< 5 October	7 October >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 23:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amishi Jha[edit]

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

This page is a BLP of a US academic who studies the neuroscience of meditation. The subject is a non-tenured assistant professor, whereas WP:ACADEMIC criterion 5 requires appointment as a full professor with tenure and generally a named chair. (I speculate that the subject may very well, in time, pass notability, but that is not a valid keep argument for now, per WP:CRYSTAL.) The page in its present form is sourced entirely to primary sources associated with the subject. The page discusses local university awards for teaching, initial primary publications, and research funding (including one publication commemorating funding from the US Dept. of Defense); we typically do not accept any of these as satisfying WP:ACADEMIC.

I have searched for independent secondary sources that might indicate notability per WP:GNG, independently of WP:ACADEMIC, when added to the page. I find two, and I think the decision here hinges on whether we decide that they are sufficient. The first—link—is a book titled Rapt: Attention and the Focused Life by Winifred Gallagher. It includes a short passage in which the subject is interviewed. The interview focuses on stressful events that occurred in the subject's life (which, for a non-academic layperson, would usually fall under WP:ONEVENT), and some of the subject's academic research, which is characterized as in its early stages, not as completed findings that are having any kind of impact. The second source—link—is an interview with National Public Radio. The transcript shows the subject talking with a Zen monk, and, like the book, describes the subject's research as early-stage: "She's still combing through her preliminary data...". WP:ACADEMIC note 14 states that "Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark." (I know from my own real life experiences in academia that university public relations departments routinely seek to place their faculty members on news reports.) It seems to me that the NPR interview falls short of establishing the subject as having, at this time, an influence that would establish notability for our purposes, even if she might well become notable in the future. It's a close call, but this seems to me to be less than the significant coverage required by GNG.

I have additional reasons for bringing this AfD, and for writing this unusually long nomination. There are currently efforts such as this to encourage academic scientists to participate in Wikipedia, and I anticipate that we will be seeing an increase in bio pages such as this one. (I note that all of the major edits to the page have been made from accounts that have only edited the page or made links from other pages to it.) Whatever we decide here, it will be useful to ~~set a clear precedent~~ have a clear understanding for the near future. If we accept pages like this one, there will be a motivation for them to proliferate: "I should be promoted to tenure because Wikipedia has an article about me." I fear that there would be a risk of COI. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tryptofish (talk) 23:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also listed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neuroscience. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Delete. GS gives h index = 11, in the bordline region. Article may be too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Weak delete. The subject will probably meet WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed) in the near future, but not yet. While the h-index is only 11, the subject is a co-author on three pubs with citations above 100. However, only in one, the least cited of the three, is the author the first or last author.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Eric Yurken. Tone of article is way too promotional and we don't usually include info in such bios about some article being accepted in some journal (not even Nature or Science). Although this can be easily remedied by 5 min of editing, it seems evident that this article was created just a bit too early. --Crusio (talk) 02:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With all due respect, this is another poster-child-early-academic article. The subject might be notable sometime in the future, but is not yet. Specifically, most notable academics seem to satisfy WP:PROF on condition #1 – essentially, a body of research that has had notable impact on the field, usually as judged by number of research articles and number of times these have been cited. I'll point out that there's at least one other individual with a similar name in this same academic sector, so it's possible that some searches will give false positives. Since this is a "hard science" field, I think WoS may give the most accurate result. The following very specific search "Author=(jha a*) Refined by: Institutions=(UNIV PENN OR UNIV CALIF DAVIS) AND [excluding] Authors=(JHA, AK) Timespan=All Years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI" gives 13 journal publications (plus 10 abstracts) for an h-index of 7. Neuroscience is a fairly high-publication, high-citation specialty in the biomedical sciences, suggesting these statistics are not particularly impressive. Rather, I think they're very close to what you'd expect at the assistant professor level. The article also mentions grants and internal teaching awards, but here again these fall squarely into the "expectation" column rather than the "notable" column. The overall picture is very clear. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete I would normally do an analysis of the publications, but Agricola's analysis is in my opinion perfectly correct and leaves me nothing further to add. But we do not need to set a precedent, for we have many precedents: almost always articles like this have been deleted. The only exceptions have been when the work has for some reason been [picked up by the media, often because the topic is of popular public appeal. And sometimes, of course, an Asst. Prof could be notable, but almost by definition the level is specifically intended for people who have not yet shown notability. The questionable area is the typical Associate Professor. They have often not been kept, but some of us, including myself, would extend notability to such careers especially at the best universities--but there is no real body of opinion here for extending it this far. I would expect the Society for Neuroscience project to have the sense to start at the top, where there are hundreds of missing articles. DGG ( talk ) 04:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as noted, will likely become notable in the future, however, WP:CRYSTAL makes that moot at this stage. The edits primarily seem to be from single purpose accounts (or accounts very close to such a designation). Vincent Valentine 23:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 23:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Governors Towne Club[edit]

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

This club appears to fail notability. The text is still written promotional, as are the supposed references from the Atlanta Journal. The club may be somewhat notable on a local scale but I fail to see the need for an article on Wikipedia. De728631 (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7 - this article about an organisation does not assert the notability of the subject. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 04:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The newspaper references are sufficient to establish notability. This thing is bigger and more conspicuous than the average suburban development. -- Eastmain (talk) 04:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP:N requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The article cites three sources: two are the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's business, arts and recreation section, which appears to be a home for promotional fluff pieces for local enterprises. Not a reliable source; sections like this often take promotional consideration in return for their articles. The other source is the RBOC Update, which as best as I can tell is an entirely non-notable publication, though I stand to be corrected. In any case articles appearing in only two publications I don't believe constitute "significant coverage". - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is close to a Speedy, as the article really doesn't assert notability. But, for all that, look at the coverage - it's all from 2005 and before, when the development was under construction. So, there was very little notable about it then, and nothing since. I'm not finding additional sources, either - so, we should probably delete. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 18:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Atlanta Journal-Constitution is a reliable source. Newspapers of that size don't sell their editorial coverage in exchange for promotional considerations. This showed up as a newspaper article, not as an advertorial. "Significant" refers to the coverage (as opposed to "passing mention"), and even a single newspaper story can be enough to establish notability. RBOC Update may itself be unexciting (it's "a publication providing news and analysis of networking and telecommunications"), but it's editorially independent (and made available to libraries through http://www.accessmylibrary.com/archive/4453-rboc-update.html ) and a reliable source. The RBOC Update article covers the telecommunications infrastructure of the development, so that's part of the significant coverage needed for notability. -- Eastmain (talk) 04:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is written like an ad, not like a neighborhood, which might be allowable. Newspaper quotes appear to be from the real estate section, which are just developer hype in exchange for an accompanying ad. While front pages and editorial may not be "for sale", this does not hold true for the real estate section. If prior editor is correct, and material was not in the real estate section, then perhaps the article can be rewritten as a neighborhood and not as an ad. But right now, WP:SPAM does not merit an article IMO. Student7 (talk) 20:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rewrite to show why it the neighborhood is notable. MiRroar (talk) 22:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not sure why this was relisted, there's a consensus above. It's an organisation, not a geographic location, and therefore it's required to assert notability within the body of the article itself. No notability is asserted, therefore it should be A7 Speedy Deleted as per my argument above. The only dissent is from Eastmain, who declined the initial speedy delete and comments twice above, who, with respect, appears to be confusing the idea of presumption of notability under WP:N (which occurs when there are reliable independent sources discussing the subject) with the idea of asserting notability - that is, making a specific claim that this organisation is more notable than a garden-variety organisation (which the article doesn't do). - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Do not understand why discussion was continued. There is one keep vote, from the originator of the article, who appears to be connected to the developer of the community.Student7 (talk) 18:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article makes claims of uniqueness, including the fame of the golf course's designer and being consistent with New Urbanism. I am not the originator of the article. That was Stembrand (talk · contribs · count), who has not participated in this discussion, possibly because he or she was not notified of it. -- Eastmain (talk) 04:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I left a note on Stembrand's talk page at 04:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC), which is a bit late in the process. -- Eastmain (talk) 04:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - And the "zero-discharge" sewage treatment plant which supplies the water for the gold course's greens is further evidence that this is not a run-of-the-mill development. -- Eastmain (talk) 04:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - The zero-discharge plant is one of 24 in Atlanta alone. Further, Georgia law currently mandates zero-discharge for new developments of this kind; the fact that they're one of the first to comply with their legal obligations is neither unique nor notable. (per the sources you've cited in the article) - DustFormsWords (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment - Since my earlier comments I've also been directed to WP:MILL which would appear to have application here even if sources were able to be found. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It doesn't seem to establish its notability. The sources don't seem strong enough to support the organization--as is noted, they primarily seem to address the developmental phase, and are featured in a local paper which may or may not indicate a potential desire to highlight a local organization. Vincent Valentine 23:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No, seriously, whilst G4 is re-creation of deleted material, I think we can safely say that a markedly worse version of the deleted material is speediable. Also the new version was a completely unsourced BLP ("X is a Christian apologist")? No. If this person is truly notable, it should be possible to write an article proving that is the case (probably using the far superior originally deleted version). Black Kite 23:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Beale[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Procedural nomination. A previous version of this article (administrators only, sorry; if anyone wants to see the old version I will temporarily recreate it in my userspace) was deleted through consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Beale (3rd nomination). A couple months later the article was recreated by the single-purpose account User:Jmt007. The re-created version was significantly worse than the deleted version and did not address any of the reasons for deletion—as you can see, the new version is almost entirely unreferenced (of the two "references" supplied, one is Beale's own book) and contains no third-party, independent coverage of this individual. I speedily deleted it as re-creation of deleted content, and since then User:NBeale, who also happens to be the article subject, has been bugging me asking to have it re-created because the version I deleted wasn't "identical" (which is correct--compared to the older version, this version is a crock). So I'm bringing it back to AfD. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (as this is only a procedural nomination, I feel I might as well also offer my !vote). Worse than the version that was deleted before, and the only user who seems to have strong feelings about bringing it back is a user in a conflict of interest. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This should be deleted as a recreation of deleted content. There is nothing new in this version that would negate the opinion of those who commented at the previous discussion. An appropriate course of action would be for Nbeale to go to deletion review. Kevin (talk) 22:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that's what I said numerous times (see User talk:Backslash Forwardslash#Nicholas Beale and User talk:Rjanag#Nicholas Beale). NBeale doesn't get that and doesn't understand Wikipedia policy, and has ignored my request to go to DRV; I figured I could just ignore it and not recreate the article, but maybe hearing 20 editors (instead of just me) explain how bad t his article is might knock some sense into him. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per my discussion of the subject at the last AfD.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Agree with Kevin; if our process require a new AFD because a worse article is put up, then there is something wrong with our process. I can't see the old one, but if this version does not address the issues raised in AFD #3, then it should be speedied via a liberal interpretation of G4, and (again, echoing Kevin) NBeale should head to DRV. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I supported the original article, but this restoration is far from acceptable. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:N and no sources. MiRroar (talk) 22:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed that it shows the (marginal) notability even less well. It therefore certainly does not answer the objections. I !voted weak keep last time, but if consensus has changed it will take a much stronger article than this to show it. I can't really say it would be a good idea to go to DRV until that is written in user space. What would help best, of course, is if the subject did something unequivocally notable, like authored a really significant book which had reviews to show its importance. DGG ( talk ) 22:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is clear that the subject is a good person with some supporters who want to place an article here. However, there are no secondary sources that indicate notability and the requirements of WP:BIO are not met. There are many people who have written a few minor books and articles, and who belong to various organizations. That's why we have notability guidelines. Johnuniq (talk) 22:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article about a non-notable individual. Also a lack reliable sources. Crafty (talk) 22:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suite Chic[edit]

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

Untouched since late July of this year. I don't think this article is enough to meet notability guidelines. It has been tagged appropriately. Thoughts? ★Dasani★ 21:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meets WP:BAND C2 by having a charted album, and arguably C6 by having two otherwise notable members = keep. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Quasirandom's argument above. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it clearly meets WP:BAND. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 23:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it passes WP:BAND. It has a charted album. Gosox5555 (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per QuasiRandom. Meets WP:BAND.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment? I am sure it's going to stay right here. I don't have enough experience with Asian bands, but if they really did make a couple chart toppers in music and Namie was in it, then so be it. Someone come and close this. ★Dasani★ 20:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 23:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malsution[edit]

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

Shouldn't this belong in the wiktionary? Btilm 20:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam. If it were a real word, then yes it would belong on Wiktionary. However, there are no Google books or groups hits, and the only web hits are Wikipedia. Every instance of the word in the "article" is an external link to a non-notable website that simply frames episodes of a you tube-hosted home-produced series of videos (I guess it's meant to be a sitcom or something like that, but I didn't actually watch the video). Thryduulf (talk) 22:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Btilm (talk • contribs) 21:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Neologism -Drdisque (talk) 19:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the Speedy deletion policy specifically excludes neologisms. Intelligentsium^review 23:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a non-notable, unencyclopaedic neologism and possibly self-promotion. Intelligentsium^review 23:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arguments asserting that the subject matter is notable do not provide adequate evidence to support such claims. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Burr Ridge Village Center[edit]

