.[edit]

This has twice been prodded and restored, and I deleted it as G11 but I noticed afterwards that someone seems to beworking on it so I'm sending it here instead. It has never, I think, had any input fomr anyone with significant edits to any other article, and is written as a puff piece with sections such as "This game was designed to be played about fifty minutes, which is perfect to make a pause while working" and "Warning: one interesting aspect of the game is to guess the rules, so be warned that you will loose this aspect if you read this paragraph. The player can shoot ennemies with the left clic, when an ennemy bypass the player the player loose one of his ships. There are three ships at the beginning, the player may get more ships during the game. Other capacities may be won either."

That's (badly-spelled) game guide stuff. And a spoiler warning. And that some of the better content here. There are no independent sources cited. So, maybe it can be completely rewritten to make a decent article, but I don't think this qualifies. Guy (Help!) 21:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has potential, if its being worked on, hold off for a few days to see what comes of it. I may even step in myself tomorrow and see what I can do. Renominate in a couple of weeks if it is still lacking whatever it needs. A bit of good faith should be shown here I feel. Jenuk1985 | Talk 21:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete- I did some digging for sources and, apart from download sites, this is the best I could find: [31], [32] and I don't think those will cut it. Reyk _YO! 23:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe Chromium used to be included in the default distribution of Fedora Core 2, so it does have some prominence. I'm not sure what standard is applied to open-source games though, so I'll let other people decide about that. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Chromium has been included in all major Linux distributions (Slackware, RedHat, Debian, Mandriva,...) for a long time. Chris Neville-Smith says it all: like most open-source games, it is not pushed by any commercial company and you can't reasonably expect mainstream computer magazines to write a review about it. Nonetheless, it is a well written game (general opinion, despite it doesn't really count here), among the best that were available (POV again, I know) on Linux platforms 9 years ago, and for this reason I think we should leave a chance for this article to exist and grow in quality. I'm quite confident there exists articles about it in past issues of open-source specialized magazines. — Xavier, 02:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, X clamation point 00:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy until it's properly referenced. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Albeit still far from perfect, the article has been substantially improved today and seems promising. May we have the pleasure of your support for a keep? — Xavier, 19:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I know the content I have put is of bad quality, but I did though because often it is easier to correct than to start from nothing. I understand that this article was proposed for deletion, but I think a freesoftware can not be judged on the same criterias than commercial games, Chromium is widely known in the free software community and could be considered as part of its culture. But I don't know how this could be reflected in the article. Blue Prawn (talk) 12:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough references to warrant keeping the article now, although it could do with some background information outside of the gameplay. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:20, 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 speedy delete G12. Content was cribbed from here, and there from here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weapons in resident evil 5[edit]

Article whose significance is relevant only to the game it's about. Fails WP:LISTCRUFT for sure. TheLetterM (talk) 00:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. TillsTalk 03:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 03:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note – this was definitely plagiarized copy-and-paste-style from another wiki. MuZemike 03:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing of value...Skater (talk) 05:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Resident Evil 5. Junk Police (talk) 06:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Might be a valid topic, but there's no reason for us to keep unreferenced, plagiarized content. (P.S. I have the distinct feeling this particular topic was discussed on AFD quite recently. Is there any chance CSD G4 could apply?)- Mgm|^(talk) 11:23, 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. Valley2city^‽ 19:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo Manioudakis[edit]

Article is about a non-notable fund manager. At the time of nomination, there are 7 references for this article. Only two of them mention the subject in more than passing. The first is in the Chicago Sun-Times, where it describes how the state of Illinois lost money investing in a fund overseen by the subject. The second is a short blurb in the Wall Street Journal about his resignation.

The mention in the two media sources above does not satisfy the "significant coverage" of the general notability guidelines. In addition, the subject is known only for one event, and thus fails WP:BLP1E.

