< 4 January	6 January >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mhiji 23:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. I am nominating this page for deletion because it was previously deleted and should remain under the same position. The album still does not pass WP:NALBUMS because there was barely any third party notability and it did not even chart. It's an EP and should not affect her chronology. Any information that existed and was released remains on Taylor Swift discography. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 04:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snowball delete. Nyttend (talk) 16:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010s in urban music[edit]

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

This is crystal-ball gazing, also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010s in music. We cannot say anything about the trends in this decade within its first week, and as a consequence the articles are full of waffle, opinion and speculation.

I am also nominating:

2010s in electro pop music
2010s in teen pop music
2010s in rock music
2010s in country music
2010s in civil rights
2010s in architecture
2010s in television
2010s in science and technology
2010s in fashion
2010s in video gaming

All but the last two created by the same editor, all totally devoid of proper content. A delete and redirect to 2010 in x would be OK for each of them. Fences&Windows 23:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. This is crystal ball gazing through and through. JBsupreme (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. We might also propose a corollary of WP:TenPoundHammer's Law: If the potentially important contributors of a future decade are not yet known, the decade in music/science/fashion/etc. article is likely to be deleted. Cnilep (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE I agree, it is too early for these articles. Andrew0921 (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Much, much too early for these articles. Warrah (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per failure of WP:CRYSTAL. Gosox5555 (talk) 03:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Not only does it fail WP:CRYSTAL, but the articles are full of unsourced POV content/speculation. Nymf _talk/contr. 03:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The articles seem of variable quality--some seem at present a fair attempt at defining the status at the beginning of the period,which I think we could already do. So I ask the question--when do we intend to permit the articles, or shall we try every 6 months? DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd salt the lot until 2011 starts. Fences&Windows 15:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have created these articles so we can track the decade's progress AS it goes on, and not see it in a (biased) retrospect. DriveMySol (talk) 05:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. TomCat4680 (talk) 07:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everyone else. For the same reason, too. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd favor moving some of the ideas to the author's user page, encourage them to come up with sources, and maybe write it at the end of March, 3 months after the year has passed at the earliest. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per tons of apparently original research, and almost no sourced content. Unit Anode 17:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This should be snowed under, I think. Unit Anode 06:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've just redirected 2010s in music to 2010 in music, a temporal solution. Probably applicable here as well... --Tone 00:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the television article, at least. Sahasrahla (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

20 Years: The Evolution of Mariah Carey[edit]

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

Highly suspicious article with no sources. There are only 10 google hits for this album and apparently all of them took the info from Wikipedia. Uploader has a history of uploading unsourced info and album covers that are likely to be fake (never appeared on any sites before, stylistically different from all other Mariah album covers and some of them look amateurish). Uploader is either an insider at the label or has a crystal ball :) – Alensha ^talk 23:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:CRYSTAL or WP:HOAX...whichever the case, there appear to be no sources to confirm this alleged album, release date, or track listing. Gongshow ^Talk 23:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL or WP:HOAX. Joe Chill (talk) 01:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are absolutely NO sources on this page. Even fan sites still don't know it's content, release date or label. The whole page is pure fancruft and should be speedily deleted.--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 06:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Could not find a single source anywhere claiming this album even exists other than this article and sites taking the info straight from this article. Looks like a hoax. SteveJ2006 (talk) 03:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. hoax-y. SKS (talk) 06:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - some key issues with this article, any of which would be grounds for deletion in my book. The first: WP:CRYSTAL - not enough sources to verify the information (first 3 currently in the article are blogs from Blogspot/Wordpress, nothing reliable). The second: WP:HOAX - considering how noteworthy an artist Mariah Carey is, it would stand to reason that there would be more/better sources available for this; if there aren't, then it's probably a hoax, or there hasn't been any official confirmation, etc. (in that case, see point one). Cocytus [»talk«] 01:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable source at all about this project. BratBoyz (talk) 07:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NJA (t/c) 08:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kenyon Lasseter[edit]

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

Non-notable minor actor with a small part in one TV episode. The article as written probably survives db-a7, though it's surely a close call. Glenfarclas (talk) 22:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per Nom: Fails Google Test and WP:ENT. Gosox5555 (talk) 23:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Beadle[edit]

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

Footballer previously deleted by AfD. Recently contested PROD. Footballer fails WP:ATHLETE as he has not played at a fully-professional level, also fails WP:N due to lack of any significant third-party coverage. --Jimbo^[online] 22:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. --Jimbo^[online] 22:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet notability guidelines. As an aside, the article also has the whiff of autobiography but that is neither here nor there in the absence of firm evidence. Delete. --Lincolnite (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ATHLETE. Joe Chill (talk) 01:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - never played higher than the Conference National, which has never been a fully professional league -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG at present Steve-Ho (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO as having not played in a fully professional league and WP:N as having not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Mattythewhite (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet ATHLETE, fails GNG with no independent RS, only standard club profiles and the like--ClubOranje^T 22:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE. Cocytus [»talk«] 02:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sources need to be substantial to be consiodered towards notability and the ones provides are not substantial. Notability is not demonstrated by assertion so the delete side has the better policy based arguments Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GNU Typist[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google Books yields zero results. Using a regular Google search I was able to find results like this one but nothing that would indicate notability. JBsupreme (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I found a brief blurb in Linux Magazine [1], which describes everything in the stub & I thought that I've seen this program in other print publications as well (but can't immediately find anything. --Karnesky (talk) 01:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Those sources don't indicate notability. I"m beginning to think of software notability much like we think of local celebrity (think news anchors) notability; it needs to be mentioned outside the community. Granted that's hard with software, unlike geography, but I don't see any indication this software's outside notable. Shadowjams (talk) 05:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Shadowjams I agree with you fully, but we really need to obtain some sort of community consensus on the issue. There is an essay on the matter, Wikipedia:Notability (software) which hopefully one day can become a more solid guideline. JBsupreme (talk) 06:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for pointing me to that. I had no idea. I'll take a look. Shadowjams (talk) 10:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - That essay is bias. Joe Chill (talk) 01:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. GPL-licensed Free software Samboy (talk) 08:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Does your comment imply that you believe anything GPL licensed is somehow notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia? It doesn't work that way. JBsupreme (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Continuing to say keep without backup to references seems to be disruptive behavior to make a point. Miami33139 (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have seen this product mentioned a number of times in FOSS discussions. Strongly notable (could use some tweaks to article, but that's not a reason for deletion). LotLE×talk 21:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Discussions? References please. Miami33139 (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or create Comparison of typing tutor software and merge. I am not inclined to argue that this particular program is particularly notable to the world at large, but rather that this article serves a useful purpose to those coming to Wikipedia in search of a particular tool. If someone created a page of typing programs and redirected this article to that page, that would be acceptable to me.
The problem I see is that a large portion of GNU or open-source software could easily be deleted on the 'that isn't notable' argument. The trouble being that people motivated to write books or articles (usually, the types of media the 'delete' votes above want would have to be professional articles written to earn money) aren't necessarily interested in looking at free programs to see if they are useful for the purpose at hand.
As a couple quick examples of exceptionally useful software that is not currently included here but I believe should be I offer 'PDFSAM' (aka PDF Sort and Merge)... ever want to put two pdf files together? or take one page out of a PDF file? This should be here so people looking for such things can find them. Similarly, I found 'ccleaner' here but not 'easycleaner' a more-limited, but in my opinion better program which serves the same purpose. If someone does not believe that a particular software deserves its own article, I suggest adding new articles for the type of software and putting in tables similar to Comparison of video editing software... for this particular program, it would be something like Comparison of typing tutor software. --Matthew K (talk) 07:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question. I am seeing a lot of WP:USEFUL styled arguments here, but still no one has produced any evidence of notability of the subject. Where is the non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable third party publications? I'm dying to know, as the closing administrator is likely to weigh these comments accordingly. JBsupreme (talk) 09:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. Per the Brave GNU World column mention (found by Karnesky above), and a few mentions (as gtypist) plus a recommendation in this this O'Reilly book (which is translated in Japanese and German too). I would prefer to merge this tiny stub in a single round-up article of such Linux software as indicated by Mkoyle above. This and [2] linux.com articles survey 3+1 other newer programs of this kind, but not gtypist itself (although someone mentioned it in the comments section in both articles). We have articles on some of those software (Tux Typing and KTouch, but not on Klavaro and typespeed), but the sourcing is equally thin there. By the way, there's quite a few packages of this kind out there, so clearly some are more notable than others. Pcap ping 00:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article provides no third party sources and no non-trivial mentions have been shown (at AfD) that this software is out of the ordinary. Miami33139 (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Due to insufficient quantity of 3rd party sources.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 01:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Ku Klux Klan In Prophecy[edit]