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

Non-notable shopping center, almost entirely a list of stores at the mall which is not allowed. Flowery tone, no sources given, no sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not Notable. --WngLdr34 (talk) 18:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an assembly of notable stores and it seems to fit in with the other centers at ((Chicagomalls)).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So basically WP:OSE, right? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It just seems that shopping centers like these have passed notability.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A7 - this article about an organisation does not assert its notability. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No attempt to establish any form of notability. Could be a speedy as spam! If closed as a delete, remove the link from the template! Vegaswikian (talk) 22:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 20:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – if it was notable, there would be some substance to it, rather than just a semi-sourced and semi-relevant list of clients. ╟─Treasury Tag►Speaker─╢ 20:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable structure, "flowery tone" is irrelevant to AFD -Drdisque (talk) 19:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arrow (symbol)[edit]

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

Per the rationale in my PROD-tag, which was deleted by what appears to be a single-purpose account. ╟─Treasury Tag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 20:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs work, not deletion. Simonm223 (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's part of a family of articles that links from Unicode. I agree that it needs a lot of work though. --Northernhenge (talk) 14:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I use it regularly in my work. It is very practical to keep an article about "Unicode arrows" (maybe the article can be renamed accordingly). Many scientific forums lack Mediawiki support, moreover, they even lack any sophisticated mathematical typesetting facilities (Stackoverflow, SG, maybe even Physorg), and I usually bypass their typesetting restrictions by copying mathematical Unicode symbols directly from Wikipedia's Unicode symbols article series. For an example, I compare it to Unicode mathematical operators, also it has deserved being worth of being a standalone article. Typesetting combinatory logic, mathematical logic and abstract algebra needs a lot of sophisticated signs. As for arrow examples, in lambda calculus, reduction and conversion rules all need specific arrow or relation symbols. It is worth of maintining an easily available source, it is very practical in everyday work. Physis (talk) 09:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to University of Calcutta. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Applied Physics, University of Calcutta[edit]

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

As with the other department, I think we are now asking for a world-class standard (I'm not sure I would want to quantify it as top 5 or 10 whatever, but that's about what I think we usually in mind). I don't think there is any evidence for this--The University as a whole is not in any of the world lists discussed at College and university rankings, & within India seems to rank #8 according to it's own web site [1] On this Asian list it's only no.110. As for the subject field, I can not find it highly ranked on any India Engineering list. The previous AfD was several years afd as part of the Dept. of Law AfD. DGG ( talk ) 20:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is no evidence in the article as written that this department is notable -from alumni, discoveries, etc. Bearian (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the first three sentences of the lead to University of Calcutta#Faculties where it is not yet mentioned. TerriersFan (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 22:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have carried out the merge of the essentials. Looking at the University article the university is so big that it would support a Faculties of the University of Calcutta page that would enable justice to be done to this aspect of the subject. TerriersFan (talk) 22:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the subject is big; the article is under-developed and not yet too long as university articles go. That section should be expanded to list all the departments, and say something about them, and then perhaps moved to a separate page. DGG ( talk ) 02:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 22:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with University of Calcutta, unless notability is established. utcursch | talk 19:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per TerriersFan. JohnWBarber (talk) 23:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to University of Calcutta. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Law, University of Calcutta[edit]

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

I think that we now are essentially asking for a level of notability that corresponds to being one of the leading departments in the world in the subject, and I don't think this is demonstrated. The University as a whole is not in any of the world lists discussed at College and university rankings. On this Asian list it's only no.110 & within India seems to rank #8 according to it's own web site [2]As for the subject field, On the India Today list [3] it's not one of the top 10 nor can I find it highly ranked on any other Indian list. The previous AfD was several years ago, [4] DGG ( talk ) 20:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to University of Calcutta#Faculties. There is historic information in the lead that should not be lost. We also have five affiliated law colleges that might each be individually notable that are worth a mention. TerriersFan (talk) 21:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 22:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 22:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with University of Calcutta, unless notability is established. utcursch | talk 19:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge--since DGG's searching suggests no independent notability for the topic--but it is a plausible redirect (if not an elegant one) and there is indeed history worth preserving, it seems to me. Drmies (talk) 19:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with University of Calcutta. JohnWBarber (talk) 23:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No argument for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 09:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Legion[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE. Still in school, so he hasn't played professionally. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he is competing at the highest level of amatuer basketball in the United States. --Dincher (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Playing for an NCAA Division I team in any sport is not inherently notable. WP:ATHLETE was changed in order to close out the argument that "the highest amateur level of a sport" means that all college athletes are entitled to their own articles. Otherwise, we'd have tons of articles about all the players on a particular team (in this case, its Illinois, but I would say the same about Kentucky and North Carolina as well). The phrase "usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships" was added to close whatever loophole might be inferred. In this case, there's an article called 2009-10 Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball team where all of the player bio stuff can be put. Mandsford (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amatuer basketball not longer participate in the Olympics or World Championships. Those events are now for pros. Dincher (talk) 21:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Falls afoul of WP:ATHLETE. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Change !vote to keep per findings. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject has significant third party coverage. -Drdisque (talk) 19:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From whom? I'd expect it in Illinois and Kentucky, but anywhere else? Mandsford (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[5] , ranked 10th best player at his position out of High School, USA Today good enough for you?,

Why, yes. Yes, it is. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good enough. I'm not against Alex Legion demonstrating notability in the usual way, and he has gotten notice on ESPN, USA Today, an other outside sources, by being a heavily-recruited guard who has jumped from one program to the next (Michigan, Kentucky, Illinois), and even his momma seems to get some opportunity-press herself. What I am against is the silly idea that we should host a different fansite for each player on a particular team. I can think of lots of people, like heart surgeons and test pilots, who do something more important than play basketball, but they don't get inherent notability either. Mandsford (talk) 12:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But, nobody pays big bucks to watch surgeons and pilots do there thing. I do get your point. Dincher (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I am unconvinced by the arguments that he might pass WP:ATHLETE. Kevin (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trent Meacham[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE. No assertion that he plays professionally. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 20:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he is competing at the highest level of amatuer basketball in the United States. --Dincher (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Playing for an NCAA Division I team in any sport is not inherently notable. WP:ATHLETE was changed in order to close out the argument that "the highest amateur level of a sport" means that all college athletes are entitled to their own articles. Otherwise, we'd have tons of articles about all the players on a particular team (in this case, its Illinois, but I would say the same about Kentucky and North Carolina as well). The phrase "usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships" was added to close whatever loophole might be inferred. In this case, there's an article called 2009-10 Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball team where all of the player bio stuff can be put. Mandsford (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amatuer basketball not longer participate in the Olympics or World Championships. Those events are now for pros. Dincher (talk) 21:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case we have to use our judgement to decide whether playing college basketball is equivalent to having played basketball at the Olympics or World Championships when amateurs did so, or whether it is equivalent to competing at that level now in sports where amateurs do take part. The answer looks pretty obvious to me, but I've been flamed before for pointing out the American exceptionalism involved in claiming that North American college athletes are automatically notable, so maybe my opinion doesn't reflect consensus. Would we for a second consider giving an automatic notability pass to college athletes in China or Russia? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Falls afoul of WP:ATHLETE. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A foul? If Meacham gets four more of those, he has to leave the game! Mandsford (talk) 23:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite punny of you, Mandsford! =) --71.227.178.136 (talk) 22:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant third party coverage. The change in WP:ATHLETE was likely meant to mean that small college players who came off the bench were not automatically granted articles. Meacham is a starter for a major program. -Drdisque (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If some sources can be cited to show significant coverage (such as an article about Meacham in SI, or at least the press outside of Fighting Illini Country, and I haven't seen any), then he would qualify under WP:N. As far as what the changes in WP:ATHLETE were intended to accomplish, there were long discussions about it Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)/Archive 2009, and although there are some who feel that WP:ATHLETE should be written to make exceptions for starters or major college programs, there haven't been additional changes. Considering all the persons who have ever started an NCAA Division I college basketball game, even that type of rule would result in a lot of articles created by fans. Wikipedia sets a really low bar for sports and entertainment articles anyway, so every season of every college program gets its own article and any fan can create their own personal game program within the space limits. We don't need to go even lower. Mandsford (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Misses the WP:ATHLETE sieve, and does not appear to have received independent in depth coverage in any other arena. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - what 2/0 said. JohnWBarber (talk) 23:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE. Highest amateur competition in basketball would at the very least by an international competition such as the Olympics. Grsz¹¹ 04:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The main argument for deletion is incorrect. Meacham has graduated from college, and is now playing professionally in Austria: [6], [7]. Austria isn't exactly a basketball hotspot, but it's something. I've also added a couple of refs pertaining to his college career. Zagalejo^^^ 08:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Funny how sometimes it takes a trip to AFD before anyone can be arsed to find any sources. Come on, people, let's stop letting articles rot forever and a day. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FanFiction.Net[edit]

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

Tagged for primary sources since 12/07 with obviously nobody giving a rip. Only secondary sources are trivial mentions. The only non-trivial source I could find after weeding through Google News was this, and I don't think it's enough to build an article on. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per this, this, this, and ~~this~~. Joe Chill (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you the first and third, but the second is a one sentence mention, and the fourth is a school newspaper. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The second one isn't a one sentence mention. Go to the page and scroll down. Read "and in 1998, FanFiction.net was created" to "favorite work or offer reviews to other authors". Joe Chill (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I also found this. Joe Chill (talk) 21:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: in addition to the sources mentioned by Joe Chill, at least two of which appear to be substantial, a little Googling also finds this and this. Scog (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The first source is trivial, but the second one isn't. Joe Chill (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found; needs work. COI alert: I have published fan fiction, but not on this website. Bearian (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, what Bearian said. COI note here - I too have written fanfic, but not here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep top 850 worldwide/near top-500 US site ranking according to Alexa and one of the largest sites of its type around. I do have stories published on the site but regard it more as a necessary evil to get my work out to a wide audience and otherwise feel neutral about it. Nate • (chatter) 23:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Jordan[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE. Never played professionally. Notability is not inherited. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 20:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he is competing at the highest level of amatuer basketball in the United States. --Dincher (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although being the son of Michael Jordan might make Jeffrey Jordan more noticed than his fellow Illini players by the national press, and perhaps qualify him under WP:ROYALTY (that's a joke, crown-sniffers), playing for an NCAA Division I team in any sport is not inherently notable. WP:ATHLETE was changed in order to close out the argument that "the highest amateur level of a sport" means that all college athletes are entitled to their own articles. Otherwise, we'd have tons of articles about all the players on a particular team (in this case, its Illinois, but I would say the same about Kentucky and North Carolina as well). The phrase "usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships" was added to close whatever loophole might be inferred. In this case, there's an article called 2009-10 Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball team where all of the player bio stuff can be put, and mention can be made in Michael Jordan as well. I think that the press is more likely to let Jeffrey make his own accomplishments, without constantly reminding everyone who his father is, and I think a merger is preferable to an article. Mandsford (talk) 21:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amatuer basketball not longer participate in the Olympics or World Championships. Those events are now for pros. Dincher (talk) 22:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge/Redirect~~ - He does not even play collegiate basketball anymore. His article had potential when he was still playing and receiving media coverage, now the article cannot really grow. It would be best to merge it into Michael Jordan Legacy section. -- StarScream1007 ►Talk 22:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If he makes a comeback and continues to compete then there is much room for expansion. -- StarScream1007 ►Talk 17:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is not a notable college student. There are many college offspring of notable people. As a college basketball player, he was of sufficient notability not to delete his page. Unless he is going to play in college with the possibility of professional play, he does not pass WP:N.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Waivering If he comesback, I vote keep.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think the proper thing to do is keep the page and if he is not on the roster next month renominate this page for deletion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or create a Family of Michael Jordan article and merge this there. Jeff Jordan was the primary subject of dozens of newspaper articles, [8] beginning when he was in high school, so there's no shortage of information available. I'm well aware of WP:NOTINHERITED, but when we're talking about a clearly important figure like Michael Jordan, I think it's fine to provide some information on his close relatives, as long as such information is available. People are interested in this stuff; this article got 18429 hits last month alone. Zagalejo^^^ 02:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jordan played for a major program and has been extensively covered by third party media. -Drdisque (talk) 20:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Jordan is talking to coaches about coming back to basketball. ESPN external link. Paradox society (review) 16:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 23:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Hearn[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATH and WP:GNG. Not played in fully professional league Steve-Ho (talk) 20:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Steve-Ho (talk) 04:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 21:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable player, fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --Carioca (talk) 23:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 23:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Roberts (footballer)[edit]