Someone claiming to be the the subject has requested the article be deleted at BLP/N. Atmoz (talk) 00:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability and also BLP1E.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This fund manager may not be notable yet but he is become known. This was a massive loss and one of the largest losses in a supposedly conservative bond fund. Oppenheimer is about to be sued by several states and there are several class actions gathering steam. I found this entry quite fascinating and would like to see it added to, in particular with regard to what bets were made that resulted in the massive losses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.207.2 (talk) 01:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete for now. Looking over this, there's no need to get into the complexities of verifying whether the individual is the subject or deciding how much weight that gives to deletion. Nor is there a need to invoke the complexities of BLP1E. We just don't have WP:BIO here. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is sourced and appears factually accurate. I don't believe this is a WP:BLP1E as there are glowing stories of the subject and the fund dating from 2004, as well as the sudden downfall of the fund and sunject through 2008. Given the high value of the fund, the prominence of the managing company (Oppenheimer Funds), and the quality of the sources (WSJ, Wash. Post, Bloomberg, etc...), I don't believe this is a candidate for deletion. Vulture19 (talk) 03:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- question Do you have examples of articles that are about Manioudakis and not about the fund? JoshuaZ (talk) 04:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The fund doesn't exist in a vacuum, it exists because there is a person managing it. Without such a person planning the strategy and making decisions, it ceases to be. The article is documenting the manager of a high profile fund, with well sourced, independent, third party coverage. So, in answer to the question, no, I could not find a biographical source about the subject independent of a discussion of the fund, other than hard news stories that the subject had abruptly resigned (note, not the fund had abruptly ceased to be, though).Vulture19 (talk) 15:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - It doesn't need to be separate from the context of the fund. What we need is it to focus on Manioudakis. Do we have sources which do that? JoshuaZ (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge into Oppenheimer or some article about the funds crisis. From current sourcing, individual is not notable on his own. -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We need multiple non-trivial sources that primarily deal with Manioudakis, which means doing more than mentioning a job he used to have. --Rob (talk) 06:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rob and others above. Merge anything useful to the topic of primary WP:RS coverage (the fund). Rd232 ^talk 12:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We cannot do delete and merge. We would need to do a redirect. Delete and merge make the GFDL a sad panda. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well you sort of can. You can move this to [Target Article/subpage] delete the resultant redirect, then merge from the subpage to target.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You normally can't "delete and merge" by copying copying the text without rewording. But you can move any relevant facts with sources to the target article, with no copyright problem, as long as you reword, which you should anyhow. Also, since only one or two editors have made any meaningful contributions to this article (depending on which version you use), you actually can delete and merge as long as you credit the users (in the edit summary, most likely). We have the same freedom to re-use GFDL text from deleted articles that we do with offline external sources. GFDL requires preservation of credit, not text. --Rob (talk) 14:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Rewording was what I had in mind. Rd232 ^talk 15:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable bio. If and when subject becomes notable in his own right, new article could be created; but that time is not now. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:44, 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 merged to List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes. (non-admin closure) Atmoz (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Degrassi: The Next Generation (specials)[edit]

This is an unnecessary WP:FORK about four non-canon episodes of Degrassi: The Next Generation, two of which are actually made up of five "webisodes" spliced together. None of the four are notable enough to warrant a page; enough information is provided at Degrassi: The Next Generation##Special episodes, the Lede of List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes, and the season articles from when the episodes were broadcast. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect It's not a fork. The page is transcluded into the episode list. Last time I checked, it was not advised to transclude articles in the article namespace with the possible exception of content that is repeatedly used in multiple articles for which there is no evidence here. This should not be deleted, but merged. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Close as already merged and redirected. It's just some data that doesn't need a separate article, but a redirect wouldn't hurt. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close. Mgm has already merged the info. and redirected to a section in the main episode list. I agree that this was the correct thing to do. I don't think any further action is required. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 11:34, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bao Jinghowlal[edit]

Fails WP:N and WP:ATHLETE. Google search results only in wikipedia mirrors. The Yap 'national' team is a selection from a state within Micronesia. Has never played for the actual Micronesian national team Stu.W UK (talk) 00:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ Neutral ~~(and possibly merge) to Yap football team per~~ notability and BLP concerns, and while I thought I saw some confirmation of him on a gsearch it now appears it may be mostly the usual spread of misinformation. JJL (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm confused. He should be notable according to WP:ATHLETE but I can't find any reference of him as captain of the Yap football team. There seems to be no way to verify the information in the article. Maybe delete? Anti venin 15:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I had this article on my watch page for a while and have found no sources that show Bao Jinghowlal actually is captain or even a member of the team. A problem is that the team itself is not well-known, and sources on it are scant. However, the site Footiemag.de does list many members of the Yap football team, playing for either Micronesia or Yap, so it seems the captain should have an entry, especially if he joined the team in 2001. Similarly, many players on the Yap article are listed at here, but no Jinghowlal. At a minimum, this article fails core policy WP:V, and I do not believe even a redirect is indicated without the addition of supporting references. Michael Devore (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete: I am a Yap football fan. Bao actually is no longer under contract with the team. He disappeared and it appears that he is currently being probed by the Micronesian government. They have gone to extreme lengths to remove him from any public records. He is in fact a real person and did play for the Yap football team. Maybe if his page were to exist as just a regular person? That sounds reasonable to me. Borninasmalltown67 (talk) 22:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Micronesian government both desires and is able to remove him from the online records of a German soccer magazine and a 2003 training camp announcement because of a probe? That seems unlikely. Bao Jinghowlal may be a real person, but there have been dubious edits made to this article and the Yap football article (since reverted), including by the original author User:Soccahdude1122 and anonymous IPs. A claim of government erasure by a newly minted editor with this one edit only makes me more suspicious of a hoax. Even if his status is real, reliable sources should be provided when there is a question about their veracity. Unsourced claims are insufficient per Wikipedia guidelines. Provide a reliable source and I'll retract my delete recommendation. -- Michael Devore (talk) 03:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:10, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ameraucana-Cochin hybrid[edit]