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

This self published book does not meet the criteria of WP:BK. Objectionable and racist content has been removed from the article, the references do not support the book's notability. This collection of tracts by a member of a fringe cult only needs a one line mention in the article on the author. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ this article has no merit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cathar11 (talk • contribs)

Comment: With all due respect, that is not a reason for deletion. – ukexpat (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What I meant was it is not notable.Cathar11 (talk) 22:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cathar11 is also adding misinformation to the article on Alma White. I am not sure why he/she is doing it, but they are adding information that is directly contradicted by the source material they are using as the reference. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Alma White talk page this was not misinformation but sourced from a contemporary obituary.

Merge because of additional information and sources added.Cathar11 (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BK. ukexpat (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain exactly which feature of the guideline it fails. Just pointing people to a multi-page guideline isn't useful at all. Quote a specific paragraph. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia isn't censored. Charles Wright Ferguson's 1929 book The New Books of Revelations: The Inside Story of America's Astounding Religious Cults has a full page devoted to the book. That reference is already in the article. Lynn Neal has a June 2009 article called Christianizing the Klan: Alma White, Branford Clarke, and the Art of Religious Intolerance in a publication called Church History: Studies in Christianity and Culture which covers the three publications that White and Clarke collaborated on. That also is already used as a reference in the article. For a great timeline see History of the Klu Klux Klan in New Jersey. There are 100 citations for the book in Google books here. While I applaud the noble concept of getting rid of articles in Wikipedia about racism, its isn't the way Wikipedia works. Not discussing history doesn't make the past go away or prevent it from happening in the future, it just creates ignorance. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Three errors of fact there.
  - 1 Ferguson devotes two sentences on page 271 [3] to the book and reproduces part of the preface.
  - 2. The google books result above lists the article subject and then 96 other books, in fact less since some are cited more than once, which mention in one line summaries the book.
  - 3. Neal's article discusses some of Branford Clarke’s illustrations in the book and mentions briefly an advert for the book in White newspaper the Good Citizen. The book itself is not discussed, just Branford Clarke's illustrations.
- Please produce some WP:RS which establish the notability of the book. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arguing that the lengthy article of White and Clarke only discusses the illustrations and not the book is just silly semantics. Ferguson is indeed a full page and includes the introduction to the book, which you keep deleting. If there are 10 facts about the book from 5 articles it has the same depth of coverage as 10 facts from a single book. There is sufficient information for a stand alone article. This article is not a stub either, it is a full sized article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to Guardians of Liberty. This article (TKKKIP), along with two of her other books Klansmen: Guardians of Liberty (KGL) and Heroes of the Fiery Cross (HFC) appear to fail WP:BK on their own. Ferguson does mention TKKKIP for a page or two, but it's pretty borderline, and HFC has one brief mention in a reference. Of the other 96 "citations" in Norton's list, those that can be previewed basically just list the book and the author in their bibliographies, without discussing it. Due to the age of the publication, there might be offline reliable sources, and if any are found, I'm open to revising my opinion. But assuming none are found, I suggest redirecting and merging all three to Guardians of Liberty instead of to Alma White. Guardians of Liberty is a reprint of these three books, and I think "combining" the borderline RS's of the three articles allows this article to meet the requirements of multiple RS's in WP:BK. It is currently a short article, with plenty of room to absorb content from these three articles; the three articles share a lot of text in common anyway. This way, we have the opportunity to have one decent-sized, useful, somewhat more comprehensive article (and redirects if someone searches for an individual book title), rather than a smattering of stubs that (due to a lack of multiple reliable sources that actually discuss each book) are unlikely to go very far beyond a description of Alma White's views, a list of the book's table of contents, and excerpts from the books. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ to Alma Bridwell White or other appropriate page. Cnilep (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. The page still has serious problems (such as too many primary sources and direct quotations from the book or its contributors, and lack of historical or sociological context), but the article is being substantially changed. The question may need to be re-addressed in the future. Cnilep (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per historical significance. Disheartening as the topic itself is, the article educates on racism... a very sad reality in the United States of 1925 and is representative of a time whan a very unhealthy set of ides had an unfortunate strength. As RAN notes above, Wikipedia is not censored... neither does Wikipedia ignore that nasty ideals played a prominant part in history. Note: A 1925 racist tome will not be the subject on online RS. Time to look in pre-internet archive for news articles discussing the book. Surmountable issues, no matter how difficult, are not reason for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge as Floquenbeam suggested. conceivably we could have an article on each of the books, but they simply are not worth it. Certainly I think that Wikipedia should discuss all such topics fully, and the way of being truly not censored is to discuss them just to the same extent we would discuss them if them were more acceptable to our current way of thinking. Normally i would say merge to the author, but when there is such a convenient place, we should use it. Splitting into as many articles as possible for what after all are relatively minor works makes very little sense to me. Same principle as merging episodes. DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge as per Floquenbeam and DGG. The fact that the book is self-published isn't relevant here, because it's not being considered as a source, this is the book as a subject. I don't think the number of incidental references quite meet the general notability guidelines, but I absolutely agree that taken collectively with the author's other works it's a notable subject and worth preserving, as MichaelQSchmidt suggested.--otherl left 02:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep based upon new information added to the article, I now have no doubt this book is notable.--otherl left 18:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article under discussion has had new information added that addresses concerns raised in this AFD at this point in the discussion.