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

Football player fails WP:ATHLETE as he has not played at a fully-professional level. Also fails WP:GNG due to no significant third party coverage on his exploits as a player. --Jimbo^[online] 20:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed; the Conference isn't fully professional and he apparently never made a full appearance at Forest. Gonzonoir (talk) 20:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails both WP:ATH and WP:GNG Steve-Ho (talk) 21:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 21:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This would be analogous to a "rookie league" player in organized baseball, not even single-A. Mandsford (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Once he goes pro and makes the field, we can have an article. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 02:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom Spiderone 13:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable player, fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --Carioca (talk) 23:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - is this grounds for WP:SNOW yet? --71.227.178.136 (talk) 22:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Nom. I don't think it's a total snowball effect as he is only 22 and still has plenty of time to make it back up the league ladder!! Govvy (talk) 00:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and transwiki. Master of Puppets 13:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Household seismic safety[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Purely how-to content with no encyclopedic information worth keeping and completely unsourced. Previous AfD had no consensus, and I don't think a rewrite will do too much to help it (nobody has bothered in the past few months anyway), as the core info of the article is in itself how-to advice. It may look like something that can be tweaked to form a decent article, but look closely; there's almost nothing that isn't related to "do this, do that" in some way! GraYoshi2x►^talk 20:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A how to guide. Joe Chill (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - currently a mess, but it could be re-written away from the "how-to" format. I'd like to see a greater community discussion on this AfD. Bearian (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I see nothing salvageable other than a few sentences in the "introduction" section. GraYoshi2x►^talk 22:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to WikiHow, if we can manage it. If not, then delete it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that WikiHow is unrelated in any way, shape, or form (except for the MediaWiki software) to the Wikimedia Foundation, so although it technically can be done, it would have to follow their policies and the page would have to be reformatted to fit their layout. And judging from my quick overview of the policies there, it's iffy that this one will stay there without getting nominated for deletion again. GraYoshi2x►^talk 22:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wikibooks is a Wikimedia Foundation project that takes how-tos. See b:Wikibooks:How-tos bookshelf, and a transwiki there may be appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 21:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete/Transwiki - This is a notable topic, which I think deserves a place in Wikipedia, but not in the form of a how-to guide. Transwiki if possible. Hell, you could always copy-paste the thing, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 16:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Copy and paste is not the correct way to transwiki a page as it does not preserve the edit history. See m:Help:Transwiki for how it is properly done. Thryduulf (talk) 17:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Simple really, it has to go. I don't care what happens to it once it leaves Wikipedia, but it doesn't belong here. Nezzadar (speak) 23:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JohnWBarber (talk) 23:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikibooks As Thryduulf explained, Wikibooks is better suited for guides. If Wikibooks can't take it (and why wouldn't they), delete. --an odd name 04:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

transwiki to wikibooks it is a how to, that is where how tos go UltraMagnus^speak 12:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i think it's very useful. please don't delete. a "how to" has a place in an encyclopedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.177.91.161 (talk)
- The preceding comment was copied from the talk page by Thryduulf (talk) 15:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, however it has a sister project catering for how to articles, called wikibooks, it belongs there --UltraMagnus^speak 17:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic is certainly encyclopedic and deserving of a separate article. The article of course has to be pruned to remove content that is either unsourced or not in accordance with the WP:NOTHOWTO policy. Bear in mind, that this topic is intrinsically a "how to topic" and the line between encyclopedic coverage of the subject and "how to" can be hard to decipher. --Pink Bull (talk) 19:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if the article is kept, it should be copied to wikibooks in its current state before being pruned UltraMagnus^speak 20:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not encyclopedic content; not up to WikiBooks standards. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/transwiki to wikibooks would require too great a rewrite to be encyclopedic rather than how-to Sanguis Sanies (talk) 11:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tim Song (talk) 09:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shea Campbell[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATH - Irish league not fully professional Steve-Ho (talk) 19:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Steve-Ho (talk) 04:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 21:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've added a better infobox & some sources, now looks good enough to meet WP:GNG to me. Giant Snowman 11:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per WP:GNG - see example here, here and here.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has played in a top-level league in Europe Eldumpo (talk) 13:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think I'll !vote in this one instead of closing. Subject likely fails WP:ATHLETE as it's currently written but the added sources seem to show that he meets WP:GNG.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No consensus to delete. The issue of renaming can continue on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Global warming in Japan[edit]

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

We have global warming. Why do we need "...in Japan"? There is nothing particularly special about Japan. If we have this, we'll have 200-odd in-this-country pages. William M. Connolley (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Environmental_issues_in_Japan, cutting out the non-specific parts. Gigs (talk) 20:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know it's WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but see Category:Climate change by country. -Atmoz (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are next on the list if this works :-). Is there a WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST? Where is "climate change in Brunei? etc etc William M. Connolley (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With the new political leadership in Japan, global warming has become a highly discussed topic in the Japanese media. The new government wants to impose a dramatic requirement for a reduction of "greenhouse" gasses, and Japanese industry is protesting the burden that will place on them. Also, if global warming really is true, as an island nation Japan would be seriously threatened by rising sea levels. I think an argument could be made to have a separate article on the issue, as long as it's more than three or four paragraphs long and well-cited. Cla68 (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as there are good references used in the article, and it could likely be expanded. Lack of similar articles for any/every other country out there doesn't preclude having one for Japan if there are sources to back it up. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'd !vote keep if there were any sources evident that addressed global warming specifically with respect to Japan, instead of global warming in general as they currently do. In this case, I have no compunction asking those who want to keep it to do the research and demonstrate notability. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per User:William M. Connolley. This is a global issue. I don't see how this affects Japan more or less than any other country. This should just be a re-direct page to Environmental_issues_in_Japan.--Baina90 (talk) 22:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Practically everything I've ever read about AGW indicates that impacts "will probably be distributed unevenly". Some parts of the globe may become wetter, drier, or may experience changes in the intensity of precipitation...". Therefore, while the global warming article gives good information about the overall issue, the Japan article is of value because it provides more detailed information specific to that country. Of course, it needs to be expanded, but so do a lot of wikipedia articles. Overall, I think all the Climate Change by country articles are valuable. Some people want to know what's happening in their own country mitigation wise, or how climate change might effect them personally.--CurtisSwain (talk) 00:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - well-referenced article, and as CurtisSwain notes, the article does indeed have great value. ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 00:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources to use for expanding the article: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. I don't have time to expand it right now, but might in a couple of days if the article is still (hopefully) around. Also, just a suggestion to WMC, before nominating these kinds of articles for deletion, I suggest leaving a note on the discussion page at the different nation's wikiprojects to allow the project participants to try to fix any hard issues with the articles first. Cla68 (talk) 01:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Global warming is global. That's why we call it "global" warming. If this will be kept, it should at least be renamed to "Climate change in Japan" or something that actually makes sense. Gigs (talk) 01:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, there are some notable scientists who believe that warming is local, not global. The use of the word "global" is controversial, and may be one of the reasons why "climate change" is becoming the preferred title for the topic. If this article is changed to "Climate change in Japan", then all of the articles with "global warming" in the name may need to be retitled also. Cla68 (talk) 01:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd support Climate change in Japan as an alternate title for this article. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. the name is somewhat oxymoronic. you cant have global warming in japan, as its global, only effects in japan from global warming.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given Cla68's references (and not based on what's currently in the article). No strong opinion on the proposed name change, but it sounds reasonable. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and retitle if needed, but the issue of the effects, politics, etc. of global warming in Japan is a valid sub-article topic per WP:SS. Similarly, we have both Abortion and Abortion in Japan, etc. Sandstein 19:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though we should probably leave the general material at Regional effects of global warming and focus this article on the climate change mitigation strategies adopted by the government and the society. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Scannell[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATH as Irish league not fully professional Steve-Ho (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Steve-Ho (talk) 04:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable as Ulster Footballer of the Year 2009. Also he will be mentioned in numerous secondary sources - football reports, articles, etc. Mooretwin (talk) 09:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mooretwin -Drdisque (talk) 20:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a combination of being Football of the Year, top goalscorer in his league (albeit it a semi-pro one) and the fact he is one of his club's all time top goalscorers (with over 100 goals) is enough to show sporting notability for this player. Giant Snowman 21:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - simple.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per [16]. I just wish that the "usual suspects" from WikiProject Football would judge notability of footballers from outside the United Kingdom in the same way, rather than the silliness we get about excluding players in their countries' top leagues based on the irrelevance that a few players in the league don't get a full-time wage. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment usual suspects such as me? Who has the same opinion as you on this player? Giant Snowman 22:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, just because you're a "usual suspect" it doesn't mean that I don't agree with you on this case :) Phil Bridger (talk) 22:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator and there's a consensus that the subject meets WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conor Downey[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATH as Irish league not fully professional Steve-Ho (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Steve-Ho (talk) 04:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He will be mentioned in numerous secondary sources - football reports, articles, etc Mooretwin (talk) 09:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - he will be mentioned or he is mentioned? Quite an important difference there! Giant Snowman 21:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:GNG.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - fails WP:ATHLETE but meets WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 21:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not will be mentioned but has been mentioned in these 335 sources, including, in the first 30 that I checked, these where he is the focus of the articles: [17][18][19][20][21]. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has played in notable top-level league Eldumpo (talk) 12:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Likely hoax. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protect America Institute[edit]

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

This seems to be a hoax. There are only 5 Google hits for the term "Protect America Institute." Also, it seems that all of the editors involved are new editors, including the one(s) trying to say that this is a hoax but not knowing Wikipedia tags or deletion processes. Additional false information/BLP concerns connected to this hoax are suspected. Abductive (reasoning) 19:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable. Regardless of whether this is a hoax or something that just hasn't received coverage, the article is fails Wikipedia's fundamental policy of verifiability. Note that information about the Protect America Institute was also added here, but I have reverted it out as the offered source does not mention any institute named Protect America Institute. -- Whpq (talk) 20:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nome and Whpq. JohnWBarber (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Subject most likely fails WP:ATHLETE as it's currently written but there is a weak consensus that he passes WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Johnston (footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATH as Irish league isn't fully professional Steve-Ho (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Steve-Ho (talk) 04:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He will be mentioned in numerous secondary sources - football reports, articles, etc Mooretwin (talk) 09:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, football reports and general articles fail WP:NTEMP. The sources need to be in depth about the player specifically. --Jimbo^[online] 16:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Mooretwin may mention "numerous secondary sources", but he has failed to provide any which are of substantial quality to meet general notability guidelines; what is there at the minute is nothing but run-of-the-mill match reports and transfer news - which fails WP:NTEMP. Giant Snowman 14:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, you mean like Clancy McDermott? the mind bloggles!--Vintagekits (talk) 21:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The mind boggles indeed; I fail to see your point. Giant Snowman 21:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you would - you and divs at the Footy Cabal and yer pick and mix approach to football notability.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now now VK, remain civil please! Giant Snowman 21:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've had a second look at the article and I see he's won the IFA Cup; I suppose that's enough to give him sporting notablity. Giant Snowman 11:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question If you want to delete this one, shouldn't you also nominate the whole squad, all the others who haven't played for a pro club? Govvy (talk) 14:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plays at the highest level in Irish soccer. BigDunc 16:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - and where does WP:ATHLETE say that "highest level" football is enough? If that was the case, we should have articles on players from Monserrat, Vatican City, Somalia, Guam etc. Giant Snowman 16:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATHLETE is fundamentally flawed. BigDunc 16:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Says you...the wider WikiCommunity obviously disagrees, seeing as it remains a valid and standard guideline. Giant Snowman 16:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, Guideline not policy and it doesn't take into consideration players playing at the highest level of Irish soccer. Your argument above about teams from Somalia and Vatican City doesn't hold weight. BigDunc 16:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Policy" and "guideline" is nothing but semantics - WP:ATHLETE says "This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow." Giant Snowman 16:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per WP:GNG see here and because he is playing in the top division in Ireland which is notable per Jason Molloy AfD.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, the player will have received some notability from playing in the League of Ireland. The article needs to be improved, not deleted. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The highest level of soccer in Ireland may not technically meet the "fully professional" criteria of WP:ATH, but I think Ireland is a lot closer to such criteria than it is to the leagues in "Monserrat, Vatican City, Somalia or Guam", and is close enough to warrant inclusion. Rlendog (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has played at the highest level of football In Ireland. Eldumpo (talk) 12:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here we go again the pedants at work. There are over 1300 LOI players. He is playing at the highest level in Ireland. Change your guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.198.140.206 (talk) 16:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sort of weak keep, but given the discrepancy in the sources we'll default to keep for now. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Docker[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATH but may pass under WP:GNG as called up for Pakistani national team (but hasn't played as far as I can see) but thought it was worth a debate Steve-Ho (talk) 19:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Steve-Ho (talk) 04:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely fails WP:ATHLETE and merely being called up to the national squad without playing doesn't really count for anything. Only possible keeper would be general coverage in sources. There seem to be two sources listed in the refs, so I guess extremely weak keep -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep through WP:GNG - more sources include this, this and this. Also, a google search of "Adam Karim Pakistan" brings up a few YouTube videos which claims that Docker/Karim (he uses the former for club football, the latter for international) played for Pakistan against Iraq in October 2007. Giant Snowman 21:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG. Though I'm a little confused about this Iraq game: the FIFA report, which ought to be definitive, has him on the bench but not coming off it (assuming he is the player called Adam Luke Karim), but this piece on the UEFA site has him making his debut and quoted as saying he thought he did OK... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Heenan[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATH and WP:GNG Steve-Ho (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Steve-Ho (talk) 04:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 21:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable player, fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --Carioca (talk) 23:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hasn't achieved anything notable in football Spiderone 11:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Johnston (footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATH Steve-Ho (talk) 19:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I disagree about the WP:ATH assessment. The Welsh Premier League appears to be a fully professional league, and notability is not temporary. Gosox5555 (talk) 23:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Steve-Ho (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues page suggests the Welsh Premier League is not fully professional BTW. Steve-Ho (talk) 04:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Welsh Premier League is most definitely not fully professional, per this it has only one full-time club, all others are part-timers. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 15:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per ChrisTheDude, GiantSnowman and WP:ATHLETE. Eddie6705 (talk) 16:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I haven't yet looked for sources, but would point out that the Welsh Premier League, as well as not meeting what I consider to be the invalid guideline of being a fully professional league, doesn't meet the criterion that I would prefer of being a top level league in a country with a significant footballing tradition, as the top Welsh clubs play in the English league system. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable player, fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --Carioca (talk) 23:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATH Spiderone 17:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The WPL is fully professional and is regulated by the FA, thus it passes WP:ATH IJA (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Erm, I linked to an article above from the league's own website, which clearly states that there is only one fully professional club in the league and the rest are all part-timers. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 author request (G7). JamieS93 21:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Currency (film)[edit]