Species or recognizable breeds of domesticated species are automatically notable. There are hundreds (if not thousands) of chicken breeds. It is possible to combine any of them to create offspring, but this is not done regularly enough for there to be any reliable published source material about them, and they have no uniform characteristics (being hybrids). The few chicken hyrbids that have articles (see the category) are regularly written about in books and are used commonly in the poultry industry, but this is not one of those. This is one of those possible combinations that is never listed in chicken books or news articles. Even totally disregarding reliability, there is absolutely no other information on this topic anywhere. A search without quotes gives info on Ameraucanas and Cochins, but not the two combined. As the article already notes, this is in fact one type of Easter Egger, and if not deleted outright (since no one will conceivably be looking for it) it should be redirected there. Steven Walling (talk) 03:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think I'd have to agree with the nom here that this just isn't notable -- no hits on Google/Scholar/Books. Matt (talk) 06:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I'm in two minds about this; there are, in fact, a few ghits for this hybrid... but not enough, IMO, to establish sufficient notability for a full article, IMO. OTOH, the article does not appear completely worthless, so a merge to Easter Egger or some similar article might be a better idea than simple deletion. (The problem there being that there are presumably a vast array of possible hybrids that could potentially be described on that page, which would make the article unwieldy). Anaxial (talk) 11:13, 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 00:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. I can find no published information about this hybrid. Possibly WP:OR. Pburka (talk) 01:01, 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 redirect to Fetus Farming Prohibition Act. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fetal farming[edit]

Very POV, even the page name has POV connitations Bacchus87 (talk) 00:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect This seems to be a POV fork of Stem cell controversy and can probably be covered better there. AniMate^talk 00:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect ~~back to Stem cell controversy~~. This is a POV coattrack. Them From Space 01:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking over the discussion below I think the redirect should go to Fetus Farming Prohibition Act. This material rightly belongs in an article of that scope. As for BloodGrapeFruit2's suggestion, I think any "X controversy" article is asking to become POV ridden while an article about a particular act of government would have no concerns with notability or NPOV. Them From Space 18:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wrote the article and it is not intended as an attack upon anybody or anybody's rights or ideas. Both the people who support and oppose this use of fetuses/babies appear to be using this term now. If someone has a better or less POV name, that is not unreasonable. But: this is clearly not the same thing as stem cell research (which uses embryos, not fetusses); this is an entirely different matter, whether you support or object to it, and it has been covered widely as a different thing by the mainstream media. HommeFatale (talk) 01:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This user is the creator of the article. Acebulf (talk) 01:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - We know. Xe said so in xyr first five words. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 12:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Animate. Acebulf (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The term is clearly notable enough to deserve its own article: it has been used by CNN and the New York Times, and "fetal farming" is banned under that name in a bill that became law in 2006. However the current article does not say any of the things that actually make the term notable. See this item for more information. Looie496 (talk) 02:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I added information about the ban. I can add more, but I fear someone will then suggest that I'm adding POV, so if others would like to add more about the ban, please do so. HommeFatale (talk) 02:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Followup I agree that a redirect to Fetus farming prohibition act woul be a good solution. Looie496 (talk) 02:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The term "farming" has too negative of a connotation when used with something like Fetal, it is a somewhat widely used term. LetsdrinkTea 02:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Fetus Farming Prohibition act per below LetsdrinkTea 20:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Fetus Farming Prohibition Act and redirect there. HommeFatale is correct that so-called "fetal farming" issues are completely distinct from stem cell issues. There are two related reasons for this. The first that's already been raised is the semantic difference between an embryo and a fetus. No exact instant occurs during the eighth week that distinguishes an embryo from a fetus. The change in labeling is just a matter of convention to approximate the time that major structures and organs are all formed. However, the second difference is more important. Stem cells are one particular type of cell that are used. So-called "fetal farming" refers to entire tissues and organs, not individual cells. Bioethical considerations are closely tied to biological complexity. Unlike the difference between an embryo and a fetus, the difference between cells and tissues is distinct. This is a separate procedure, separate science, and a separate issue that deserves its own article. Cells are not tissues, so this is not a POV fork. However, User:Bacchus87 is correct that the page name itself is POV. The best solution, I think, would be to create a Fetus Farming Prohibition Act article and place the content there. The emphasis of the article would need to change to the act itself, but I think it would change for the better. An article that discusses conservatives saying one thing and liberals saying another about a procedure that isn't being done seems a bit silly, but the law does exist, and the name of the law is in government records. Like the Defense of Marriage Act, the fact that the name of the law is POV is not our concern. With this name, the article could also continue its current tack of being centered on the issue in the USA. Flying Jazz (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <^T·_C> 22:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and redirect to Fetus Farming Prohibition Act, since the majority of the reliable sources link seem to use this term in reference to a particular law, not an area of technology. I agree that since the term "fetal farming" is used in this law to refer to the creation of embryos as a source of either cells or tissues then a redirect to Stem cell controversy would be incorrect. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename but not after the Prohibition Act, as that seems too narrow. Maybe Fetus farming controversy, with a discussion of the act, the technology and viewpoints from both sides? To redirect this to Stem cell controversy would be POV, even if unintentional, as it would suggest that the two are directly linked -- BloodGrapefruit2 (talk) 04:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, The problem with this title is that it is the law that defined the term, this phrase has little independent existence apart from the law itself, so any controversy around "Fetus farming" is inextricably linked to the Prohibition Act that invented/popularized the term. Moreover, a more general article on the use of embryonic cells or tissues in medicine (such as Fetal tissue implants) or even an article on the controversy surrounding such technology could not use an emotive term as its title. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment It might make sense to redirect to Fetal tissue implant and include a subsection in that article on the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act. I'm not wedded to this idea, but several of the articles referenced are more recent, so this is liable to become an issue again, I fear, if we merely refer to the act without leaving room for additional developments. (I'm aware of Crystal Ball; I'm just raising a note of caution). BloodGrapefruit2 (talk) 04:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I notice as a precedent that Defense of Marriage already redirects to Defense of Marriage Act. Redirecting to the source that made the term notable seems a good way of dealing with such inherently biased titles. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Redirect to Fetus Farming Prohibition Act, the notability of this term comes almost entirely from the act. As a procedure is it purely hypothesised, and not practiced. The term outside the act was created and used to stir up controversy about a theoretical procedure therefore does not warrant its own article. Bacchus87 (talk) 12:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've relisted because the current consensus would result int he creation of a broken redirect. Can someone make clear if that is the actual intent? MBisanz ^talk 00:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- At some point tonight or tomorrow I intend to get working on the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act. The consensus is pretty clear, but I think everyone is expecting someone else to actually write the targeted article. AniMate^talk 02:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and redirect to Fetus Farming Prohibition Act if it is created. TillsTalk 03:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, no redirect this seems to be a very controversial topic and looks like it can be expanded a lot more. Nicholas.tan (talk) 05:29, 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 redirect to the respective works of origin, or delete where the work of origin does not have an article. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Karistan[edit]