Keep a viable standalone article on a notable and fascinating subject, with the reliable and verifiable sources provided to support notability. Alansohn (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Were this the work of a 2010 nutbag, it wouldn't be notable; but it's the work of a 1925 nutbag that's been revised and reprinted several times. No real objection to merger in the article about the later edition, but it would appear that the original version contained material edited out of the subsequent ones. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The editors trying to delete the article have removed some of the material. Some of the quoted material was by Lynn S. Neal and from her article. I don't have access to the full text of the Neal article anymore. They accused the creator of the article as being racist for creating this. I had the opposite problem with Buz, I thought he was being too overzealous in exposing racism in the institutions associated with Alma White to the point of the articles being coatracky. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I checked Academic Search Complete and came across Lynn S. Neal, Assistant professor of religion at Wake Forest University, "Christianizing the Klan: Alma White, Branford Clarke, and the Art of Religious Intolerance," Church History; Jun2009, Vol. 78 Issue 2, p350-378, 29p: "The article discusses the image 'The Men Who are Refusing to Bow to the Great Image' from the book The Ku Klux Klan in Prophecy by Alma White. The author claims that the image raises questions about the history of religious intolerance in the United States through a fusing of biblical myth, American identity, and Klan ideology. Efforts by the Ku Klux Klan to promote the Protestant religion and its moral ideas are detailed, with a specific focus on the ways that Klan members justified their goals." An aspect of the book is analyzed by a scholar in a journal article that is nearly thirty pages long, i.e. more than just treatment in a review even. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep Note: I was canvassed, so feel free to discount this as much as desired. Given the above back-and-forth I was debating between merge (group of minor books, etc. per DGG et al) and keep due to sourcing existing. The real question to me is if anyone actually cares about this book. I found 50,000 GHITS and 100 Gbook hits. While not very relevant to WP:N, I think it is relevant to a merge discussion. Especailly of an 80 year old book. I'd say it's a well-known book and notable enough for an article. As far as deletion goes, I believe that a page of coverage here and there of a book of this nature is enough for notability. Given the nature of the book, I'd not expect book reviews or the like. Hobit (talk) 05:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. Gbooks shows it has been referenced and discussed in multiple academic studies. --Cyclopia ^talk 11:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am the original editor so my view is biased. Buz lightning (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There are way too many articles on this topic [[4]] and some are way overblown. The basis of this article is an early 20th century newsletter distributed by the Pillar of Fire Church, which is both an article and a category Category:Pillar_of_Fire_Church on Wikipedia with many subtopics. The newsletter became this book and other of the books that have their own separate articles at Wikipedia. I am sure the enthusiasts who are placing these articles have good intentions but they seem to be stepping over the WP:Not line into advocacy.Skywriter (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking the editors and confine your arguements to the material at hand. Just so we are clear, it is my hatred of bigotry that drives me to edit these articles. Buz lightning (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia rule is: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't point people to multi-page Wikipedia guidelines and tell them your rational is buried somewhere in there. If you have read the guideline and found something that pertains, quote it directly. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails all relevant Wikipedia guidelines on published works. Rasputin72 (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you actually cite one of those "relevant Wikipedia guidelines"? Saying it, does not make it so, you actually have to cite a relevant passage in one of those guidelines. Oh, its just a Wikipedia sockpuppet of User:Torkmann. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck Rasputin72's comment per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Torkmann#Clerk.2C_patrolling_admin_and_checkuser_comments as it is a confirmed sock of someone who has been using multiple socks to attack Richard Arthur Norton for several months now. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BK. --Webley455 (talk) 05:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't point people to multi-page Wikipedia guidelines and tell them your rational is buried somewhere in there. If you have read the guideline and found something that pertains, quote it directly. I don't see anything in the guideline you can possibly be referring to. The Wikipedia rule is: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Thank You. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck Webley455's comment per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive591#Webley455_sockpuppetry. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ample sources indicating notability of this unpleasant little book. Edward321 (talk) 00:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki warrior[edit]

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

neologism applies here. No references to support definition or even mainstream use of word. ttonyb (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Dog poster 23:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per article (proposed by NawlinWiki) Gosox5555 (talk) 23:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. The pre-redirect content was not clearly notable, and the redirect target does not use the term. Cnilep (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NEO. Nothing of encyclopedic value to redirect. Warrah (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete None of the sources from the page before it was blanked even contained the phrase. Why would anyone try this page? ErikHaugen (talk) 05:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm changing my vote to "weak delete"; I'm somewhat moved by 141.217.105.21's examples below of use in the wild. Still unconvinced, though. ErikHaugen (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NEO. No evidence found that term is referred to by any secondary reliable sources. Calmer Waters 10:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Gosox5555 and NawlinWiki. I'm lukewarm on the idea that this is a notable concept - But redirects are cheap. It's not an unreasonable search term. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- They're cheap, but they're not free because they do imply meaning. And redirecting to Criticism of Wikipedia will just serve to confuse, because the article won't help anyone understand what a wiki warrior is; the page doesn't mention wiki warriors. I would almost conclude that it means someone who fights against wikipedia or something. ErikHaugen (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, I am not sure even the redirect makes sense. If it is not a common enough term then it seems the redirect is a waste of time. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Moreover, the material was not supposed to be blanked until the consensus was reached, yet it was immediately blanked. Please follow ALL wiki rules, whether it supports your POV or not. A request was made for more citations, and some have been given.141.217.105.21 (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It wasn't just blanked, a redirect was made. That's ok, right? ErikHaugen (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For mainstream use of the term, here are examples:

[5]
[6]

and from the Wall Street Journal -

[7]141.217.105.21 (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A potential resolution may be to transwiki to Wiktionary 68.43.236.244 (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NEO and nominator. ^Pepper·_piggle 01:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:CSD#A7 JohnCD (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Garibay[edit]

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

Founder of likely non-notable internet organization. [8] and [9]. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 20:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mozzy massacre[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable subject matter that returns no reliable sources when searched for on Google. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 13:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I also couldn't find any significant coverage anywhere. –MuZemike 20:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lack of reliable third-party sources being available suggests a lack of notability. --Taelus (talk) 09:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks 3rd party coverage, notability not demonstrated RadioFan (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Superphone[edit]

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

Not notable. wp:note Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable neologism not describing a currently identifiable concept. Entry probably spurred by recent articles like this one, can be transwikied if anyone cares enough. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Glenfarclas (talk) 20:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Redirect to Smartphone. Its just a marketing term and even the Marketing Droid at Google couldn't come up with a valid reason to differentate it from a Smartphone besides "It has a 1 Ghz processor!" -- KelleyCook (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable neologism. Barring that, redirect as above. Hairhorn (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just a marketing term, no need for an article. Although if there's a redirect involved, it should be to the Nexus One, since it's a Google term, and the Nexus One is the only applicable phone. C628 (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep, Name of a new genertion of phones--123.237.195.103 (talk) 12:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Above comment is User:123.237.195.103 first contribution to Wikipedia.
Delete or redir to Smartphone. Just because a marketing droid creates a buzzword, it doesn't mean we should all grek to his froobyness. Syrthiss (talk) 12:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons already listed above. Klparrot (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! Eventually, Google will release more phones and it will be notable. There is a difference between a superphone and a smartphone. Someone looking for an article on a superphone who gets to a smartphone will find out what a smartphone is but never find out what a superphone is whether it is a marketing work or not.--iBen^discuss 02:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 06:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So by your own admission, the neologism "superphone" is not currently notable. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 02:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neologism produced solely to market a product. Did I miss something, has Wikipedia suddenly become a billboard? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 02:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, but the pointy name change should probably be undone. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of languages by number of native speakers according to two websites[edit]