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

The creator contested the prod. All that I can find for this is IMDB. Joe Chill (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna go with a tentative keep here. The film appears to be in post production per IMDB (yes, I know), which tells me it has a release date, but there's not much more on here. Leave it here and fix for now. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep this article active for at least the next few months while new data rolls in. Film festival URLs, press and official website are forthcoming. It will save me the trouble of having to add again after deletion. Thank you for considering. Rosierbrad (talk) 01:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't have trouble with that when the current article is a sentence long. You should have waited to create the article when there was enough sources. Joe Chill (talk) 01:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 02:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. Go ahead and delete it if that's the policy, Joe. I'll just repost when it's more relevant in a few months. Sorry, I'm a newbie. Thanks. Rosierbrad (talk) 03:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Also, another quick question if you have time to respond, Joe. How do I post the article Currency (film) so that it appears in the disambiguation section of the term "currency". Like now, it says Currency (album), etc. Does that make sense? Do you know how I'd go about doing that? Thank you. Rosierbrad (talk) 03:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and Brad should steer clear of making an article for his own film. If it is in post then once released it will get coverage and the article will follow, and the EL are mainly to Brad or the film's pages. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NFF which states "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles." I was unable to find any realiable sources attesting this film's principal photography commencement. Furthermore, had principal photography been confirmed via reliable sources, guidelines still state that unreleased films "should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." I have no prejudice towards recreation of this article if and when principal photography can be confirmed and the notability criteria are met. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Sorry for any trouble. I'll let someone else post it once it becomes relevant. Rosierbrad (talk) 14:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No trouble at all, Brad! These things can be a good learning experience to be used if and when you decide to contribute to this project. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of editors here, same as yourself, started editing before they were familiar with the policies and guidelines that guide this project's development. The main thing is to stay civil and have an open mind to easily comprehend what we're all about. You've managed to do this well. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 13:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pentaho[edit]

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

Spammy article about apparently non-notable software organization Orange Mike | Talk 16:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Was useful to me. -- 128.138.149.172 (talk) 00:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:ILIKEIT --Cybercobra (talk) 01:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 02:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Here is coverage: http://www.internetnews.com/software/article.php/3813671 User:David_Wallace_Croft
- response - One article does not constitute significant coverage. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:17, 3 October 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 17:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While article is overly congratulatory, Pentaho's somewhat more than "non-notable". http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/173105/lucideras_bi_tech_finds_new_home_at_pentaho.html Bill Paulson —Preceding undated comment added 18:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC). — billpaulson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Meets none of the WP:ORG criteria. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Found a few good GNews hits: [22] [23] [24] [25] --Cybercobra (talk) 02:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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: G3 as hoax. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Pritchett[edit]

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

Appears to be a hoax article. The information is duplicated from the Ben Jackson (electronic sports player) article. No results on Google. The leftorium 17:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 19:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax Dincher (talk) 20:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 13:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of narrative forms[edit]

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

Original research Shadowjams (talk) 08:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:HEY with the editing that happened subsequent to my previous vote. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC) Delete Also runs afoul of DICDEF at present. --Cybercobra (talk) 12:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is pretty much original research and I could cite it, but if the author won't even bother delete it and make another article. Its sad, I like this sort of thing. --WngLdr34 (talk) 13:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete. OR. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR (unsourced original research). It has a secondary problem in that "narrative forms" isn't a clearly defined term so any purported list of narrative forms can never be either (a) conclusive or (b) verifiable. - DustFormsWords (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. The introduction to A theory of narrative by F. K. Stanzel (ISBN 9780521310635) discusses the precise topic of listing and classifying narrative forms - and that's just page 1 of the first book that I've looked at in researching this. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then that information needs to be in the article; at the moment it cites that source but doesn't make any claim to be using a definition from it, or from any other source, for that matter. (I say that as statement, not criticism - thanks for checking out a book I don't have personal access to.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Like many of our other lists, the linked articles serve to explain themselves. I believe it's adequately sourced and a valid article. • Anakin ^(talk) 04:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but it could use some expansion and further sourcing. I added a source to the article which shows that the subject of the list has been reproduced and commented-upon in reliable sources. This source contains many of the terms in the list which takes away the original research argument. "Narrative forms" in itself isn't a contentious definition so there shouldn't be issues with defining what may or may not be a narrative form. Lastly, this is obviously beyond a dictionary definition as it contains much more than a basic definition, it is an encyclopedic investigation into the subject. A dictionary definition would be thrown back at the subject, such as "A list of narrative forms is a list containing only narrative forms", not "this is a list of narrative forms: form 1, form 2, etc. Them From Space 05:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relist comment: A source was ~~(finally)~~ added to the article at 05:08, 1 October 2009. More comment is required. Sandstein 17:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For the sake of completeness I would like to clarify that a source was added at 21:56 on 30 September, the day after this discussion was started - and that source does more than the usual sources about the underlying topic that we get for lists, in that it is about the specific topic of listing narrative forms. I don't understand why this merits a paranthetical "finally". Phil Bridger (talk) 19:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right, sorry. There was a prior ref for the claim about the 50s being the Linnean period for this sort of classification. Sandstein 08:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems like an acceptable navigational list, personally I prefer navigational templates (like Template:Fiction writing) but others find them useful. Guest9999 (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, OR concerns are non-existent: the entries'descriptions are simply summaries of the linked article's contents. It is more than valid and useful for navigation. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 18:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sole Soul (talk) 09:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looks good now. Abductive (reasoning) 03:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley Charitable Foundation[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. The Wesley Charitable Foundation has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The leftorium 16:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, no assertion of notablity. WuhWuzDat 17:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[Please use this Policy to use to keep from deletion]

The secondary sources prove its existence and this foundation is solid and in my opinion it adds value and substance to Wikipedia as a whole and does indeed improve it.

~~Speedy~~ delete: ~~Copyright violation: [26]~~ per nom--TParis00ap (talk) 17:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think this is a copyvio, as it appears the information has been released under the CC-By-SA license ([27]). The leftorium 17:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Got it, thanks. Page is blocked from work but I google cached it.--TParis00ap (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Not notable. Sources have to prove more than mere existence. Hairhorn (talk) 18:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Does not meet the requirements set out at WP:ORG. While I am sure that the Wesley Charitable Foundation does very good things in the community, Wikipedia is not the place to promote it. This Foundation is simply not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Google News has no hits, Google only gives us a few hits (the orgs own website, and a bunch of charity look up sites ... nothing that gives any detail). Perhaps in time it will qualify, and the article can be re-created, but not now. Blueboar (talk) 21:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this organization. Joe Chill (talk) 23:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: nonnotable. - Altenmann >t 23:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No assertion of notability -Drdisque (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 23:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Man Moment[edit]

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

Neoloigsm. Unreferenced and not notable. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 16:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree, uncyclopedic. Declan Clam (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even calling it "original research" would be too charitable. Favonian (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 01:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete obvious neologism, maybe upload that picture on the left to Uncyclopedia. -Drdisque (talk) 20:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everything said above. Man oh man, it's certainly not momentous enough. JohnWBarber (talk) 23:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 23:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Global Domination (single)[edit]

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

No assertion of notability at all, unreferenced. Song did not chart, has no reviews. This one shouldn't take long. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As nominator. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢
Delete Not individually notable as a song, unlikely redirect term. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this song. Joe Chill (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication this song is notable.Simonm223 (talk) 21:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although a vote-count would suggest that consensus is in favor of deletion, many of the arguments for removal are very weak or even non-existent. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

South Moluccas national football team[edit]

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

Lacking notability, fails WP:V, all the news coverage are NF-Board statistics. Hammersfan, 04/10/09 19.54 BST

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Hammersfan (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Hammersfan (talk) 16:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Might be a good idea to adopt an all-or-none policy with these teams Template:NF-Board teams. Most articles seem to exist quite happily, though West Papua national football team is currently nominated for speedy deletion. Google does turn up bits and pieces of "coverage". Declan Clam (talk) 20:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd be happy to keep this article, and the West Papua one, if there was some degree of consistency. However, I recently wrote an article, properly referenced so there was no danger of it failing on those grounds, on the team representing the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, and that was deleted on the grounds that it "wasn't notable enough". I raised the issue that these two articles were not up for deletion, but was told that didn't matter as each case should be looked at individually, even though these two seemingly have even less of a case. Hammersfan, 07/10/09, 10.54 BST
Delete- Doesn't seem to be more notable than Chechnya Spiderone 13:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one of many unofficial 'national' teams that have nothing notable about them. Giant Snowman 14:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Govvy (talk) 15:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. NF-board games had had significant media coverage, more than domestic cup competitions in many countries. --SM (talk) 00:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per GiantSnowman. Eddie6705 (talk) 11:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 23:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Klem[edit]

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

Contested prod with the rationale that he is currently a squad member in the Austrian top division. However, this player has not as yet played in a fully-pro competition so fails WP:ATHLETE - Delete as nominator. -- Big Dom 16:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 16:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Steve-Ho (talk) 17:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 02:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom Spiderone 13:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom Govvy (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable player, fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --Carioca (talk) 23:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 23:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Marič[edit]

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

Contested prod with the rationale that he is currently a squad member in the Austrian top division. However, this player has not as yet played in a fully-pro competition so fails WP:ATHLETE - Delete as nominator. -- Big Dom 16:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 16:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Steve-Ho (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 02:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom Spiderone 13:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Govvy (talk) 00:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 23:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammed Ildiz[edit]

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

Contested prod with the rationale that he is currently a squad member in the Austrian top division. However, this player has not as yet played in a fully-pro competition so fails WP:ATHLETE - Delete as nominator. -- Big Dom 16:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 16:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Steve-Ho (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 02:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom Spiderone 13:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Govvy (talk) 00:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 23:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Radlinger[edit]

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

Contested prod with the rationale that he is currently a squad member in the Austrian top division. However, this player has not as yet played in a fully-pro league so fails WP:ATHLETE - Delete as nominator. -- Big Dom 16:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 16:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article fails general notability guideline and this athlete hasn't played a match in a pro league yet. Re-create when and if he does. Jogurney (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Steve-Ho (talk) 17:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 02:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - recreate if he passes guidelines Spiderone 13:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable player, fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --Carioca (talk) 03:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Govvy (talk) 00:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Moskow[edit]

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

Fails coverage guidelines. Based on what the article claims, Moskow could meet the notability guidelines - if any of it could be verified. No IMDb page, no Fashion Model Directory page, no Polish Wiki page, and what news items come up for her name refer instead to a mayor and various students. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 16:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Almost certainly a hoax. Nobody of this name is listed in the cast of the Droga TV series available at filmweb.pl. Her name, as well as names of other supposedly Polish people in the article, don't even sound Polish. "Ekstremalny Elizabeth" is not grammatical Polish either. There was no Polish edition of Cosmopolitan in the 1980s. A hoax, and a bad one at that. — Kpalion^(talk) 19:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Udo Siebenhandl[edit]

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

Contested prod with the rationale that he is currently a squad member in the Austrian top division. This player has played two matches in the Austrian regional leagues, but has not as yet played in a fully-pro league so fails WP:ATHLETE - Delete as nominator. -- Big Dom 16:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 16:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Steve-Ho (talk) 17:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 02:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - recreate if he makes an appearance Spiderone 13:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Govvy (talk) 00:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable player, fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --Carioca (talk) 02:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secular Student Alliance[edit]

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

Non-notable. Only about 2 dozen news articles of limited scope in the last year. Article has been tagged for months for neutrality and references. Seregain (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is a mess. I've chopped a big chunk of copyvio out and the remainder still needs to be reviewed for neutrality. But news articles such as [28], [29], and [30] establish notability through coverage in reliable sources. Note that this sample is plucked from just the first page of results from a Gaoogle News search and would inidcate even more sources are available. -- Whpq (talk) 20:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It would be better if the coverage were more in depth, but it is independent and sufficient. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, substantially identical to a previous page deleted through process; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TechExcel and also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DevPlan. Pages have been protected against re-creation as well. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TechExcel Software[edit]

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

Promotion for non-notable company, article created by single-purpose user. Haakon (talk) 15:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It may be worth noting that article about this company was deleted before. Haakon (talk) 15:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How is a company determined to be Notable? I have added references to the company page. [User:punterberg|punterberg]] (talk) 10:34, 6 October 2009 (PDT)
- See WP:CORP. Haakon (talk) 17:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Does the article at http://triangle.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2009/08/03/smallb1.html not count towards " reliable, independent secondary sources."? punterberg talk
    - It might (note that the coverage has to be "significant"). This source was added after nomination; we will see what consensus forms. Haakon (talk) 17:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have tried to clean up the page and add several more sources. punterberg (talk) 10:56, 6 October 2009 (PDT)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 23:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Family Tree[edit]

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

Content already covered at Solo family and Skywalker family (themselves already cruft-a-licious). Creating user seems to think Wikipedia should be a Wookieepedia mirror. --EEMIV (talk) 15:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject is already covered within wikipedia, and is of questionable notability in any case. Grand Mattster 16:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Also, wasn't this already created and speedied once today? --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait - no it wasn't. It was recreated at Skywalker/solo family tree, which I'm about to turn into a redirect. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, information contained within is rather trivial, no sign of notability whatsoever. Alastairward (talk) 21:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't add anything to the existing articles. Rror (talk) 21:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Already covered, trivial. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given the editor's block and problematic editing, I wonder if this can't just be snowball deleted. --EEMIV (talk) 12:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Adds nothing new. Wikipedia isn't a mirror of Wookiepedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 23:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article speedied Abecedare (talk) 04:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Valley life[edit]