Prod contested by DGG. Non-notable fictional places. Articles were created by a user now identified as a sockpuppet. Matt (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If they are bad-faith edits by a sockpuppet, let's delete them. Looking at the articles themselves, I don't find any any of them are notable enough to pass our fiction guidelines. Looks like someone was assembling a list of fictional easter-European countries. (That list may be notable, but individual places on it would not be.) JRP (talk) 17:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect each to the fictional work they're from (assuming they're even real, of course, if not delete). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge which is what i suggested instead of outright deletion. I certainly agree they are not worth independent articles. DGG (talk) 01:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily delete per G5 (ie creation by a banned user in violation of ban) or merge to the work they're from. Telephonedennis talk 08:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Telephonedennis (talk · contribs), since renamed to Vilbafo534 (talk · contribs), is that very same user, it transpires. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fila3466757. Uncle G (talk) 01:28, 25 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 00:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. No need for an AFD. Pburka (talk) 01:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - the subjects are lacking in real-world relevance or significance to justify inclusion, and certainly fail the general notability guideline. Valid search terms, though. – Toon ^(talk) 01:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect when it is possible to link to a series article or single work without killing links the subject might have with other works. (for example Herzoslovakia should redirect to a list of Agatha Christie works rather than one book in particular) - Mgm|^(talk) 11:03, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grim Babies[edit]

Not very notable, sources are mostly blogs and poor quality, with only one semi-related news article fluff piece. Article was arguably created for marketing purposes originally. Gigs (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable game item. We don't even have an article on prim baby, which this is supposedly a "parody" of, and neither are notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is non-notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moggiethemeow (talk • contribs) 22:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn -- samj _in^out 12:39, 25 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 00:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Second Life cruft. Pburka (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think I'd have to agree with all of you.--Michael (talk) 02:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note According to the SFweekly.com site, the blog is maintained by one of its journalists, which would make it a reliable source. (Being a blog is only a bad thing when authorship cannot be reliably established or when it can be the writer has no credentials.) It's probably not enough to support an article, but the idea that blogs can't be sources is widespread enough, that it needs debunking. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:55, 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. –Juliancolton ^Talk · ^Review 00:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

High Enough[edit]

not every song has notability Debresser (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect back to Damn Yankees (album) as a plausible search term, fails stand alone notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. While it may have charted there is little substance nor significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources to warrant having a separate article. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I came here because I'm doing an extensive pruning of Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/List of notable songs. This song is in the list. The problem with merging is that ~~sometimes~~ most of the time, the content from articles about individual songs are not merged into the album articles. Moreover, the redirects are almost never categorized so that they show up (as redirects) in the categories Category:Foobar songs so in the end, the project is worse off. There's nothing wrong with a short article. Sure, no one has written a book about this song and I don't expect a 50Kb article, but there are plenty of reliable sources that will provide the date the single was released, the place it reached in the charts, who wrote the song and other basic info. As for the notability guideline, note that it does say "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts [...] are probably notable". It also says that short articles should be merged into the album articles but the fact is that a) most are not and b) that's just a dumb part of the guideline and one that is largely ignored. Pichpich (talk) 02:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. A song that reaches #3 in the charts is notable whether or not there is coverage in reliable third-party sources. WP:MUSIC only requires any one of the criteria to be fulfilled. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EdgeRater[edit]

Non-notable piece of software, cannot find third party sources. DFS454 (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is the target of a link from the FeatureComparison of Technical analysis software table. Some entries in the table are linked to corresponding wikipedia entries, whilst others are not. This entry aids readers of wikipedia by providing the link target. EREmma (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS --DFS454 (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking more along the lines of providing endpoints for links rather than the other stuff exists argument. For instance, if looking down the column of the table, half of the entries have blue links and half don't I feel that if you can provide the succinct entry for one of the non-existing links then that is beneficial to Wikipedia users. Still, I bow to the greater good EREmma (talk) 02:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, no press coverage. Pburka (talk) 22:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete - a complete lack of coverage in any sources -- Whpq (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 02:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no third-party coverage, vaguely promotional in tone as well. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:20, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acer Aspire (5633 WLMi)[edit]