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

Which 2 websites? Perhaps it may not warrant deletion, but boy does this one need help! WuhWuzDat 20:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. The article needs renaming to drop 'according to two websites'. The topic is worthy so at that point it becomes one of many poorly written but useful articles. I'm assuming a similar article doesn't coexist with this one. Szzuk (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A similar article does coexist with this one: Ethnologue list of most spoken languages. Munci (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An interesting topic. A few sites listed as references, but not which are the eponymous two. A problem comes in definition. Is a native speaker solely one resident in his/her native country, or are native speakers resident elsewhere counted? How about languages that are 'banned' in certain countries? Peridon (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The two websites of the title are Encarta and SIL Ethnologue. A native speaker is one who speaks the language from when a very young age; from when they first start to speak. It has nothing to do with where people are living. Munci (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article was recently(3/01/10) renamed (+ 'according to two websites') by ماني , because the majority of sources are indeed two websites (ethnologue and encarta), the ranking itself is only based on ethnologue data, there are obvious issues with ethnologue (according to them there were half as many native french speakers in 2005 than 2000), and encarta is partially based on ethnologue. We are meant to use secondary sources, and secondary sources confirm primary sources. In this case, primary sources cannot be found. There are some issues as well over the definition of "native speaker", "second language native speaker" and the validity of the data presented in this regard by non-ethnologue/encarta references. On top of this comes also the fact that accurate data is difficult to find for that type of article, (for us, for ethnologue, for the UN, and everyone else) and this article may never reach an acceptable quality. It would be more interesting and doable to have a list of languages according to the estimated number of fluent speakers, and give a 'homemade' wikipedia range (low-estimate/high-estimate) based on quality, varied sources like we do on other articles, instead of copying dodgy data.Ren ✉ 22:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —cjllw ʘ TALK 21:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Comment: On 3 January, this page was moved from List of languages by number of native speakers, first to List of languages by number of native speakers according to two sites and then to its current name. This was apparently a pointy way of critiquing the sources. (Note this discussion.) The topic is, I think, notable and the page should be kept, but at the old name. Cnilep (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, undo pointy rename, and take angst about quality of sources (back) to the talkpage. — æk ^Talk 02:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
yes, keep at old name. This is a topic that even your almanac will cover, so it's definitely something to keep.
comment the problem with compiling data on our own is that we'll be comparing estimates based on disparate definitions of what a native speaker is, and disparate methods on how to count them. Of course, Ethnologue does the same. This debate is long-standing, and I doubt there's any satisfactory solution. Best IMO to make it abundantly clear in the intro that the data is dodgey, and there's nothing we can do about it. kwami (talk) 02:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I agree, however statistics that do not come with a reference of the statistical tool used, or an explanation, are absolutely worthless. That's ethnologue and encarta. By finding our own data, while it would be difficult to make a comparison of languages, we can still make a list (as that's what we should be doing anyway) that also tells how the data was gathered.Ren ✉ 18:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The article contains useful information. The fact that it was moved is probably why it is nominated for deletion. Revert to old name since the "two websites" part of the article title is inappropriate --NerdyScienceDude :) ^{(click here to talk to me)} 03:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Split if kept. The article is too long as it is and if it would ever be complete, it would be much longer. I suggest splitting either at the 1,000,000 or the 100,000 mark. Munci (talk) 11:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This issue should be raised at the article's talk page; AfD can do nothing about it. — æk ^Talk 22:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Maybe it needs all the other revisions all the other editors mentioned, but it contains interesting information that might be hard to find if it isn't in the Wikipedia. --Eldin raigmore (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep at the original title. The article has issues, but those aren't sufficient to warrant deletion. Discuss the quality of the sources at the talkpage. Bart133 ^{t c @} 23:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Split and Rename Useful info but lots work needs to be done. A separate article for Ethnologue's rankings and data and a separate article for Encarta's rankings and data as this is the main content of the article. One article called List of languages by native speakers (Ethnologue) or expand Ethnologue list of most spoken languages and another List of languages by native speakers (Encarta) while adding these links to main article either through the "see also" section or as a sub-article. From the suggestion of the talk page the current article can be restructured to include a range rather than raw data since sources conflict and editors have problems with the numbers. The article is long and the current ranking system isn't very good (ranking by mean average of Encarta's and Ethnologue's estimate) and needs some major restructuring if we were to keep both figures in one article. However this doesn't seem like the best idea to keep the article in its current state as little or no improvement has been done to article for a year. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 02:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Why is a deletion discussion being allowed to continue when even the person who opened the AfD is not willing to say flatly that the article should be deleted? "Perhaps it may not warrant deletion, but boy does this one need help!" is what the opener said. This discussion should be closed immediately, with an unconditional Keep as the result; any renaming or other changes should be dealt with through procedures other than an AfD. If current procedures don't allow this, then they need to be changed so that they do.
More generally, the AfD process needs to be limited severely, or even abolished entirely. Under present circumstances, article deletion - and the expenditure of effort to preserve articles from deletion - are seriously impairing the usefulness of Wikipedia. All too often, articles that I seek out for information turn out to be redlinked (sometimes even WP:SALTed), or in the middle of a deletion debate (as here).
--Neuromath (talk) 02:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is in complete shambles, and no viable solution has been offered. While I can see how this kind of list is useful (that's how I ended up here in the first place), its quality is below that of primary school research. Ren ✉ 03:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although the article is in bad shape, it could be easily cleaned up. Afterall, essential information is contained in the article. --NerdyScienceDude :) ^{(click here to talk to me)} 03:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal The present state of the article is not relevant to a deletion debate unless there is reason to believe that it cannot be improved, and those arguing for an unconditional keep do not need to offer solutions to any problems that may exist -- they only need to rebut arguments, if any are given, that the problems cannot ever be solved. Please reread WP:Deletion, especially the section WP:ATD (Alternatives to Deletion). Wikipedia's current deletion policies are irrational enough without misinterpreting them to put the burden of proof on those who wish to keep an article.
Personally, I would be far more willing to expend efforts trying to find solutions to problems with an article if I knew that the article itself, at least (as opposed to my specific contributions to it), could be protected forever from deletion. Every unjustified AfD, even if it fails, is a slap in the face to every non-insider who would like to contribute to Wikipedia.
--Neuromath (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Counter rebuttal "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information"

"Excessive listing of statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader."

Then there's also the fact that this list mostly relies on one known-to-be-unreliable source(ethnologue), the other major reference, encarta, is partially based on ethnologue. On top of that, these are tertiary sources. And on top of that, there's the npov issue. Basically, it's in breach of many rules and guidelines. After discussion on the talk page and now here, I have come to the conclusion that this article cannot be repaired. If the wikiproject can come up with a plan to rescue it, then that's great, but apparently it's not happening.Ren ✉ 02:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of these assertions offer any support for your conclusion that "this article cannot be repaired"; they are all critiques of the past and present history of the article, and do not give any reasons why we should assume that any of the problems are unfixable. Incidentally, have you actually reread WP:Deletion as requested? --Neuromath (talk) 03:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it. Where do you think I got the quote from? The reason why I believe the article is not repairable is because the bad references and associated data make up 99% of it. I find that kind of article useful... But so far it represents more of a threat than a treat to the knowledge-thirsty reader. If you can prove me wrong, please do so, and I'll even help you in improving this article. I have already offered various solutions, all requiring either split or major revamp, but unfortunately were discarded or went unnoticed, with editors' energy being spent on 'frivolous' things.Ren ✉ 05:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can empathize with your frustration at having constructive suggestions for change rejected, but that isn't a reason to propose deletion of the article in question. Deletion would preclude further improvement, while an existing article - even one with serious flaws - allows other editors to keep on trying. You could also adopt the ((sofixit)) solution - write your own version of the article, incorporating the improvements you had proposed, and simply replace the existing article with your version. If the other editors object, you can then point out the fearful deficiencies of the prior version, and that argument will then be more cogent than it is in the present context of a deletion debate. ---Neuromath (talk) 02:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that is I would expect a lot of resistance, and most importantly I can't possibly pull that one off (on my own). This article is enormous, And I can only read two languages fluently. Some of the 'good' data is going to be impossible for me to harvest (you know, from census data lost on a website with an obscure tld)... Although I could look into having some kind of transwiki cooperation.Ren ✉ 13:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. "According to two websites" is odd, especially when the lead mentions only SIL Ethnologue. Brand[t] 13:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nabil Mohammad Shalaby[edit]

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

Non-notable alleged business guru. Not to be confused with a mathematics professor named Nabil Shalaby. I can find no significant information to support this man's notability. Glenfarclas (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. -- Whpq (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyright violation of [10] - tagged accordingly. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slut[edit]

Fails WP:NOT, specifically Wikipedia is not a dictionary and this article only talks about etymology of the word. This particular AFD was recommended at the AFD#2 for Hussy. KelleyCook (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of references and history that demonstrate it is more than a dicdef. Szzuk (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. This sort of detail should be in Wiktionary. I see nothing here that belongs in an encyclopedia rather than in a dictionary, at least in an online dictionary that has room for such detail.--Michig (talk) 21:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Redirect per Mandsford's suggestion below.--Michig (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the dab page. It's worth noting that Slut (disambiguation) solves the recurring problem of Wiktionary not being directly accessible from the navigation-interaction-toolbox on the side. Click on that article, and it has a link to the Wiktionary article. Mandsford (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Prostitution While I don't mean to sound demaning towards women in any way, it makes sense. Or you could Delete it all together. JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 07:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A slut is not a prostitute - she is a promiscuous woman who tends to give it away. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Cnilep (talk) 00:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article does suggests there could be social meanings and points of encyclopedic note that "Hussy" did not have, but as written it does read like a DICDEF per nom and per Michig, and delete/redirect (without prejudice) would be appropriate. It would need good quality evidence this is more than a DICDEF to avoid deletion/redirection; if evidence were provided then keeping could be appropriate. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the term has substantial cultural importance. Everyking (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its not just a definition, but a legitimate article about something. You have far more valid content here, than you would have in the wiktionary, which by the way almost no one ever uses, and most don't even notice exist. Dream Focus 20:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guido (slang) was a similar AfD where i never !voted, but simply added a slew of sources. Its more than a dicdef.--Milowent (talk) 06:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic has great notability being covered at length in several substantial books and papers such as Slut!: growing up female with a bad reputation‎, Fast girls: teenage tribes and the myth of the slut‎ and Why a'Slut'is a'Slut': Cautionary Tales of Middle Class Teenage Girls. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As the comments say there are far too many articles there to make be able to say that they all need deleting. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 00:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All untagged deadend pages[edit]

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

NOTE: This deletion discussion applies to all pages on the following list: [11].