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

Not clear whether this is a web video or available on DVD. Would be spam but no product info given. But in any case utterly non-notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 Also fails WP:NPOV and WP:ADVERT. [Belinrahs | 'sup? | what'd I do?] 17:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7. So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted G11 and salted as has been recreated 4 times. Mfield (Oi!) 16:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regional Information Center for Science and Technology[edit]

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

An Iranian institution. Spammy article created by someone with a COI and deleted three times. Is it notable? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources in article and search results are too meager to demonstrate notability. Favonian (talk) 18:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, what Favonian said. I dn't even know if this is a government institution. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing but a sockfarm article spam.putting in speedy Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 21:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rev.Dr.Cornelius Dwayne Jones[edit]

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

Doesn't meet notability guidelines. Rd232 ^talk 11:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not the subject of coverage by multiple independent sources. Inspirational story, although if the article author, User:Cdjoness, is the same person, I can only quote Proverbs 16:18, "Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall." Mandsford (talk) 13:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing here to satisfy WP:BIO. Titles such as "Dr" are not generally put in article titles. Edison (talk) 13:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 23:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simone (pornographic actress)[edit]

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

No significant coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 08:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Kevin (talk) 09:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and Kevin JohnWBarber (talk) 00:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article and its sourcing have improved greatly since it was nominated. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ze plane! Ze plane![edit]

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

Unreferenced, does not appear to be a notable subject or discussed in reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 08:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article as it currently stands appears as WP: OR and WP: synthesis with no third party sources presented. An article for the plane is also already written at Grumman Widgeon. Don't recommend merging with this article, as would only add trivia details at this point. ♠ B.s.n. ♥R.N.contribs 10:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Grumman Widgeon. Most of it as it stands is uncited Original research.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 10:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, changed my mind. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An (arguably) fascinating story that may or may not be true. Even with sources, I have to wonder about whether a airplane on display is the same one that was used for stock footage on a TV show, or even why I would care. Mandsford (talk) 13:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced but more important I could not find any reliable sources that verify the information. Can not establish that the information is true or notable. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 15:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep much improved and I think it now meets notability guideline. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 00:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Perhaps the plane information is not sourced yet, but I added a bunch about the catchphrase itself. I guess it depends how you feel about internet memes of today's age, but "the plane! the plane!" was a ubiquitous catchphrase of the early 80s, on the level of Where's the beef?--Milowent (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! Keep! - Notable catchphrase, much parodied. Bearian (talk) 21:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this one (again) on account of WP:IAR. The article is a bit WP:COATRACKish, primarily discussing the plane itself, but it's pervaded the culture enough where I feel it can stay. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with Fantasy Island. This is a much parodied and reused catch phrase. If it really doesn't deserve a page of its own, it at least deserves a subsection of mention on the page of the show it originated from. - Shiori (talk) 13:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well-cited, probably notable in its own right. -Drdisque (talk) 20:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet: Editor KTrimble added a photo he/she has taken of the actual plane.--Milowent (talk) 02:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ze article has been sourced and improved substantially since the nomination. Sandstein 19:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monte Vista, Ma On Shan[edit]

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

housing estates in Hong Kong are a dime a dozen, and there is nothing here which indicates how this might be notable. The sources are either directory links or are nnot independent of the subject Ohconfucius (talk) 06:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Rename This article should either be merge into one location with other private estates in Ma On Shan or if we decided to keep it at the current location then it definitely needs to be renamed to Monte Vista (Hong Kong). Tavatar (talk) 20:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename. It is one of the largest private housing estates in Ma On Shan, one of the new towns in Hong Kong. Its existance can be shown in its developer's webpage. http://www.ckh.com.hk/eng/property/completed/residential/monte.html The article may be renamed as Monte Vista (Hong Kong) to show it is from Hong Kong. Maybe seldom non-Hongkongers know where Ma On Shan is. Ricky@36 (talk) 00:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not because it exists or the company that built it also wrote a webpage for it, but because journalists wrote dozens of newspaper articles about it: [31]. Statements like "housing estates in Hong Kong are a dime a dozen" don't actually prove any failure of WP:N or other inclusion criteria. cab (talk) 09:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per cab. There seems to be enough significant coverage for our guidelines. I would advise the nom to employ WP:BEFORE prior to nominating all of these "dime a dozen" Hong Kong estates articles for AfD.--Oakshade (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mechabonica[edit]

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

This toy line doesn't assert notability. TTN (talk) 17:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, non notable line of toys. JBsupreme (talk) 05:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak Delete non notable, no reliable source. Rirunmot 11:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Matrix (series). There seems to be broad support for Sceptre's proposed merger of the other articles as well, but as they were not part of this AfD I have not done so as part of this close. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matrix (fictional universe)[edit]

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

unreferenced, possible original research, reads like an essay written in-universe style. unencyclopedic. Rob Sinden (talk) 12:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Only with a rewrite. I understand the point of the article, but it needs better organization. —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 13:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Matrix (series). Unreferenced, but could potentially be spun out to separate article on production of metaphysics. Probably should not exist separate from Matrix (reality); i.e. no need for separate articles on each, since really they've only garnered significant coverage examining them in juxtaposition. --EEMIV (talk) 15:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A vote for keep and change. The Matrix did create a universe ripe for roleplaying which was used in the Matrix Online game by Sony. http://thematrixonline.station.sony.com/index.vm. People developed their own storylines as evident at the Sony site. Universe-style character-view writing is part of the roleplaying experience. If Wikipedia feels that does not fit then I accept it, but I do argue that to document roleplaying or a fantasy world accurately requires a view from the inside. However the writing is unappealing and I find the Versions part unreadable. Anrawel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.76.45 (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Matrix is important enough to have the break out article. As mentioned above, it could probably be referenced. I's up to the nom to show otherwise, since the criterion for deletion is unreferenceable. DGG ( talk ) 15:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may be important enough to have a breakout article, but is this really the article you mean? I'm not doubting its notability, just that this article isn't very encyclopedic, and is, quite frankly an unreferenced mess. Perhaps what should happen is that elements of this article should be incorporated into The Matrix (franchise) article, until the quality is of a standard to warrant a breakout article. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but merge Matrix (reality) and Mega City (The Matrix) (and possibly also Zion (The Matrix)) into it. And it'll need a big rewrite.
IIRC, this article was originally created to collect all the revelations about the fictional universe's history into one place (and to help prevent such descriptions clogging up the plot summary of The Matrix Reloaded, though of course that article currently has its own issues), and I still think a good article covering that would be a useful thing to have.
However, I've never been sure whether this article should discuss only the virtual reality system the characters plug into, or cover the more general "fictional universe" in which all the stories take place. If we decide it's the latter, perhaps Zion (The Matrix) should also be merged into the article. Again, whatever happens, it'll need to be extensively rewritten...
As for reference sources: it might be acceptable to cite dialogue from the film (and games, and comics) and quote it in a footnote reference, as has been done in the featured video game article Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater#cite_note-17. To quote the policy:

Primary sources ... artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures... Our policy: Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source.

~~Does piecing together the history of a fictional world from statements made in different films count as "interpretation" that would require a secondary source?~~

~~If all that's not possible, I'd prefer the core elements to be moved to The Matrix (franchise), as User:EEMIV and User:Robsinden suggested, rather than deleted entirely.~~--Nick R^Talk 17:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I now agree with User:Sceptre's comment below: condense Matrix (fictional universe), Mega City (The Matrix) and Zion (The Matrix) down to be more concise, and then merge them all into a "setting" section of The Matrix (series). --Nick R^Talk 20:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - essentially completely composed of original research about a fictional subject with no evidence of real-world notability. Redirecting to The Matrix (series) would also be possible, but I don't think this is really a likely search term. Robofish (talk) 23:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 04:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Sjc (talk) 08:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The deletion arguments are flawed (for this reason): non-notability (not policy), WP:NOR (not true), unreferenced (that can be improved, much like the style problems), "unencyclopedic" (vague term). - Draeco (talk) 09:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Related to WP: OR and WP: Synthesis. It does not attempt to establish research by presenting any reliable third party source in an inline citation allowing other editors to verify the information. Do not agrree with merge because of the lack of any sourced material at this time. ♠ B.s.n. ♥R.N.contribs 10:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to collect information for various articles in one place. This is a good time for allowing the notability of various works to spill over into another articles. Other problems are fixable, and this is a good merge target. Nerfari (talk) 11:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that is your rational, wouldn't a portal, project, or even the main article talk page be more suitible for compiling information. ♠ B.s.n. ♥R.N.contribs 12:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Matrix (fictional universe), Matrix (reality), Mega City (The Matrix), Zion (The Matrix), and other location articles into The Matrix (series), in a section called "Setting". The current series article is woefully incomplete and offers no context as to the setting of the franchise. By merging, we remove these non-compliant articles, and improve vastly one article that needs it, with little vital information lost. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per 92.28.76.45 Simonm223 (talk) 21:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd really like to see this Merged somewhere. Abductive (reasoning) 02:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some of the content and all of the history, probably the general merge suggested by Sceptre is the best. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To paraphrase what I posted elsewhere, as this problem seems to be endemic, many of the editors voting for "keep" would agree that the information on this page is inconcise and unenyclopedic, and would need a hefty rewrite to remove any unsourced information and original research. I'd have thought therefore that they would agree that this article should not exist in its current form. It doesn't appear that anyone would be willing to rewrite this article as it would be too daunting a task. Hence my proposal for deletion. After deletion, perhaps the information could be added concisely to the The Matrix (series) page bit by bit, and if it warrants another break-out article then it would eventually evolve naturally into that article. I have this question: What "information" is actually contained on this page that meets wikipedia policy? Rob Sinden (talk) 10:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that the Overview and See Also sections could be merged more or less as is. That's several paragraphs of usable material. It's not brilliant prose and lacks inline citations, but neither of those failings require deletion to address. Eluchil404 (talk) 11:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so this removes the bulk of the article (the really messy bit). Then, if these two sections were added to the Matrix (series) page, then this page could be deleted? Let's do it! Rob Sinden (talk) 11:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, after a merge a page should generally be kept as a redirect to preserve attribution. See Wikipedia:Merge and Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

fair enough. Rob Sinden (talk) 08:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the The Matrix (franchise) Ronhjones ^(Talk) 13:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I vote for merging it with the franchise's article. Allemannster (talk) 02:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Religious views on tax resistance[edit]

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

Duplication of material at Render unto Caesar... with no good reason for duplication — (talk) 04:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps more to the point for a NPOV encyclopaedia is the question of why "religious" and "Christian" are being considered synonymous here. Uncle G (talk) 11:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - POV fork. Bearian (talk) 21:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, currently a POV fork, but an article on the more general topic involving other religions (per Uncle G) could be written. Sandstein 19:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elevator episode[edit]

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

I am the author of this article. It was prodded with the text "Can't find any sources, original research better suited for tvtropes.org." I'd like it to stay. However, I'm not in a position to find sources right now. Richard Cavell (talk) 04:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the lack of sources would tend to suggest this is like a neologism or original research. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I prodded it so delete. This is a real thing but I couldn't find any sources about it on google, google books, etc.Prezbo (talk) 07:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Like Prezbo, I looked and couldn't find any sources that discuss this, which is too bad; I'd vote to keep if Leonard Matlin or Roger Ebert had written about this. Getting stuck in an elevator is a fairly common plot device on situation comedies, although I disagree with the reason stated by the author for its use (i.e. the ultimate in low budget). There are other ways that characters can end up spending the entire episode together, in a confined space out of which they cannot go, talking about their innermost thoughts, but the elevator is the one that most people can identify with. If someone can go into labor while everyone is trapped in the elevator, that's a true sign that the sitcom writers have run out of ideas. Mandsford (talk) 13:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a better term for this, as a LOT of television shows use this commonly, is there one about Deserted Island that we COULD possibly merge this into. Otherwise, delete. Its sad, this is a lot like Enemy Mine--Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 13:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good idea for an article, but this one appears to be OR.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Bottle episode Declan Clam (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete as unreferenced at this time. Simonm223 (talk) 21:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (criterion G3) by User:Delldot. Guest9999 (talk) 04:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Zibit[edit]

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

I cannot find any reliable sources which could be used to verify the information given in the article or establish the topic's notability notability. "Mr. Zibit" AND graffiti and Zibit AND graffiti get no relevant Google hits. Guest9999 (talk) 03:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7. I respect that it does provide something in graffiti culture, but it doesn't give notability, and it looks like somebody just tried to explain it and failed. We really need more of something explaining just what Mr. Zibit is. Doing a Google Images search, there is utterly nothing with this. This is a far flung A7, but nevertheless, so tagged it be. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My rationale for removing the original A7 tag was that it's not about a real person, organisation, animal or web content. Guest9999 (talk) 04:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zero History[edit]