No assertion of notability. Purely original research; no references, primary, secondary, or third-party. TechOutsider (talk) 21:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Anyone reviewed this article yet? TechOutsider (talk) 21:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)TechOutsdier[reply]

Delete. Doesn't assert notability. No references. -- samj _in^out 12:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Agree, per above and WP:OR; the creator mentioned some controversy over the product however never referenced a source. TechOutsider (talk) 19:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider[reply]

Weak delete: I'd been considering suggesting a merge back into Acer Aspire, which is horribly devoid of substantive content, but ... there's very little here to merge, since it's all uncited. Some Google News trawling returns 10 hits, but none is in English: perhaps a reader of Dutch could salvage something from the review here, but on that strength alone I don't think there's enough WP:RS coverage of this model to establish notability. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:49, 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 00:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not every product of a notable company is notable. That Belgian review is a few paragraphs, moderately positive, on something that we'd never call a reliable resource. Drmies (talk) 06:59, 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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Novruz in Azerbaijan[edit]

The article is a fork of the Novruz article and does not contain anything more than what is contained in the Novruz article. Novruz is not an event specific to Azerbaijan, and the term "Novruz in Azerbaijan" doesn't actually exist. There is no need to have country-specific entries for global festivals. For example, we do not have articles titled "Christmas in Germany" or "Easter in France" or "New Year in Spain", we just have entries for the actual festivals or holidays. Meowy 19:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For example, we do not have articles titled "Christmas in Germany" ... WP:OTHERCRAPDOESNTEXIST is never a very persuasive argument, and besides we have Category:Christmas traditions by country. The question here is the usual WP:N issue: whether there's enough material out there about N[aou][uvw]r[ou][sz] in Azerbaijan and how it differs from other countries, as opposed to simply Novruz in general. One easy place to start would be the history of its official treatment by the government: how was it treated during the Soviet period, when did the government make it an official holiday, how many vacation days do people get for it --- here's a start. cab (talk) 05:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a few sources, but they're pretty meagre. If more can't be found, I wouldn't object to a merge back to Novruz#Novruz in Azerbaijan. cab (talk) 06:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The holiday has several distinct features unique to this country. The article may be not in its best form, but certainly does not deserve deletion, especially as compared to such holiday-specific entries as Japanese New Year or Egg decorating in Slavic culture. brand спойт 11:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What distinct features? It doesn't seem to have any. Also, it is strange that for Iran, where the festival is of far greater importance both culturally and numerically, there is no need for a separate article. Yes, there IS a seprarate article for its celebration amongst Kurds - but they are an ethnic group, not a country, and for them it does have distinct features (its political and self-determination aspects). I'm not suggesting removing information, just questioning the need for an article that does nothing more than duplicate what is already in the main Novruz article. Maybe merge would have been a better proposal to make, but I felt that since it is already all in the main article, there wouldn't be much to merge. Meowy 17:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Green sprouts of samani with ribbon (not samanu), khoncha, which differs from Haft-Sin and so forth. Yet another thing I expected :) brand спойт 20:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Novruz is our national holiday, as well as whole Middle East. Something sinful or shameful here? Ateshi-Baghavan 19:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 02:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not have a clear choice. The article is not very long and can be merged under the section Azerbaijan in the main Nowruz article. It is however important event in Azerbaijan as it is their national holiday. You should better take all its content and add it there if you merge it with the main article.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huseyngulu Sarabski in his book Old Baku mentions many peculiarities of Azerbaijani Novruz celebration. I think the article has a potential. brand спойт 19:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect. I do not know what is your aim to say this. Traditions of Nowruz in the republic of Azerbaijan is similar to that in Iran. Of course, even within one country exist local differences. These were not things for which I said the article has the right of existence. A general article can adress similarities in all countries and in different subsections the local variations. Note that many sources speak only about Nowruz and not about in which country. I said that it has a right to existence b4cause of how it was first and how it was treated in the Soviet times and how it is revived as a national holiday--Babakexorramdin (talk) 23:28, 25 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 00:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Azeri traditions are not totally similar to the Iranian ones. The Novruz article is already too big to address the related concerns. brand спойт 21:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

with all du respect what you say does not make sense. A big portion of Iranian population notably in Tehran is Azeri. Azeri traditions are a variety of Iranian traditions in general. It is logical that tradtions in the republic of Azerbaijan show minor differences to those in Iran, but these are not larger than those in Afghanistan or by Kurds which are also included in the main article. At first I was Ok with keeping this article but after having seen branmeister-spoit;s comments I think it is better to delete this and move its content to the main article. I do not know why Brandmeister-spoit is making a political issue out od this cultural event.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 00:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Babak, the logic does not pass here, but facts. Naturally, Azeris who live in Iran celebrate the holiday as Iranians, but those in Azerbaijan (including me) celebrate it differently. And where I am making a political issue here? brand спойт 14:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