I have selected a wide variety of these pages at random, and they all suck. None of them are worth keeping. They have no citations, and often no assertion of anything that would make the article subject notable. They fail virtually all of our content policies. Some of the titles might have decent articles written at them someday, but for now, we should clear out all this junk. Note: I have not tagged each article individually, which would be an impossible task. *** Crotalus *** 20:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Inappropriate mass nomination. We improve stubs rather than delete them. - Eastmain (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree with Eastmain above. And some of them aren't dead-ends anyway: Results 4-7 are pages for separate qualifying rounds for the World Cup. They are all linked to one another. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 23:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: lol The Hero of This Nation (talk) 23:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative suggestion: Wouldn't it be better to work through the list tagging articles for speedy deletion where appropriate and tagging, tidying referencing and categorising the others? It is more work but more likely to save some potentially good stuff. Perhaps there is a methodical way to break up the list and do it in chunks? --DanielRigal (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec x2) Comment: I have reported this AfD to WP:ANI to get some admin eyes on it; see WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Mass nomination at AfD. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 23:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can see several articles on that list that are basically alright (eg the Bakers Delight one.) Orderinchaos 23:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The vast majority of those pages do indeed suck hard. However, there's no way anyone can offer an informed opinion on a mass nomination this broad. You've made your point (and I agree with it); it's best to close this quickly. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close per WP:SNOWBALL ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 23:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. This suggestion is both ill-considered and incorrect. If I were a vandal, I could easily remove the links from a few perfectly good stubs, wait for this AfD to pass, and thereby remove a bunch of good pages. There is no implementation of this idea that isn't both dangerous and half-baked. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 00:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close per Eastmain, Phoe, and others. Cnilep (talk) 00:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Declan and Eck[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a future TV show. I get no Google hits whatsoever for "Declan and Eck or "Declan & Eck"; not a notable project if it exists at all. ADDED: Probably speediable as the author is "DeclanHall1991," so I assume this refers to him and his mate, but we're here now. Glenfarclas (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wikipedia is not a crystal ball RadioFan (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of notability, no sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable or hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - either a WP:HOAX, or, at the article admits a television station has not picked it up yet, fails WP:CRYSTAL. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regional Transmission Organization[edit]

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

article has been replaced by an updated and properly referenced article ISO_RTO -- Smbateman (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on the AfD of Independent System Operator is relevant to this AfD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Independent_System_Operator Fjbfour (talk) 01:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It seems to me that ISO and RTO are distinct but related entities. As such, there is no valid reason to delete this article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and discuss how our content about electricity distribution in the US should be organised on article talk pages or at the relevant project pages. Even if this isn't kept as a separate page it should certainly be at least a redirect, and ISO RTO is a very uninformative article title, so that is not the best name for any merged article. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Phil Bridger. If someone wants to delete two articles that have some history with a new article that does not appear to be formatted like most articles, I wonder what the advantage of switching is? The better approach might be to fold the new material and references into the old articles. I don't see any reason to switch to an alphabet soup article name. We improve by adding to and updating existing articles and not deleting what is here and replacing with something new. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Galore Nation[edit]

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

Not notable. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 19:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This non-notable album from a non-notable band. Angryapathy (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until this related AfD discussion is decided. If the consensus is to delete the band article, then it will probably follow that this album article should be deleted as an orphan. Also, to Kiitybrewster - as I said to you elsewhere, please say more than just "not notable" when creating an AfD. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable four-track EP from a non-notable band (at whose AfD I've also voted for delete). I can find no significant coverage outside of sales sites and social networking. Glenfarclas (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NALBUM, no need to wait for the other Afd. ukexpat (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - fails WP:NALBUM vulture19 22:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 23:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:GNG is not met; no significant coverage found, and does not meet WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 00:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NALBUMS, and should be deleted, as with the band's article, due to lack of significant third party coverage. Cocytus [»talk«] 02:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Leader (band)[edit]

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

I can find no significant coverage in independent reliable sources for this band to show that they pass the general notability guideline and no evidence that the labels on which their albums were released are of the stature required for WP:BAND criterion 5. I'll admit to some prejudice here as I feel that the link to this article at the top of Kim Jong-il disfigures that article, but I've tried to disregard that and still don't think that this band is notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this survives the AfD I recomend a disambig page for Dear Leader because having the band link to such a non-notable band at the top of the Kim Jong-il article is a joke. Polargeo (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If they are deleted turn Dear Leader back to a redirect. Polargeo (talk) 16:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 19:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I added some references from reliable sources. - Eastmain (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Eastmain's references are local. Joe Chill (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local Boston band. Won Local album award. Their music is released on a local Boston record label (actually it turns out the drummer owned the record label so you could say self-released). Coverage only local. Polargeo (talk) 15:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, needs more significant coverage than is present. Nyttend (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Members come from three other notable bands (The Sheila Divine, Orbit, and Tugboat Annie) and has received non-trivial coverage in The Boston Globe and Boston Herald (despite Joe Chill and Polargo's assertions to the contrary, "locality" does not negate a source's reliability or independence from the subject) and won a notable award (again locality doesn't make a Boston Music Award non-notable). Passes WP:BAND. TheJazzDalek (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ISCSI Test Tool[edit]

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

No indication that product is notable. PROD'ed twice, no 3rd party refs. Jclemens (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nominator. Could not find any sources on searching that show the product as notable -- Raziman T V (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I admit my POV may be subjective, but I use this tool every day at work for a Fortune 50 company. The article needs a lot of work to conform to WP standards, but this does not justify a delete !vote (dude, loose the images in the article; uninteresting). —Aladdin Sane (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject needs to have significant coverage by reliable third party publications in order to be considered "notable" per Wikipedia standards. Said coverage is lacking. JBsupreme (talk) 07:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Virtonomics[edit]

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

The fifth recreation of an article on this topic within six weeks prompted me to bring it to the community for a more permanent solution. This appears to be a commercial product with no reliable sources documenting any notability; my brief Google search revealed nothing useful to bolster this article. If there is something notable about this topic, let's document it or dispose of the topic. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find any coverage in reliable sources. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As pointed out by Sergomen1 below, this is a notable Russian game under the name Virtonomica (Виртономика). I cannot read Russian, but I don't think all these are press releases. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your help!