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

Contested prod. Upcoming book with apparently zero history of notability assertion. Of the four references, one is the author's blog, and the other three are about the author, not about the book. Delete without prejudice against recreation once the book becomes a hit. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The report initially came from Twitter, apparently - that's a source that's about as reliable as any old word on the street, which is to say 'not at all'. Article is pure crystalballery in the meantime. Once Gibson releases it and it becomes notable, we'll talk. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redir to William Gibson since it will be a valid search term. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear WP:CRYSTALBALL Violation right there.--Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 13:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to William Gibson, where if it's not mentioned, it should be. I agree with Liefting that it's a likely search term. Mandsford (talk) 13:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hey, Internet Detectives, you do realize this is William Fucking Gibson we're talking about, right? I mean, what the shit is the point of deleting this? Any idiot with his head screwed on knows that it's going to get reviews, critical attention, etc - sufficient to have an article by Official Wiki Standards™ - once it's published, so what is the point of deleting its article now? Seriously, explain it to me, not in terms of WP:XYZ nerdspeak, but in terms of criteria that might actually matter to an actual human being not afflicted with Aspergers. I look forward to it. 69.159.84.182 (talk) 07:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simple. A lot may change between now and the scheduled release date, and Gibson himself may decide, unilaterally, to change his plans. So the chances that the book will get reviews are not close enough to 100% for the article to exist right away. That's why we want to wait for "will get reviews" to become "did get reviews." -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources mentioning its existence, WP:CRYSTALBALL. --Odie5533 (talk) 08:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being written by William Gibson isn't enough to make a book notable. Some good secondary sources would be enough for keep, though.--Blargh29 (talk) 08:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Clearly a bit of CRYSTAL going on here, but Gibson arguably (I'm not opining here) falls under WP:NB criterion 45. If that argument is raised, then despite no official announcements, with sufficient reliability of sources indicating the book is forthcoming, it may be permitted to be kept. ^Bongo_matic 08:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be criterion 5, actually. Except that the book hasn't been published yet. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the criterion says "any of his or her written works may be considered notable", not any that has already been published. So perhaps there's speculation as to whether it has been written yet. Any reasonable interpretation of that criterion would include a number of things that had not been published and exclude others (and exclude some that had, like letters to the editor). I opined for delete, so since we agree, I'd prefer you not WP:BLUDGEON me further. ^Bongo_matic 13:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, articles about upcoming novels for which no publication date has not yet been reliably announced should be kept in a user's sandbox until then. Daniel Case (talk) 14:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (NAC) Dr. Meh 22:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rosto A.D[edit]

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

unreferenced BLP, non-notable film maker, very few google hits, has made a non-notable web comic and short films. Animatronic Fruit Loop (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article asserts an award, does not say which, and I cannot find it. DGG ( talk ) 12:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article should be renamed to Rosto as that is the name this person goes by. Rosto A.D is the name of his studio. According to IMDB, he has won multiple awards, and most significantly, his short Jona/Tomberry won the Grand Prix du Meilleur Court Métrage at Cannes. This meets WP:BIO. -- Whpq (talk) 13:17, 30 September 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 02:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree, his awards make him notable. Dream Focus 03:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At first, I was goign to go 'delete' and ask, "what awards?" Then I looked at the IMDB link, and found he one at Cannes. That's one of the largest film fests out there, and to me that alone connotes notability. This don't come easy. Fix the article - we need notes about those awards. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 10:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree that the article fulfills notibility and would only require that an editor properly reference the awards. Good stub class article . as stands, that doesn't merit deletion. ♠ B.s.n. ♥R.N.contribs 10:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:CREATIVE. Joe Chill (talk) 19:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Aamodt[edit]

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

non-notable academic. unreferenced BLP. does not pass wp:scholar notability guidelines. Animatronic Fruit Loop (talk) 20:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nom is right, this guy doesn't pass muster as per WP:PROF. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Change !vote to Keep per below. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROF and WP:N - notability is not established (and it can't be as long as the article remains unsourced). Also WP:BLP requires the immediate removal of all unsourced statements in the biography of a living person, which in this case would result in blanking the article as there are no sources. Were sources found, nothing in the article's current content satisfies WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -clear notable scholar in psychology. Needs expansion Himalayan 11:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch. Thanks. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep based on the books. Applied industrial/organizational psychology has 15 editions published between 1991 and 2004 in English and held by 299 libraries worldwide. That number of editions characteristic of a very widely used textbook. Raw GS or GB counts, though, are not very meaningful & need sorting and interpreting--many of these are actually book jacket blurbs and mere acknowledgements. The articles, though, are not widely cited, according to Web of Science: 9, 7, ,7, 6, 4, 4, 3, 3, =-- GScholar shows more, because some of the citations are in applied or educational journals not in WoS. DGG ( talk ) 12:29, 29 September 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 02:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. DGG's argument hints at a pass of WP:PROF #4 (substantial impact in higher education), and I think that's confirmed by the number of hits for his name among university course syllabi: [32]. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closedmouth (talk) 13:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coventry broadcasting television[edit]

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

This article has been around since 2007, so I thought I'd bring it here rather than prodding it. A Google search (including News) for CBT +Coventry +television turns up nothing relevant, except WP and mirrors, in the first 15 pages of results. (I did, however, learn than Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, Computer-Based Training, and Cock-and-Balls Torture are all available in Coventry.) A search for CovTunes turns up 17 discrete results, with nothing relevant. There seem to be absolutely no sources available to establish notability, much less write a substantive article. Deor (talk) 01:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I believe this is a hoax, and thus tagged WP:CSD#G3. I find nothing whatsoever about this supposed broadband TV channel owned by the freemantle group; a search of the freemantle website yields nothing for coventry Ohconfucius (talk) 07:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete WP:HOAX --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 13:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and others (and don't spare the horses). No sources offered or found nor any other mentions at all, whether reliable or otherwise, found. When you think about it, it seems more than a tad strange for an online television station not to have some sort of web presence; one would think a website just might be considered a necessity for that line of work. The names of staff who have gone onto other projects, or have joined the company, have no ghits for the asserted previous or later occupations; one of the CEOs was alleged to have been a former CEO of a rather large media company, although I don't think I am going out on a limb to think that they have never heard of him. Gotta agree with the nomination of the article as a hoax: the article reads as a "made-up-one-day" article that has been expanded in a similar style over the next 18 months; even the ungainly name is unbelievable. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 20:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aveyond series[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The previous AfD closed as rename under the assumption that the games themselves had independent notability but that the company did not. I think neither does and in fact it would be strange if one did and the other did not. The game review sites are not reliable enough sources to secure notability, and these concerns have not been addressed since the previous AFD. Andre (talk) 01:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Andre (talk) 01:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aren't reviews from notable sites the usual "notability establishing thing" for minor games? I don't think it's too out of the ordinary for a company's work to be notable and not the company itself either, it seems like the logical situation for indie creators and other companies that've produced only a few works. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 04:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the objection is source reliability, let's go down the list, shall we?
- Game Tunnel: Reliable, and a major source of indie game reviews.
- CNet (by way of Download.com): Reliable per WP:VG/RS, owned by CBS.
- GrrlGamer: Currently domain parked. Probably should be removed.
- RPGVault: Reliable per WP:VG/RS, owned by IGN.
- Walz Music: Primary source.
- Game Chronicles: Listed as unreliable on VG/RS per a discussion here.
- AceGamez: Probably reliable: Has an editor.
- Gamezebo: Listed as reliable on WP:VG/RS per this discussion
- Netjak: Link isn't working atm, but a quick search indicates it's cited in multiple other articles, including an FA: Half-Life 2.
- RPGFan: a long discussion here is inconclusive, but it's used in a whole buncha FAs.
So that's at least two indisputably reliable sources and several other sources I'd call "good enough" for use. Keep. Nifboy (talk) 05:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - All sources used to establish notability have been validated through WP:VG/S during the previous AfD, and there were no concerns left to address after the article on the company was pruned of the non-Aveyond games. If there are issues with the sources, the proper way is to get consensus at WP:VG/S to invalidate them first. We have a major wikiproject that has gone through the pain of reviewing and maintaining a list of sources, selectively disregarding their findings at individual AfDs is not the way to go, in particular since any findings may affect plenty other articles. MLauba (talk) 06:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The facts are this, the article has surivived deletion nomination on the grounds that it is adequately sourced and has established notability for the games. Many references as notable. Sure this article can been improved and through the last afd discussion, was improved. Ottawa4ever (talk) 08:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 20:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep The references are fine, it clearly notable. And the nominators claims about the last AFD is ridiculous. Everyone said Keep back then too, the nominator the only one trying to delete it both times. Dream Focus 21:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Clearly notable, lots of RS, no indication that it should be deleted. Simonm223 (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – pretty much per everyone else. I can't add much else here. MuZemike 20:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well sourced, notable. --Oscarthecat (talk) 21:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Caffeine tablets. Cirt (talk) 18:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ProPlus[edit]

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

Non-notable tablet Orange Mike | Talk 18:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. You're right, this probably isn't a good CSD candidate. It's still non-notable and does not meet the criteria for inclusion. A little insignificant ^{Talk to me!} _{(I have candy!)} 18:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article is too short to be worthwhile but Pro Plus is very clearly a notable product. There is loads of coverage from Google News ([33]), and surely this can be expanded into at least a decent stub? See also Google Books results. Did you not find any of these?--Michig (talk) 19:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's worth noting that Pro Plus currently redirects to Caffeine tablets, which is probably a good place to redirect to for now, given the current content of the article.--Michig (talk) 20:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Caffeine tablets. Based on the number of times it is mentioned as an example, ProPlus is certainly a popular brand of caffeine, but I have not found any coverage specifically about this product except to give the dosage. If there is a List of pharmaceuticals produced by Bayer or somesuch, that would also work as a target. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clementine (Pink Martini song)[edit]

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

Song from an album that hasn't been released as a single. Doesn't meet the notability guidelines, or WP:MUSIC. Quantpole (talk) 22:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NSONG - "All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:17, 30 September 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) 00:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-plausible search term, no reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this song. Joe Chill (talk) 02:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Internet stations[edit]

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

The potential scope of the list virtually infinite. No user would like to browse through every radio station in the world that has a web stream. Many different classifications are used inconsistently - topical, geographical, technological, ownership. Some categories (Category:Internet radio, Category:Music websites; There is room for extensive sub-categorization BTW, e.g. by genre, by country.) are in place for cataloging some of this realm. Attracts spammers. If such a list is kept, I think it should contain only web-only stations for maintenance reasons. trespassers william (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As I read it, WP:LIST supports this kind of thing. There's a clearly defined criteria for whether things belong on the list, it's a potentially useful way to sort information, and neither redundancy nor potential size are barriers to doing this kind of thing. I'm still getting my head around that policy though so I'm open to argument on why I'm wrong. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trim, define a scope and minimum criteria for inclusion The scope and maintenance of this list seem to be at issue and those are not deletion reasons. The solution to maintenance and spam is to remove all entries that do not have existing articles on Wikipedia, and/or set other minimum criteria for future inclusion. Miami33139 (talk) 00:05, 1 October 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) 00:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Internet radio already serves this purpose. ♠ B.s.n. ♥R.N.contribs 10:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, adds value over the category. I agree with DustFormsWords' reading of WP:LIST. Nerfari (talk) 11:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a useful resource that does not violate WP:LIST. --Tris2000 (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 18:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Birkitt[edit]

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

This person is notable only for supposedly having an affair with David Letterman, and so fails WP:BLP1E. Kevin (talk) 00:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — First of all, as per nom WP:BLP1E textbook example (yes, I'm implying she failed WP:N before the 1E). Secondly, all third-party sources are from the last 4 days (i.e., since the BLP1E). While she has had a long-lived article, it didn't establish notability before this event. She was a page for a few TV shows, then an office worker, then a once-in-a-while on air personality (on one show; she, for the most part, justs "hands out prizes"). As I've had this debate on the talk page, I'll preempt this here (these are my previous comments verbatim):

To the argument "she's notable for appearances on a top-rated show"

Check out her IMDB page. Does that look significant? Do you have any idea how many other people on IMDB have more credits and would clearly never be considered notable? (Don't pull WP:OTHERCRAP here, my logic is valid). An analogical example of someone who is notable for their appearances on such shows is John Melendez (his IMDB). There are staffers who appear on these shows repeatedly. Conan's The Interrupter (his IMDB). Check out those IMDB links and come back and say she's significant for "appearing regularly."

Nonetheless, as I commented on the talk, this BLP1E example should be merged with the other BLP1E spun off from the same event (Joe Halderman) and the huge bubble growing on Letterman's page about this event should be spun off into an article on the event, its history, its players, the lawsuit (as it develops), and its ramifications (as they develop). This should be done in a very judicious way to avoid contradicting WP:NOTNEWS.

Peace and Passion ☮ ("I'm listening....") 00:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS 7/11 refs in the last few days. 2/11 interviews (primary sources). 1/11 CBS page (primary source). 1/11 blog.

Strong Keep -- She appeared on Late Show more than 100 times. [Late Show Fan Page], including covering two Olympics games. More than 100 times. Anyone basing their opinion solely on the IMDB website is not doing enough research. The statement on IMDB that she appeared 11 times is clearly inaccurate, e.g., it omits her Olympic work. Careful Cowboy (talk) 01:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this (and the Halderman article) into an article about the event. What P and P said just previously. Seduisant (talk) 01:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She appeared on Late Show more than 100 times. Why would that go in the Halderman article? Careful Cowboy (talk) 01:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As Careful Cowboy noted below, Birkitt actually appeared in comedic roles on the Late Show 265 times. Meanwhile, Halderman's 30 years at CBS TV news has resulted in 7 Emmy Awards and a Columbia-Dupont Award, his solo written-directed-produced Showtime film was nominated for a journalism Emmy, and ... somehow ... commedienne Birkitt's bio is supposed to be merged into Halderman's journalism bio and then both bios are supposed to be merged into an article about David Letterman's sex sacndal? Nuh-uh. That won't do. cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Is the argument that this somehow destroys her notability? A "scarlet A" argument? Hmmm .. Sounds sexist, better make that a strong keep.) She was sufficiently notable to have an article before affair got recent explosion of coverage. Publicly known as Letterman's assistant who appeared in several episodes of the show on camera. Deletion will give the appearance the Wikipedia is doing someone a favor—which is not an allegation, simply a suggestion of what that deletion would look like. The article has been here for 5 years—now she's in the middle of a scandal, delete her? Nope. Proofreader77 (talk) 01:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per the very lucid arguments of Careful Cowboy, above. Johntex\^talk 01:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article has existed on this person for over 5 1/2 years. Sleeping with Dave is punishment enough, it shouldn't subject her to deletion too! --Milowent (talk) 02:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 100 appearances on that show is still not enough to establish notability. If she's notable for something other than the 1E, let's see some reliable third-party sources establishing that (nothing published within the last 5 days). Maybe some news stories for her involvement in something else significant. Really, anything (other than her bios from her employer's website). The "Late Show Fan Page" does not establish notability! Unless that is done, all of these "keeps" saying she is "oh-so-notable" really mean nothing.