interestingly you said on yyour userpage that you are a catholic now you say you are an Azeri from the republic of Azerbaijan. All your edits here and in other articles shows that you are trying to show artifically that the republic of Azerbaijan has not much to do with the Iranian world. As I said therer are regional varaitations even within Iran, but in general Nowruz is a tradition shared by many people inside and outside the modern day country of Iran. I was first Ok to have a separate article for the republic of Azerbaijan but then your motivations detered me and now I am in favor of merging it with the main article. The priority of the republic of Azerbaijan wikiproject can then be elevated to top level, and you are welcome to add more facts to it. To the main section and to the section about Novruz in the republic of Azerbaijan. By the way do you have any ideas, of what date are the local differences? And Whay? Any variations even within the republic of Azerbaijan?--Babakexorramdin (talk) 08:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't bind denomination to Novruz as it already existed in pre-Islamic times and still does not bear any religious tone. And yes, even within the Republic of Azerbaijan there are variations, see my notions above. brand спойт 11:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the same basis as similar articles mentioned above:national customs of this sort regarding major religious holidays are often significant. I see from the discussion above that the article can probably be expanded. DGG (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Novruz is not a national custom, it is a transnational custom whose participants are of several distinct ethnicities. That is what I was trying to show when I made the comparison with Christmas or Easter. Meowy 17:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Nowruz : so far, I've seen nothing justifying a separate article. Sardur (talk) 01:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Novruz celebrations in Azerbaijan have their own tradition. Grandmaster 14:51, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Freedom Journal[edit]

Evidently defunct publication with no refs or working links. (More info from originator of AfD: *I didn't find anything that suggests it still exists. According to this 1989 entry it is/was a publication of American Freedom Coalition which in wikipedia redirects to List of Unification Church affiliated organizations. It's listing there only refers to a 2001 article. But there is no direct link to either the organization or the publication in first 30 odd google returns (besides wikipedia knockoffs), where it surely would be if it still exists.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Can you source where you have heard it is defunct? I can't find anything to suggest that. Keep until nom is clarified. As it stands, no real reason for deletion has been given. Jenuk1985 | Talk 12:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, can find no references later than 1990, was an offshoot of the Unification Church. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails verifiability, no evidence this journal actually exists, let alone that it is notable. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:03, 23 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 00:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Three people think it needs to go. I gave a real reason - did User:Jenuk1985 ever see it? Will leave a message on talk page. If there were any reliable sources that it had some importance in the past, I would not have nominated it. It just makes wikipedia look like no one's paying attention. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - My keep opinion still stands, I haven't seen anything to change my mind. The relist was a good call, there hasn't been enough response to establish a reasonable consensus Jenuk1985 | Talk 00:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Being defunct is irrelevant -- so is Genghis Khan. Google finds a reasonable number of references to this publication[33][34]. From what I can tell it was a neo-con/far right publication ~~with no link to the Unification Church~~. Pburka (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact it looks like it was a Moony publication. I've rewritten the article using only information I could reference properly. Pburka (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Pburka - appears to have been significant within the American right/far-right, secondary coverage exists. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep People have shown that this is verifiable in reliable sources. I personally find this sort of topic very interesting/useful to include in wikipedia even when there is only enough sourceable material for a brief article. Cazort (talk) 16:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient sourcing, whether dead or alive. DGG (talk) 17:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references or sources. Searched the title on Google but nothing much available. DinajGao (talk) 12:05, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Symantec Endpoint Protection[edit]

No assertion of notability. Purely primary sources affiliated with Symantec. One sentence paragraphs. Lack of any truly encyclopedia information. Can be incorporated in Norton AntiVirus or Norton Internet Security as a note; "the corporate edition is named Symantec Endpoint Protection and ... ". TechOutsider (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SOFIXIT. PCMag, even if affiliated, is a syndicated publication where non-trivial reports in products confer some notability; most likely, there will be other reviews as well. Also, there is a standard for handling instances of inherited notability, where the article's content is merged with it's parent and then redirected (rather than being erased), but in this case, Norton isn't a pure parent of a product branded under the Symantec label. --Sigma 7 (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Keep! I think every Norton products deserve a seperate article. --Tyw7‍ ‍‍ (Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 13:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I really don't think that Norton fanboys should have a page for every product just because of the fact that it exists. If someone wants to build a more encyclopedic page, with references and citations, as well as other more-developed pieces of information, I would say keep it. Otherwise, the emount of information offered for a product that's been on the market since 2007 has no excuse for the meager findings here. --CoyoteWildfire —Preceding undated comment added 15:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Comment I agree with the above comment by CoyoteWildfire. The product is hardly notable and has received little news coverage. It's not a "Norton", however a "Symantec" branded product. If the consensus doe not agree to delete the article, it should be merged with Symantec.TechOutsider (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Talk · ^Review 00:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Sigma7 and User:Tyw7. Junk Police (talk) 06:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While this may not be consumer software, if it's reviewed in major publications like PC World it would appear to be notable. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Just look at the volume (487 hits) of google news sources: [35]. As people have above, some of these are detailed reviews in widely-read publications. There are even 10 hits in google scholar: [36] Cazort (talk) 16:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No notable information; it is essentially Norton Internet Security, only centrally managed TechOutsider (talk) 14:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cicero Method[edit]