Sergomen1 (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I received a note on my talk page from the article's most recent creator, which I reproduce here: "Unfortunately, I have not much experience in the preparation of articles in the Wiki. This explains the large number of unsuccessful previous attempts to create this article. Virtonomics there long enough (more than 6 years in Russian under the name Virtonomica). In the Russian language Internet is indeed a very significant phenomenon, and perhaps the most popular project economic game. This business simulation actually use many Russian universities as a training program. In 2007 Virtonomica was recognized as the best business simulation in Russian language Internet. In English-speaking Internet has few references to Virtonomica (English-speaking project name - Virtonomics) because the game only recently translated into English. Here are some links to Russian-language sources about the game Virtonomica (Virtonomics):

Unfortunately, most sources still in Russian. I really hope that after all you do not erase this article, because this project really represents a very interesting phenomenon, and quite unique and useful for many people interested in business and economics. Sincerely, Sergomen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergomen1 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC) "[reply]

- Whoops, forgot to add my own signature. I have tried to be helpful to this individual elsewhere and have advised him to add references directly to the article. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least pro tem... (pending new references). I know that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but there has been an article on the Russian language Википедии since 2006 without any deletion attempts that I've spotted. There are a lot of ghits for Виртономика (including a forum with falling snowflakes that I could have done without after my business trip today...) - but my Russian isn't good enough, and nor is my time unlimited to check them all out. I would suggest that a Russian speaking person could do well to post some references that are not blogs, forums or company based sites which is what the few I've been into are, as are the given refs in the article. Over to you - I might change my mind if you can't produce... Peridon (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear friends, thank you very much for your help. I have added an article about 10 different links to big and famous Russia's media over the last 4 years, which are discussed in various contexts game Virtonomica (Virtonomics). I really hope this will help preserve the article. If necessary, I can do for you to translate some articles into English, so you can see that this is not advertising articles and press releases, this interview, analytical articles, reviews and news. Sincerely, sergomen Sergomen1 (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Neptune[edit]

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

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

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

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

Unnotable "code name" for Windows XP before its release. Was merged to Development of Windows XP by User:SchmuckyTheCat due to lack of notability and lack of significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Various IP editors and SPA have continued to restore, along with User:Wjemather who called for additional discussion. I found only a single news result for this codename, a Japanese site[12] that, if RS, confirms that it was just a codename for the pre-release XP build. However, as the term does not appear to have significant coverage or use outside of Wikipedia, I feel deletion is likely the better result at it seems like an unlikely search term. If it is felt to be one, I'd suggest deleting and recreating as a locked redirect due to the long history of IP reverting on the term. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the news link above shows more than a "single result", and there appears to be enough material out there to source a separate article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One is about a King Neptune festival or something in Michigan, one is about some windows, then we have some blog posts, and maybe two more news articles that did not show up in a normal search that only confirm that it was an early code name but do not go into significant details about it specifically. A one line mention is not coverage. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ars Technica doesn't count as "some blog posts" or a one-line mention. Please don't exaggerate to make your point. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not exaggerate to make a point, I summarized what I saw. Ars is a single source. That is not enough to make an article or show any notability, nor have you addressed why this should be a standalone article when it was, at best, a codename for Windows XP? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only mention in that article is this:

“

An alpha of "Windows Neptune" (a home-oriented update to Windows 2000) was made in December 1999, with a later beta release in April 2000. Neptune was then combined with "Windows Odyssey" (a minor update to Windows 2000 for business users) to create Windows Whistler—the codename that XP used during its development. The first Whistler beta shipped...

”

Obviously not enough to write an entire article from. Pcap ping 22:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ARS TECHNICA COPIED INFORMATION FROM WIKIPEDIA Which completely invalidates the idea that this is notable, and it is why having bogus information and original research in our articles should be dealt with harshly. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

*Delete history and redirect. Like I explained in the sister Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Windows_Odyssey_(2nd_nomination), there is only one semi-reliable source that directly supports this article. The DOJ material, part of which is too vaguely cited to verify, is used for WP:Bombardment purposes: it doesn't really support the core of the article. Pcap ping 19:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC) (changed my mind see below)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —_wjemather ^bigissue 19:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sarek makes a good point. Jeni ^(talk) 22:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously not. Pcap ping 22:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It would appear from some basic searching that the Neptune O/S has received a significant amount of coverage (and not just one article). As the first planned home/consumer version of NT based Windows, it was clearly a notable project._wjemather^bigissue 19:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you give us an example of significant coverage? Pcap ping 23:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Article rewritten, with many fresh sources added. False information, speculation and OR removed. _wjemather ^bigissue 10:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To correct the nom, Neptune was not a codename for XP, but a distinct O/S. Whistler, the codename for XP, began development after MS merged their Neptune and Odyssey teams. _wjemather ^bigissue 23:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Ars Technica article noted above states it was a codename for an update to Windows 2000, rather than XP. Can you point to some sources stating it was a separate OS? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Could one of the folks claiming "significant coverage" point me at a reliably-sourced statement in Windows Neptune that's not already in Development of Windows XP? I'm honestly not seeing one, nor sources to write such a statement from. —Korath (Talk) 23:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. I agree with Sarek of Vulcan... Ars Technica is not a blog and is significant coverage of the idea and concept. It is unreasonable to assert that notability is temporary for scientific concepts or developments. It is also unreasonable to depend on lack G-Hits as an indicator of non-notability. The notability of ideas is not judged by the same criteria as notability for an athelete or political figure. Further research in archives and technical journals not available online would be prudent. Surmountable issues are not proper cause for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Significant coverage == two sentences (quoted above)? Pcap ping 00:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - With respects, and while WP:GNG is fine for many subject, The notability of ideas is not judged by the same criteria as an event or film. Research in non-online sources would be prudent. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, quoting Ars Technica as an RS here is circular, because the article referred to copied information from Wikipedia. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Keep this is the sort of subject where the criteria for what counts as RS will often be somewhat loser than the ordinary. The GNG is a guideline, used by default when it seems applicable. it will not and does not apply to all subjects. For software, both commercial and open source, a host of recent AfDs have clearly been shown it not to be sufficiently responsive to the subject, but how to replace it I must leave to the experts, if they can actually agree. In the meantime, common sense will need to do. DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are advocating original research be used in a class of articles, that is bollocks and against every policy and goal of this project. Further, the original research here is mostly speculation from a bunch of forum users who trade pirated beta software on P2P networks. The information is completely unreliable, and now this unreliable original research has been quoted in the press. Now that press mention our OR, it is being used to argue for sourcing HERE on Wikipedia where it originally appeared. This is possibly the worst argument to keep information I have ever seen, because that circular sourcing problem is the worst possible scenario ever for Wikipedia being trusted as a reliable reference. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Keep – Per DGG; Every Microsoft project code name is an inherently notable article name; in some cases these need to be a re-direct to the released project; in this case it does not. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: Notability is inherited. Fleet Command (talk) 16:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a CD on my desk here, on official Microsoft silk-screened media, that is a build of Windows and the code name is my real name. Does that make me notable? This idea that any MS code name is insta-deserving of an article is completely ignorant of how Microsoft works. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Keep. Article seems important and not a the code name for XP (as Longhorn is for Visa). --Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 11:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete history, then redirect to Development of Windows XP All the reliably sourced information we have about this software fits in that article just fine. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- While Neptune formed the basis for the development of Whistler, later XP, it was a distinct project so that redirect would be inappropriate. In any case, this clearly passes WP:GNG. _wjemather ^bigissue 11:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neptune didn't form the basis of Whistler/XP. It was a pre-Win2000 side project and killed before Win2000 even RTM'd. Explaining this has as much to do with fired executives, duplicated corporate divisions both working on similar things, and other corporate politics. Microsoft kills off more codenamed development projects than they ever try to ship. Wikipedia has a hard-on for this project because some software pirates got a leaked build and tried to write a Wikipedia article about it. All of these press references are trivial mentions, because this side project never got anywhere, attention to it is almost purely a Wikipedia phenomenon. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