Peace and Passion ☮ ("I'm listening....") 03:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS It's more than slightly absurd to posit that this has anything to do with sexism. Come on....

Comment--She has appeared on Late Show 265 times; I just counted. If that is not enough to make her notable, how many would you need? Careful Cowboy (talk) 03:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re "sexist" Hmmm ... Before the recent scandal she was a woman competent enough to have served a long term as Letterman's assistant ... acknowledged and featured on national television numerous times ... BUT NOW (poof!) she is just someone Letterman had an affair with and therefore unworthy of notability? Proofreader77 (talk) 04:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re "sexist" She has an article for 5 years, has the same notability as other on air characters with articles, nothing gets said about them, arguments to delete her article crop up *immediately* and *only* after her affair and you wonder why people are saying that's sexist? 131.247.83.135 (talk) 14:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re "sexist" Just add my "Hmmm" to the others. She had 265 appearances on a top-rated national television show. Improving her bio with more refs would seem to be the order of the day ... but instead we see a call to delete her bio because she is only notable for her having had sex with her employer. Hmmm. Maybe this Afd is not a case of sexism -- maybe it's a case of astroturfing on behalf of the David Letterman bio. Hmmm. I dunno. I just say "Hmmm." cat Catherineyronwode (talk)

Keep She appeared on the show many times and basically became an on-air character like Tony Mendez (Host) or Biff Henderson. And it should be noted that the article was edited a bunch of times by several editors long before the scandal broke. --JamesAM (talk) 04:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - more notable than many media "celebrities" who get articles here. None of the deletion arguments seem to come from people who've read the history of the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She may be just a footnote in History but I think "digital space" allows the storage of such notes. Just imagine if we had more (detailed) information about the Roman courts and courtesans, etc... rolling this person's "bio" into another article just wouldn't work as well. Madzimambo (talk) 12:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable before the scandal, notable now. I don't know why the people trying to delete the article decided that she was hardly ever on the show -- if you don't think that appearing on the show a lot is enough to establish notability, that's your opinion, but the portrayal of her work by User:Peace and Passion is completely inaccurate and I don't know how that user came up with that characterization or decided to act on it as if it were true. Propaniac (talk) 13:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is clearly not BLP1E. It's pretty obvious that those calling for deletion A) Don't watch the show and/or B) Haven't familiarized themselves with the subject long enough to know that she was an on-air character similar to Tony Mendez and Biff Henderson before this event. Snap judgments are being made that this is a tabloid type article without sufficiently researching the subject. 131.247.83.135 (talk) 14:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BLP1E certainly does not say that we should punish someone who is in the news by deleting their article if it has existed for years, and if it had plenty of independent and reliable references with significant coverage to satisfy WP:BIO before the news item surfaced, as she did. Checking Google News archive for 1996 through 2008: There were several items which described her appearances in Q&A columns. There was a story about her from Entertainment Weekly in 2002: [34]. In 2002, she was number 21 on USA Todays list "Pop Candy's 100 People of the Year!" Edison (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep and trout the nominator for not doing their homework. If the woman had a page, with notability firmly established, for five years now, then clearly BLP1E is out the window for an event that's just happened in the last couple of weeks. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wait a moment, people. The article as it existed before the incident[35] clearly warranted deletion on the grounds of general lack of notability. I favor deletion on that basis. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

....Based on what exactly? Her notability has been clearly pointed out in the discussion above. Is appearing 265 times not enough? How may times is enough? Where did you get that number? Did you read the above discussion at all? What exactly do you disagree with? 131.247.83.135 (talk) 15:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on her not being notable. The fact that she has appeared in walk-ons in skits does not make her notable or eligible for an article in Wikipedia. I'm really surprised that this marginal person, whose only notability relates to her rather embarrassing role in the Letterman sex saga, is the subject of such impassioned "keep" votes. I agree with the nominator that BLP1E was designed for this type of situation. The fact that this non-notable person had a bio since 2004 is not surprising. I'd bet that there are hundreds if not thousands of eminently deletable articles created then or earlier. CBS had the decency and good taste to take down her bio from the web, and we should too.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable per Edison's links above (which really ought to be added to the article, BTW). --GentlemanGhost (talk) 15:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just about. Sources such as [36] and [37] indicate she was reported on before the recent controversy despite being a minor "character" on the show. Guest9999 (talk) 15:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets notability. Dincher (talk) 17:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable per Edison's links above, notable as an on-air character like Tony Mendez (Host) or Biff Henderson, notable per the 265 Late Show appearances cited by Careful Cowboy, and there is simply no good reason to delete the BLP of an on-air television personality whose bio has been in Wikipedia for 5 1/2 years with no previous AfD. cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 20:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per the very lucid arguments of Careful Cowboy and comments of Edison. Surely met notability before the recent scandal. Goosman99 (talk) 20:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep IMHO, the question is whether Birkitt gets mentioned only in List of David Letterman sketches (following the example for Meg Parsont, who is only mentioned in Late Night with David Letterman), or warrants her own article, like Rupert Jee. I think the Birkitt is a weak keep because the Jee article is a weak keep too. Both Jee and Birkitt used to have cast member bios on the CBS website for The Late Show, and I think that's enough to establish their notability. Citing the longevity of the article is bogus, since it predates the Wikipedia biography controversy and the Wikipedia Watch controversy that prompted the establishment of what became the WP:BLP policy. The real issue with the Birkitt article is not whether it should exist, but what should be said about her role in the definitely notable extortion/business ethics case that Birkitt appears to be an unwilling participant in. It's easy to find all sorts of third-party references to her role in the case, but tabloid coverage and coverage by organizations like TMZ.com should not be cited, because Birkitt is only known for her role on The Late Show. It's entirely possible that the details of the extortion case will never become public record, preventing any rumored detail about her role in the case (willing or unwilling) to never really be known. Birkitt's article and her name in any Letterman articles should be monitored carefully for the policy that "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy." 72.244.207.41 (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thank god for users who will take a step back for a second like JohnnyB256. I still have not seen a cogent reason for "Keep." I did see a good delete vote which was labeled a keep though:

Keep - She may be just a footnote in History but I think "digital space" allows the storage of such notes. Just imagine if we had more (detailed) information about the Roman courts and courtesans, etc... rolling this person's "bio" into another article just wouldn't work as well. User:Madzimambo

If this was raised for deletion a month before this BLP1E, it would have been deleted. If this is raised for deletion a couple months after this BLP1E, it will probably be deleted. I honestly cannot understand the snowball consensus taking place here. Take a step back for a second. When statements as absurd as as this is a "delete based on sexism" are , it becomes clear that this is way more absurd heat than objective voting. Wow.

Peace and Passion ☮ ("I'm listening....") 02:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Comment It is not your right to refactor another editor's keep by calling it "a good delete." Also, re: your "statements [that] this is a 'delete based in sexism' [which is] getting brought up by so many editors": That is untrue. Look again; those were three comments (as of this writing) and nothing more, and they were made in response to one mention (by Proofreader), not "so many" -- and they were not even all in agreement with Proofreader's premise of sexism, either (i know that mine was not). Now, leaving aside your misdirections, at present the tally is 17 for keep, 2 for delete, and 1 for merge. Calling this consensus "absurd" is simply insulting to your fellow writers and editors. cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 02:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ummm... that's not "refactoring." I was just implying (or rather, blatantly stating, if it wasn't clear) that such an argument seems more like logical support for a delete than a keep. Peace and Passion ☮ ("I'm listening....") 20:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keepat least for now. Revisit the issue in a year. If this article has been up for 5+ years it will look very fishy to the public to pull it now. Not to mention a disservice to people looking for it.Filmteknik (talk) 03:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I fail to see how this page is remotely encyclopedic. - Prezboy1 talk 04:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Could you please say more about what you mean by "encylopedic?" As this is a question of whether this article should appear in an encyclopedia, saying that it is not encyclopedic is not very illuminating. Do you think that 265 appearances on national television is too low to make this person notable? If so, how many appearances do you think would be needed for notability? Careful Cowboy (talk) 04:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I really don't think much more needs to be said. It seems pretty clear in context. Imagine if there was an actress who only ever acted on one show. She was a frequently recurring guest star. Would she be notable for an encyclopedia? Take a look through IMDB if you want to find actresses who've done much more work but would never end up in an encyclopedia. Peace and Passion ☮ ("I'm listening....") 20:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Likely notable before the affair, definitely notable now. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 05:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She was borderline in notability before the revelation of the scandal, simply as an occasional performer on the program. Now, she's the subject of intense media interest. As is mentioned above, this article does a good service by at least putting the scandal in perspective and providing background on the lady's career. Xoloz (talk) 06:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the argument to delete this article is now irrelevant. Stephanie Birkitt has received intense news coverage due to her involvement in the Letterman scandal. I say she was notable before that, certainly to any fan of the Letterman show. But as I said, she is certainly relevant now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.185.16.238 (talk) 13:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The page was created already as early as February 18, 2004, and had seen 70 edits before the current surge of prurient interest (permalink to 70th revision), so I think it is just not true that she is notable only for one event. --Lambiam 15:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Excuse me, since when has the existence of an article been evidence that the subject of the article is notable? All that generally means is that it can't be deleted via a proposed deletion.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response- Lambiam's meaning is that BLP1E is soundly refuted. Anybody who using it as an argument in this AFD (IE- the nominator), obviously didn't bother to actually look at the article to see that it was around BEFORE the event. That has nothing to do with pre-event notability (which is firmly established). Umbralcorax (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response - In the first vote (a delete) I noted this fact. After a few other editors brought it up, I went back and underlined it in my vote. I "obviously didn't bother" to look? Even though I specifically mentioned it? When I vote on something, I don't just do it willy-nilly. In no way is BLP1E refuted; as I said, the article did not establish encyclopedic notability before the fact. Peace and Passion ☮ ("I'm listening....") 20:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I second the response. The deletion-proposer's statement is absurd even if he's right that the article should be deleted. Obviously we all knew of Stephanie Birkitt's existence years before the recent allegations, and most of us (myself included) knew of Birkitt's existence long before we knew there was a Wikipedia article about her. She's been a (very minor) celebrity for years. If the article should be deleted, it's because of the "very minor" nature of that status, not because of the deletion-proposer's erroneous belief that we didn't know who she is until these allegations broke. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response - Stating BLP1E in no way implies the claim that "we didn't know who she is until these allegations broke." Peace and Passion ☮ ("I'm listening....") 20:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Correct me if I'm wrong but the only argument for deletion here is BLP1E, right? While it is arguable whether or not she was notable enough to warrant her own page prior to the scandal she obviously had at least some notability pre-scandal. So, while separately (pre-scandal or based only on the scandal) she may not warrant a page, I don't see why arguments for deletion are being made which don't consider the whole picture. -Ektar (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An aside - Complements of WP:Notability

Actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities:

Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
- See WP:MUSIC for guidelines on musicians, composers, groups, etc.

Which of these is the one all the "keep" votes are claiming she passes? If there's something else from another policy, don't just vaguely allude to it; directly quote it, please.