Even if Cicero is often connected to mnemonic methods, this particular method and the texts endorsing it seem utterly non-notable, and the article seem only to advertise it and the books given as reference. I also propose the deletion of the sister articles Chain Method and Russian Doll Method (presently PRODded). (For more background, see also the subpages of the user page of these articles' creator: User:Zmemory/SPM and User:Zmemory/GMS.) Goochelaar (talk) 09:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to Mnemonic, there are already some methods listed there. a more formalized list with brief descriptions of each makes more sense than individual short articles. Also add Cicero Method to the list of articles to merge.--RadioFan2 (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. The role of Cicero in transmitting the art of memory and the characteristics of the "Cicero Method" (as well as the related methods in the other two articles) are already covered in Art of memory. There's nothing here that isn't already covered adequately in that article, except for the spamming of the Ziganov/Kozarenko books. Deor (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I tried to merge these articles with Giordano Memorization System, but don't know what to do with the original articles. If anyone feels this system isn't notable, I would like to discuss that. I am only a memory buff, and wonder what the difference between two memory systems is as far as wikipedia is concerned. Thank you Zmemory (talk) 18:36, 22 March 2009

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Note by the proponent: the articles discussed here were merged in Giordano Memorization System, which has been deleted. So perhaps these articles might now be speedy deleted?) Goochelaar (talk) 00:15, 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 09:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Norton PC Checkup[edit]

No assertion of notability. One source, a primary source linking directly to Symantec. Other information purely speculation or original research. Can be noted in the Adobe Flash article for more publicity, rather than having a separate and orphaned article. TechOutsider (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis that it is notable and verifiable, which are our primary criteria. I don;t think you can dismiss an article in CNET News as Original research, you know. To me that passes WP:RS with some ease. Sources can always be improved and a poor source is not a valid reason to nominate for deletion, simply a reason to enhance an article. There are intriguing sources that do not pass our criteria which discuss some controversy about the service. Finding a reliable one would be valuable. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Keep! I think every Norton products should have their own seperate articles on Wikipedia! --Tyw7‍ ‍‍ (Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 13:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like WP:ILIKEIT. -- samj _in^out 12:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment one article is not enough to constitute an article. TechOutsider (talk) 01:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider[reply]

Comment There is more than one reference in the article in addition to the link to the principal's site. And a single reference is sufficient if it is a WP:RS reference and is good enough. No-one will die if it gets merged and no-one will die if it gets kept. But the references are sufficient. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge somewhere. -- samj _in^out 12:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Does not meet WP:OR; unsourced information; "Running the software to end of job results in suggestions that further software or services are bought in order to remove the problems stated to be found." True, however no references provided. TechOutsider (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)TechOutsdier[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Talk · ^Review 00:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oh how I hate the Norton pop-up that infects a personal computer. "You are not fully protected"- "Renew now (recommended)" or "Remind me in 24 hours". As with Gateway's "your hard drive will fail" ad, I wish there was a third option I could click that said "get the fuck lost and don't bother me again". Mandsford (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one of the main tools from Symantec, can be improved with sources. DinajGao (talk) 12:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "main tools"? Sources? A short burst of coverage in the media does not constitute a full article dedicated to the subject. TechOutsider (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider[reply]
Like Mandsford I wish I could delete this from my computer. If no further sources can be found (which surprises me) I think we should merge this article somewhere. Nerfari (talk) 22:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; appears to be notable. I have added another reference. Dialectric (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are some of these references not press releases? Nerfari (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment it is not whether or not it is a press release that matters, it is the place that carries the release that gives it importance. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - It might give importance, but without analysis it doesn't make them independent. Nerfari (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As part of a notable series on Symantec. Jwray (talk) 06:31, 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 Native Hawaiians. MBisanz ^talk 02:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kanaka Maoli[edit]

The text of some book has been posted in lieu of this page. Maniamin (talk) 08:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect back to Native Hawaiians. Reyk _YO! 08:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Native Hawaiians. Badagnani (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A "redirect" closure would have to be enforced. From the article's history... 14:49, 27 January 2009 24.43.209.23 (talk) (empty) (undo redirect to fraudulent definition "native hawaiian" , the correct definition is contained on this page 1846 vol 1. ch5. art1. sec 3.) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:39, 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above, and s-protect to prevent the 'article' being recreated. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:16, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Quietus[edit]

Failed to find any significant second or thrid party sources that coverage this subject neon white talk 06:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails all three criteria of WP:WEB. The article says "At the 2008 Record of the Day music industry awards, The Quietus was shortlisted for best website, and was voted best publication by UK students." I could find no mention of the latter (best publication), and being shortlisted for an award is not enough to make it notable. Anti venin 06:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't shortlisted sometimes used interchangeably with nominated? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, there is independent, secondary-source coverage of the Metallica incident, but that may not indicate notability alone per WP:ONEEVENT. However, more than 50 articles currently link to the article, and based on the award nominations, it seems popular enough that we may be missing some coverage of the subject. So I recommend giving it the benefit of the doubt, and keep it with the "demand" that sources etc. be dug out. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 21:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt consider that coverage to be that significant, the coverage is mostly about another subject and merely mentions the quietus in passing providing no real detail. I have searched and i can't find much, Popularity has never been used as criteria for notability. --neon white talk 03:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: trivial coverage. Non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 06:26, 23 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 00:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage. A-Kartoffel (talk) 07:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, there's third party coverage of the Metallica incident, but it's more about Metallica than this site, and it's a WP:ONEEVENT. Suggest that it's not quite notable enough yet, although that may change. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