If you agree that "Neptune didn't form the basis of Whistler/XP", why would you want a "redirect to Development of Windows XP", which you have edit-warred about in the past. Aside from that, the sources would seem to disagree with you. They clearly state that it was a consumer version of Win2000, and that a build was released, not leaked, by MS to development testers. Also, this is quite obviously not a trivial mention. _wjemather ^bigissue 10:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't form the basis, but was a fork in the road to get there. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Comment The statement that Microsoft Neptune development was cancelled prior to the Microsoft Windows 2000 RTM being compiled is not completely accurate. Microsoft Windows 2000 RTM (Build 2195) was compiled on December 15, 1999. That's 12 days prior to Microsoft Neptune Build 5111 being compiled. And potentially, there may have been some post-Build 5111 development, which means there may have been some builds after the general availability of Microsoft Windows 2000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.197.7.240 (talk) 03:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no assertion of notability, and there was no released product! If we were considering a new article saying that according to some magazine, Windows Triton will be released in 2011 as the next [insert marketing jargon here], we would have no trouble in quoting WP:CRYSTAL and saying that we will create the article when the product is officially announced. In the case of Neptune, we are creating such an article after the event. It ain't a product; it never was and never will be. It was just one of a thousand steps in the ongoing development of Windows. Johnuniq (talk) 08:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The first line of WP:GNG: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Whether the project was eventually cancelled is immaterial. The fact is, Neptune received more than enough significant coverage. _wjemather^bigissue 10:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, this topic has received insignificant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and therefore it is presumed to fail to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Fleet Command (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Several articles on ZDNet ([13]) over a six month plus period from mid-1999 is a pretty solid indicator that other reputable industry publications, and possibly general media, also devoted significant column inches to it. Especially given their articles refer to other publications, such as PC Week. _wjemather^bigissue 17:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:BIGNUMBER and WP:INTHENEWS: You are right, but all those are over now. Neptune's coverage was a temporary short burst in the news and, per WP:NTEMP, it does not merit an independent article of its own.
        However, it doesmerit a dependent article. Half of the sources in Neptune article quote about how Neptune was merged into Whistler. Neptune draws all its notability from Windows XP. So, a merger would immediately resolve the notability issue. Why delete, when we can merge?
        Fleet Command (talk) 08:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Please stop emboldening random phrases. They do give your POV any extra weight. Nor does quoting irrelevant essay sections.
        Over six months of coverage is hardly a short burst and plainly, there are offline publications that discussed Neptune more in depth, unveiling new features, etc. _wjemather ^bigissue 19:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Development of Windows XP: The article suffers from lack of notability per WP:NTEMP:
“It takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability.”
However, the issue of notability can be resolved by merging the article into Development of Windows XP.
Fleet Command (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The 5111 build has received some commentary [14] on its features, and this should be included in the article. I has just enough meat for a short, separate article. Pcap ping 16:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This was not one insignificant step out of one thousand in the development of Microsoft Windows XP. Furthermore, the very fact that it was never released does not prove that it's not notable. If Windows Neptune and Windows Odyssey have to be deleted simply because they weren't released, then using that logic, Cairo (operating system) and Windows Nashville would have to be removed as well. Since you're claiming that due to the fact that it wasn't released it's not notable, then perhaps you should explain why Cairo (operating system) and Windows Nashville haven't been nominated for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.142.13 (talk) 16:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: reliable sources exist (see above) including screenshots which PROVE it is real here http://neosmart.net/gallery/v/os/Neptune/ Also this isn't just screenshots, it has a short description of windows neptune at the top and that it became windows xp. 174.112.211.143 (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC) **— 174.112.211.143 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment Are you aware of the fact that just because it exists, does not mean it's notable? WP:EXISTENCE.76.238.131.1 (talk) 01:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Windows Neptune is notable. I personally don't see any reason to believe otherwise. Furthermore, it is verifiable. And in regards to an earlier comment by User:SchmuckyTheCat that due to the fact that it was never released and never will be, there's no potential for new information, there obviously is potential for new information. Maybe some additional builds will be leaked or maybe some new information will be discovered. WP:DEMOLISH. This article doesn't appear to meet any deletion criteria and neither does Windows Odyssey. I do however believe that Windows Neptune should be renamed to Microsoft Neptune due to the fact that it's an internal code name. Same applies to Windows Odyssey...it should be renamed to Microsoft Odyssey since it's an internal codename. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.222.240.135 (talk) 06:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC) — 76.222.240.135 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- — [[User:(({1))}|(({1))}]] ([[User talk:(({1))}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/(({1))}|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Merge per arguments by nominator, Fleetcommand and all those in between. This is yet another AfD being disrupted by socks and outside canvassing. Shame, and I hope the closing nominator dismisses such commentary without consideration. If the nominator states previous agreements to merge or redirect were thwarted, the redirect should be permanently protected and the merge target closely watched. Miami33139 (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, there was no agreement or consensus to merge. It was originally performed following no response to a merge template that had no associated discussion, which of course is fine.
  This article, and the one on Odyssey, have been hit hard by continuous additions of false information and original research by an array of rogue contributors, but it has now been cleaned up and is properly referenced. I feel that we are here not because of the notability of the subject but because of the disruption caused by these editors, who are possibly not helping to keep the article with their input here either. _wjemather ^bigissue 22:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Independent System Operator[edit]

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

the content of this article has been included in a new article that more accurately conveys the information ISO_RTO Smbateman (talk) 18:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unless the copyright violation can be corrected in the merged article. The newly created article ISO_RTO appears to be a malformed merge of the old article Independent System Operator and the related article Regional Transmission Organization. As it stands, the copy and paste merged article needs to be deleted. Some text from Independent System Operator was copied and pasted into ISO_RTO. Example:"An Independent System Operator (ISO) is an organization formed at the direction or recommendation of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). In the areas where an ISO is established, it coordinates, controls and monitors the operation of the electrical power system, usually within a single US State, but sometimes encompassing multiple states." Some new language was apparently also added: I do not have a utility to automatically compare the new article with the two old articles to see what text is the same. A merge is the proper response to the need to substitute one article for two, not the copy and paste creation of one article and the deletion of the two source articles. This violates the rules for crediting authorship of the source text. For this to be legitimate, a completely new text would be required. I do not object to the end result of merging the two articles, since there is some commonality, as long as it is made clear they are different things (like a Constable is different in the US from a Sheriff even though they do law enforcement in a county. Maybe this can be fixed by a history merge. See Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves. Edison (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a very good point and I'm glad you brought it up. The merge did not seem a reasonable option at the time and I never intended to violate a rule. I will address the language replication issue this week and ask for a peer review. Smbateman (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It seems to me that ISO and RTO are distinct but related entities. As such, there is no valid reason to delete this article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and discuss how our content about electricity distribution in the US should be organised on article talk pages or at the relevant project pages. Even if this isn't kept as a separate page it should certainly be at least a redirect, and ISO RTO is a very uninformative article title, so that is not the best name for any merged article. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The content about electricity distribution in the US should be re-organized, a hierarchy should be outlined and detail added, with the provisions for changes which are underway with these organizations control the grid. The US Grid is under-going upgrades & changes, (smart-grid efforts), and work needs to be done to clarify this hierarchy, ie, (FERC/DoE, ISO/RTO, PUC) and the scope of oversight they provide. Also a US ISO/RTO map should be added. -- (Don Doughty) 18:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Phil Bridger. If someone wants to delete two articles that have some history with a new article that does not appear to be formatted like most articles, I wonder what the advantage of switching is? The better approach might be to fold the new material and references into the old articles. I don't see any reason to switch to an alphabet soup article name. We improve by adding to and updating existing articles and not deleting what is here and replacing with something new. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it - this information is very helpful as the industry expands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.201.208.194 (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article already moved. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restriction enzymes cutting list[edit]

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

The lack of introduction and context could be fixed. But I submit that this information belongs on a specialised website, not in a general encyclopedia. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I suppose you suggest this article to delete because is too specialised, isn't it? I was thinking in the Wikipedia beyond a "general" encyclopedia. I think it will be its future. But I will accept the decision of the community. The lack of introduction is due to I am editing this article just since 2 days ago (but it has been a lot of work!). The introduction will come. I didn't see in the general policy of the Wikipedia, a rule that defines why my article, or another very specialized article, should not be included in this encyclopedia. It would be a pleasure to read a rule that agree your opinion. — Flakinho (The main editor of this article) (talk · contribs) 5 January 2010
Rename to something like List of restriction enzyme cutting sites. I would keep it, maybe trimming out some of the more obscure and esoteric ones. Insorak ♫ talk 20:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep There are many "specialized" articles on Wikipedia, it is a notable list as well. An introduction can be added. Dog poster 23:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Thought I'd add my two cents... I'm a high school student, and so I'm not extremely well versed in Scientific inquiry and communication. As such, i feel that a list like this is extremely helpful, and worth the extra effort to keep. I was extremely happy to have found this list here, as it provided a fast and easy answer to my question, but was a little saddened to see that it was being considered for deletion. I think as an encyclopedia, regardless of how "indepth" the article is, the information, so long as it's truthful and useful, is extremely valid to keep. But that's just my feelings... hope you decide to keep the page, as it helped me, and probably others, alot :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.101.132 (talk) 00:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename--this is a major topic, a basic technique in molecular biology. Each of the individual enzymes is notable individually, and this sort of summary list is a useful guide to them. Multiple entire books have been written on the subject. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was userfied to User:Coldplay Expert/Larry Dell Alexander, at creator's request. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Dell Alexander[edit]