Peace and Passion ☮ ("I'm listening....") 20:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--265 national television appearances is relevant to criterion 1. If you think 265 is too low, please propose a cut-off number. Careful Cowboy (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First thing, you realize that those criteria are FOR notability, not against notability. In other words, you definitely are notable if you fit that criteria, but not meeting those criteria doesn't, in itself, make you non-notable. Besides, that's exactly what I was talking about, that is an argument which ignores the fact that the she was involved in the scandal in ADDITION to her being on TV. -Ektar (talk) 21:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: This article should stay because Birkitt had an affair with Letterman and because she appeared frequently on Letterman's show. However, had she never had sex with him, she would not be notable. Her appearance on the show, combined with her affair, justify an article for her. How does having sex make a person notable? It occurs when that person has sex with a prominent public figure under ethically questionable circumstances. Monica Lewinsky is an excellent example of this. Note that Lewinsky has an article on Wikipedia. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 22:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The Monica Lewinsky situation was huge. This "sex with a public figure" will blow over pretty quick. Peace and Passion ☮ ("I'm listening....") 23:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So we're prognosticators now? You've made some cogent arguments for deletion. This last one is not one of them. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 23:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close This page was around for years. There's no cause for immediate deletion, such as libel or other concerns of harm to the subject or others (which, once upon a time, used to be the basis of "BLP"). Why attempt to delete it exactly at this point? You know everyone's watching it, isn't the result predictable? Sorry for voting mostly in English, it's been a while I've largely forgotten how to speak Wikipedian. --99.245.206.188 (talk) 03:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KeepIf this article is deleted because of lack of notability, then I can find at least 300,000 more articles on the English wikipedia that need to be deleted. For instance, years ago I created an article on Tarmo Oja; he is only notable because he has a very small asteroid named after him. The article is still there as it should be. People come to Wikipedia because it offers information that can't be found in other enyclopedias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.185.16.238 (talk) 20:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There is no other repository on the internet of this much information about the subject and it is therefor a prime source on the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.91.42 (talk) 05:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This young lady qualified under the bio rules long before the sex scandal hit. An attempt to remove it now is an attempt to cover up an ugly situation for Letterman. Wikipedia is not censored. Keep.--InaMaka (talk) 01:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Over 200 appearances on programme broadcast all over the world. Is this a joke? -Duribald (talk) 07:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Close, already! This is getting embarrassing to Wikipedia. Latest tally -- 30 for keep, 3 for delete, 1 for merge. Does the word "snowball" mean anything here? cat yronwode, not logged in 64.142.90.33 (talk) 07:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me. Deletion discussions are not a vote, particularly when BLPs are involved, and particularly in situations in which large numbers of unregistered users suddenly descend on an AfD.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 13:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)]][reply]

You know, it's true that someone like me rarely participates in deletion discussions. I think I said as much in my vote, or whatever, above. But this vote, or whatever, is advertised on the page itself, and somebody decided to put it up for deletion when it's getting the most traffic. It is to be expected. I don't think it's a bad thing. Despite my failure to vote with a pseudonym, I do know what an encyclopedia is. I also do apreciate the general idea that often gossip coverage is harmful, and we can do without here. But I don't really see that we're anywhere near that line in this case. It's pretty terse, low key and matter of fact what we're asserting here (at least on the current version, I agree with the one below who says it should be kept, but cautions it should be monitored). I'm not sure how publicity averse she is, but if she has a list of things on the internet she wishes would go away, I strongly doubt we're even on it. --99.245.206.188 (talk) 00:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment She's encyclopedically-notable for frequent recurring guest appearances on one show?!?! If that's what you guys think as a "consensus" then I guess it's fine with me, lest I end up m:MPOV.... Peace and Passion ☮ ("I'm listening....") 20:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hard disks are cheap. -Duribald (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The fact that "Wikipedia is not paper" is, in no way, an argument for any given subject being encyclopedic!!! It means nothing in this context!!!! Peace and Passion ☮ ("I'm listening....") 21:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She was a notable personality before the scandal, and her article already has been here a while. The notability bar is set quite low on Wikipedia, and she cleared it easily. However, it is significant that the article has the potential to be hurtful to a living person. The article should stay and be monitored closely, perhaps even locked for a period of time. Group29 (talk) 19:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I appreciate your raising that point. If we're to have this article, I hope that BLP will be strictly enforced. We need to pay attention to things like exact birth dates, which BLP discourages for invasion of privacy and identity theft reasons.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 20:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on birth date issue raised by JohnnyB256: I have never before seen a comment, essay, or administrative directive to the effect that BLP policy "discourages" birth dates. I have sourced hers from Time Magazine and consider that sufficiently reliable and public to retain in the article. Catherineyronwode (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blp#Privacy_of_personal_information "Caution should be exercised with less notable people. With identity theft on the rise, people increasingly regard their dates of birth as private. When in doubt about the notability of the subject, or if the subject complains about the publication of his or her date of birth, err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth." I'm removing the DOB and please don't reinstate it.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JohnnyB256: Please take the above discussion to the article's discussion page. It is highly off-topic here. I have opened a discussion section for the topic here. cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 23:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Excuse me, but I dont think saying 'a lot of unregistered users suddenly...' supports any opinion, while it sounds strongly like WP:ABF. Also, I personally think that a consensus seems already formed. Anyway, I'm on a semi-wikibreak now, w/o enough time to do my own research on this so I remain neutral, but I for one suggest the discussion should be kept on topic. Blodance (talk) 01:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tamara Lee[edit]

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

No significant coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 15:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - waded through google news, books, and AVN and I have to agree with the nominator. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominated. Fails WP:PORNBIO Crafty (talk) 00:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO, doesn't seem notable Coffee // have a cup // ark // 07:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet criteria explained above. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Destiny DeVille[edit]

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

No significant coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 09:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:36, 29 September 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) 00:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO Coffee // have a cup // ark // 07:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC) 07:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close since original nom never gave his reason. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of e-book formats[edit]

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

Completing unfinished nom that nobody gave a damn about. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing an actual rationale here; this article has over 250 revisions, so this isn't procedural. How is it that two editors came to independently nom this (two years after creation) within an hour of each other, by the way? I assume that it wasn;t coincidental. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the red linked afd and fixed it. ScienceApologist was the original nom. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep? No reason for deletion offered. Protonk (talk) 01:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it's encyclopedia worthy. Unless there's some major reason that I don't see... Gosox5555 (talk) 02:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was going to vote delete until I looked over the article. The info seems solid and useful, even if in general a "comparison" article would be OR. Borock (talk) 04:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Absolutely no reason why this should have been Afd at all. Sjc (talk) 08:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable subject, useful overview article, reasonably well written. Would be better with a few more sources, and some sub-sections could be expanded, but that's not a reason for deletion. Hard to be more specific unless nominator explains reasons for nomination. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
End AfD and Relist - The original nom created a second page nominating this which was deleted under CSD G6, I suspect there is some confusion now. Since there is no rationale here, what purpose does this AfD serve? Speedy close with no prejudice to being immediately relisted. --Taelus (talk) 19:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carvin & Ivan (Karma Productions)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Carvin & Ivan (Karma Productions)

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

This production team is not notable (although one member of it may be). I have been unable to find any coverage of it whatsoever despite diligent searching. ^Bongo_matic 03:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think this article COULD pass the notability test, given work, but the sources aren't there to support it at the moment, so it fails WP:N. I'd revisit the issue if anyone does significant work on adding independent secondary sources. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you haven't done the work to look for sources yourself, then you have no actual basis for determining whether something is notable or not. Checking notability involves looking for sources onesself. Anything less is zero help to either Wikipedia or AFD, since it doesn't contribute anything to the process. Contrast that with Bongomatic's making efforts to find sources xyrself. Uncle G (talk) 18:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's nothing at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_discuss_an_AfD that requires anyone discussing the issue to go do research. I'll admit to being relatively new, and if there's some other policy you're referring to I'd be grateful to be directed to it! But my understanding is that an article has to stand or fall on its own merits - we're assessing what's there, not what could possibly be there maybe in the future - and while users who improve an article during AfD like Bongomatic are to be lauded and commended, there's nothing to say that every commentor must do that additional legwork before expressing an opinion. If an article is nonsense, but could potentially STOP being nonsense, it doesn't help anyone to say, "Non-nonsense information on this topic exists at some other place on the web, so we should keep." Not trying to be argumentative - I'm genuinely interested in having the relevant policy pointed out to me if I've got it wrong. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be plenty of coverage out there to sort through. Since they have several Grammy nominations between them, there must be some notable hook to hang this material on here and so it's just a matter of filing it under the right heading(s), not deleting it. The nominator's diligence in searching for sources is commendable but note that the name seems to be Haggins, not Higgins. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated in the nomination, one team member (Specifically, Barias) may be notable, but the production company is not. There is nothing beyond passing reference to Karma Productions or the two together. With respect to searches, I have done numerous ones (including with correct spelling!). ^Bongo_matic 22:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Barias is notable, as you indicate, then there is a good alternative to deletion — merger or rename to an article about him. The name of the production company/partnership seems a reasonable search term and so we should maintain the link per our editing policy. See also our deletion policy which urges that such alternatives be explored before bringing matters here. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say he is notable, I said he may be notable. Moreover, my view is that should an article on him be written, it would be better started from scratch. The current article doesn't separate out the works of the different partners at all and is overwhelmed by unencyclopedic discography. ^Bongo_matic 04:56, 30 September 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) 00:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything substantial or what would recognise as significant coverage as required by the general notability guideline. The only sources I can find are trivial or passing mentions such [38], [39]. Guest9999 (talk) 17:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Quentin Collection[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Only sources are to PR Newswire or trivial. Small, non-notable strip mall. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A7 - no attempt made to establish notabiliy. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After looking for sources, I am unable to find enough coverage to satisfy the general notability criteria Chzz ► 09:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep - what new argument is being presented that was not decided by the community last time? This reason for deletion is exactly the same as the last one, that closed as keep. No new argument/reasoning would mean that the last consensus is still consensus. Unless a new argument/reason is presented, speedy keep Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 21:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is this part of an assault on ((Chicagomalls)). Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burr Ridge Village Center is similar to this. I think these shopping centers are notable.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:20, 4 October 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) 00:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- sources in the article establish enough notability per the GNG that there's no reason to delete. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (NAC).Dr. Meh 21:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Miniature White House[edit]

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

I don't believe either of these mini white houses warrant an entire article. I nominate them on the grounds of notability.-- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 03:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Replicas of the White House. Thryduulf (talk) 10:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this can be mentioned in an article about miniature replicas of famous buildings, but I don't see enough that it merits its own page. Unfortunately, this is an article that suffers greatly from the lack of an image that would make it more interesting, which is too bad. One would think that the people who created the miniature would want to show it off, but as often as not, groups insist on permission. If kept, throw in a stock picture of the White House and add the caption "it looks like this, only smaller". Mandsford (talk) 12:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is nothing in WP:Notability which calls for exclusion of something which has significant coverage, over several decades, in multiple reliable and independent sources, just because some editors don't think it is important enough to have an article. This 1/12 scale model, described recently in American Profile, has been reported by newspapers all over the U.S. since 1977, per Google News archive. There is coverage from 1977 to the present(much behind paywall). See Pittsburgh Post Gazette(1983) which says it is 60 feet by 20 feet, and took 200,000 hours to build, starting in 1961. It includes rooms not open to the public and not included on tourist maps of the building. By 1983 it had been exhibited in all 50 states. It weighs 10 tons per Chicago Tribune (1996), and by then had cost nearly $1 million for materials and transportation.. Washington Post (1992) said it got updated seasonal decorations, and was exhibited at the National Museum of American History. The Atlanta Journal (1996) said it had clocks that tick and chimneys that smoke. In sum, there are 83 references with significant coverage in Google News archive, from at least 1977, 1978, 1983, 1985, 1988, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2007, and 2008, clearly not just reprints of the same wire service story or press release. Google book search shows a 1994 book about it published by Norton with creator Zweiful's cooperation [40], and 5 other instances of book coverage of unknown extent (snippet views). The Gerald Ford Library site says it is "Considered to be one of the world's great miniature houses," that it has been exhibited at the Smithsonian and the Kennedy and Reagan libraries, and that it has been "hailed by presidents, first ladies and the general public as a masterpiece in the art of miniature." Americanheritage.com says it is listed by Guiness Book of World Records as "the world's largest dollhouse," though its builder denies it is a dollhouse. This is not some random replica haphazardly built and little noted. It is a work of art. WP:N is abundantly satisfied. Edison (talk) 14:37, 29 September 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) 00:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable, although the article itself needs to be improved. Borock (talk) 04:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kepp - Edison's excellent work could be copied and pasted and the article would be better. Thanks for doing that bit of homework! hamiltonstone (talk) 05:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Edison above, there seem to be plenty of sources. Scog (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I added some of the sources to the article. --Milowent (talk) 15:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 11:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replicas of the White House[edit]

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

I don't believe either of these mini white houses warrant an entire article. I nominate them on the grounds of notability.-- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 03:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Miniature White House. Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Not sourced at all, but miniature recreations of famous landmarks usually are tourist attractions, and have a measure of notoriety if they are described in books on the subject. Something of this nature would not be appropriate in an article about the White House itself, but I think that it's good to treat these as part of a (sourced) article. Otherwise, merge this to a page about replicas in general. Mandsford (talk) 12:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These seem worthy of keeping to me. People might be interested in visiting them to see the layout of rooms as you can't easily visit the real White House. Also a resource for filmmakers who need small-scale pictures they can place other things around - and anyone doing a school project on either. Anrawel

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Could use some sources, but appears notable. I reformatted article as well to read better, I think. --Milowent (talk) 03:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an interesting topic, could easily be sourced. Dovi (talk) 08:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable subject. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Interesting, could be sourced. Zocky | picture popups 23:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted (CSD G3) by Graeme Bartlett. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 19:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spildew[edit]

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

This article is on a drinking game titled "Spildew", the article has neither sources nor claims of notability. Article was on its seventh day of being PROD'd (and was expired) when a user deleted the prod notice (and gave no rationale as to why the game is notable). This article has had seven days since I proposed it for deletion, and no improvement has happened. Unless any sources can verify the existence of this game (not to mention why exactly it is notable and not something that someone in the 19th century made up in school one day), it should be deleted. TheLetterM (talk) 23:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All that I found for this is the article itself. Joe Chill (talk) 02:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable drinking game. If there were refs from the 1800's establishing it as a popular drinking game of the time, it'd be worth keeping. But I don't see any evidence of that (or that this isn't a hoax), so delete. Bfigura ^(talk) 05:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Snowball delete? This probably falls under CSD G3. Odie5533 (talk) 08:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems like a non-notable drinking game to me (especially due to lack of references). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 11:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a little further research shows that googling either spildew or "addison robert scots" (the "creator's" name) brings up nothing but this page. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 11:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm going to go ahead and tag the page for speedy deletion under CSD G3, as well as WP:SNOWBALL. TheLetterM (talk) 11:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:HOAX and Snowball delete. --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 18:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted by Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G4 by Will Beback. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 12:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suite101.com[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted, appears to have been merely readded Stealthound (talk) 03:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G4. So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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