*Weak delete, per above, only one event. Deletion Mutation 17:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Blocked sockpuppet. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 20:28, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Firebirds[edit]

The information mentioned in this article (as I first found it) was very similar to the site: http://www.firebirds.co.uk/, which has its official "band summary" on several different U.K. Websites. However, research as to discovering the actual events, etc., has not come up (for me at least) with reliable sources. I took a look at: http://www.firebirds.co.uk/dates.asp, the band's list of events (which is impressive), but links take the user to the home page for a company/hotel, or are dead links such as http://www.aacint.com/. Unless it can be proven with reliable sources this band's "accomplishments," I suggest deletion based on failing Wikipedia:Notability (music) Spring12 (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is one article about them in the Leighton Buzzard Observer referenced in the article. Other references aren't reliable sources. Searching for additional reliable sources covering them turn up empty. -- Whpq (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 01:41, 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 00:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unremarkable cover band, would not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:13, 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. Normally, one "keep" would not be considered a consensus but since the nominator is not arguing for deletion and the original nominator is cool with the article, it's probably safe to assume that this article is not going to be deleted today (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MyInfo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Original Afd closed as delete, but new sources were brought to light at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_March_16, at which the decision was made to relist this for consideration of the sources. (I am personally neutral on the deletion.) Aervanath (talk) 04:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment from guy who made the first afd

The new sources presented at the DRV:

Nominated for best Business Software Application by Shareware Industry Awards
Reviewed by Wall Street Journal Online columnist Jeremy Wagstaff

The guy writing this blog has in his linkedin profile the following, among other good looking things:

Technology Columnist at The Asian Wall Street Journal, Wall Street Journal Online
Reporter at The Wall Street Journal
Page One Editor etc at Dow Jones, The Asian Wall Street Journal

DonationCoder Notetaking Software Roundup #1
More links: this, reviewed in San Diego Daily Transcript, this, and included in DMOZ

errrr, well, the loosewire blog plus the award probably make it for me. I would no longer nominate it. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:59, 22 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 00:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The award alone is enough to save this one. Given by a notable organization with expert selection panel.- Mgm|^(talk) 10:39, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jignesh[edit]

NN person, no references provided. A Google search for the name shows that he exists but no signs that he meets WP:N. meshach (talk) 00:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC) meshach (talk) 00:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article should have been called Jignesh Jitani, but even so Google only finds one hit, in a list of business addresses in Gujarat. Not notable. Looie496 (talk) 02:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability LetsdrinkTea 02:52, 22 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 00:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can find absolutely no references that establish notability; article hasn't provided any references or even any assertion of notability. Rnb (talk) 02:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. This article should have been tagged for speedy delete per WP:CSD A7. TillsTalk 02:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability, Google comes up with nothing ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 03:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no indication whatsoever of notability. I find no sources. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 05:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no indication of notability.Jamiebijania (talk) 14:31, 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 01:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Asian Banker[edit]

Borderline, but the fake interwiki links are always a bad sign. Probably fails WP:CORP. Biruitorul ^Talk 18:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Delete per nom. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite. Based on the following web searches:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

the subjects appear to have enough coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, however I think The Asian Banker Journal should probably be merged into The Asian Banker. PhilKnight (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:09, 22 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 00:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per PhilKnight. There do seem to be sources to establish notability for all three articles, or alternatively, they could be conflated into one article. Sources do need to be added though. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:18, 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bad for democracy[edit]

Consists solely of very brief book blurb and excerpts from reviews. Essentially all of the content is taken from non-free sources, and is either quoted directly from the author of the book, or from book reviews on Amazon. Wikipedia is not a place to dump Amazon book listings. The Anome (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being badly formatted and disorganized from a new user is not an excuse to delete an article mentioned in at least [37][38][39]. Only one link is generally thorough enough but there's some news out there and that's only a few minutes of research. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:22, 13 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 00:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since this book seems to be plenty notable. I have removed two blurbs from the article and added two articles (one mentioned above) and an editorial by the author. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The first step would be to try to establish an article on the author, since earlier books by the author seem to be significant. . The discussions mentioned are either interviews with the author or columns by the author. I have so far not found any additional reviews. The phrase has been used a lot, in various similar contexts, by many others. WorldCat shows 225 libraries so far, which is sufficient to establish the book as helping the authors notability, but borderline for a book in the absence of third party reviews. DGG (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, I see your point. Drmies (talk) 02:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 22 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 00:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable enough per Drmies' links... also we shouldn't be deleting articles that are so new before they have had time to improve. Concur that the author should have an article too. Gigs (talk) 00:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks notable, containing several secondary sources, sure, I agree that we need an article on the author, but there is no reason this article can't remain here, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 05:21, 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. Tone 19:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kap Misir[edit]

Non-notable lawyer, possibly autobiographical Maniamin (talk) 08:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. Gigs (talk) 00:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems like a regular lawyer, no particular notability here. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 03:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, the first link goes to a website which is non-existant, as of, the second one simply goes to Thomas M. Cooley Law School homepage, so this is a non-notable biography Spitfire^Tally-ho! 05:15, 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.