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

None of the sources are independent; one appears to be the artist's own site, and the other two seem to be social networking sites. Therefore, no third-party indication of notability; creator claims that he is notable because he's African-American (I suppose by that he means that this article is helping counter systemic bias, but that in of itself is not proof of notability). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I never said that he is notable because he is an African-American. I said that he is notabel because of his works and books. This article has also been mentioned in the Requested Articles section. That's why I made it in the first place. The other sites are not WP:MYSPACE at all.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 18:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- AuthorsDen and Writers.net are both websites that you can register for yourself and write a page about yourself. See AuthorsDen "Larry D Alexander, click here to update your web pages on AuthorsDen.com", and Writers.net "WritersNet is the place for writers to showcase their work and exchange ideas on the Web" and "You are a writer... Register now". These are not independent third-party sources. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)\[reply]
  - Regardless, The article is about a semi-notable person. Apparently he is very popular in the state of Arkansas. While third party sources are missing. The article only needs a template at the top of the page for unsourced or needing third party sources. Not an AFD. This is overkill for the fact that the article is already there. What good would it do to delete it?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 18:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Semi-notable" according to whom? The notability guideline says, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." I have already provided reasons why none of the sources in the article represent "reliable sources that are independent of the subject". You have provided nothing. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He seems to have a userpage on Commons, even though he hasnt edited since 2007. Could any of this help? -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 18:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I noticed that (he also uploaded some of his paintings), but didn't see anything that seemed like it would help with notability, since it's basically his CV. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Clinton Family portrait? That seemed quite notable.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 18:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just doing a portrait of a notable person doesn't make you notable. David Shankbone had an interview with Israeli president Shimon Peres, but his article was still deleted. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless. He painted a painting of the first family and gave it to them. This, along with his other paintings and books should result in hi being notable enough. There is no reason to delete this article. It already exists!--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 19:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Painting the Clintons and giving it to them is hardly notable. I'm sure the president of the US gets lots of gifts from people. If he were actually commissioned to paint the official portrait of teh first family, then it would be a different matter. And all those books appear to be self-published through LuLu. -- Whpq (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can establish WP:BIO notability. For instance, the creator in this discussion claims that he is, apparently, quite popular in Arkansas. If true, this could mean notability, but it would need to be in the article (which it isn't) and backed up my WP:RS independent sources. While I would normally agree with the creator that perhaps the article just needs to be given some time to establish sources, I don't think there's currently anything establishing notability. The article is more or less, as I see it, a rewrite of the subject's own website (though not enough to be a copyright infringement, I think). -Lilac Soul ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 09:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Much of the material in this article is copied from the sources, including the whole third paragraph. Do you, Coldplay Expert, have permission from the author to add this text to Wikipedia? If not, the copyrighted material will have to be deleted or rewritten. The leftorium 11:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the material needs to be copywriten and reworded. Several more sources need to be added as well. However, that doesnt mean that the article needs to be deleted. Just some re-wording and a few more WP:RS.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 11:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the third paragraph. Feel free the rewrite it in your own words (Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing may be useful to you). The leftorium 11:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Plagiarism may be a useful guideline as well. (Thanks for catching that, Theleftorium, I hadn't noticed it.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you stop attacking me Rjanag? Thanks. Im sorry for the copyright violation. OK? Look Can I just tag the article for deletion and move it to a subpage of mine?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 17:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Attack isnt the right word. I said that I was sorry for the plagiarism and I would like to copy the article into am userpage. Then we can delete it. OK?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 17:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the sourcing currently in the article is all self-published and does not establish notability. I cannot find any sources covering this individual. As an auther, his books appear to be also self-published through LuLu. -- Whpq (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have moved the article into a sub-page of mine and I have tages the article as ((db-author)). I hope that that will satisfy the current issues. If so then I would like this AFD to be closed as there will be no article in existance. Thanks--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 03:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. merge can be done without a finding here Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Odyssey[edit]

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

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

Unnotable "code name" for Windows XP with no significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Attempts to properly redirect to Development of Windows XP are continually being reverted over the last few months by several SPA accounts and IPs, with a "source" to a self-published website given as support for its report. ANI report on the users has already been filed, but deletion seems the best bet as there is no actual significant coverage or use of this term to refer to anything other than someone's similarly named shareware application. Previous AfD closed with no consensus, where it was noted that nothing in the article could be verified, failing WP:V, which continues to remain true (personal sites can not verify anything). Looking at the arguments, in which there appears to be some socking/meating going on, it seems as those more supported deletion or merging than keeping it as it. As some editors continue to accept the merge, however, it seems another discussion to determine true consensus is needed. Due to the heavy IP socking occurring on the article over the last several months, heavy admin attention will likely be needed here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep.
If Windows Nashville can stay, then so can Windows Odyssey, and Windows Neptune. Also, there's no sock-puppetry or meat-puppetry involved. Agreement does not amount to that. Stop accusing people of sock-puppetry with no hard evidence.
Were it not for SchmuckyTheCat, no-one would be even here right now. - OBrasilo (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia: Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: Other stuff exists Fleet Command (talk) 11:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep here too. these codenames are notable, they are the first compiled codenames of any NT windows to have consumer edition.
as for sock puppetry accusations, there is no hard evidence for that just as obrasilo said above, this is just a single editor (Collectonian) having a personal dislike against obrasilo and me here.
and as obrasilo said above, Windows Nashville is on the same level as these two, yet no one seems to object that one staying.
Lin Godzilla (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Lin Godzilla (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Wikipedia: Notability requires evidence Fleet Command (talk) 11:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is a good example why AfD should stand for "Articles for Discussion (of Notability)". Pcap ping 18:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete history and redirect. Like I said in the previous AfD: only one source, and of dubious reliability in this case. Pcap ping 18:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or redirect. The article has been cleaned-up of WP:OR (see discussion further below). Although it's likely to remain a perma-stub in the near future (unless someone breaks some MS NDA big time), this AfD should come to a WP:SNOW close. Pcap ping 13:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:OBrasilo has admitted to meatpuppetry in regards to this article[15]. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your summary is not entirely accurate. In fact User:OBrasilo explicitly states that there was no meatpuppetry. _wjemather ^bigissue 19:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. The only meat-puppetry I was ever involved in on Wikipedia, was about the Little Big Adventure articles, for which I already apologized even. - OBrasilo (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He explicitly "claims" there was none, while noting that friends from his forums came to his help on the article. Per the full ANI, links have already been given showing earlier posts he made to the same forum asking his "friends" to come help him with a separate article (which he only half admits to) at a different forum. And as he is the administrator of the forum he mentions, he can easily remove evidence for the current recruiting. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I'm NOT an Administrator of the Magic Ball Network Forums, where I have indeed recruited meat-puppets for help with the Little Big Adventure articles, no "half-admission" there, since it's public and all. I also apologized on that, and anyway, it's un-related to these two articles here.

Second off, obviously on my forum (OSBetaGroup), the majority of the members agree with me on stuff. It would be surprising to have a forum, where the majority of the members disagree with the Administrator on the stuff. And I can't force them not to edit the articles here on Wikipedia.

Third off, I was wrong about the 76.x.x.x guy, after all. This one isn't from any forum of mine, in fact, this one is Lad Hattiur (I just remembered him using the same 76.x.x.x kind of IP on IRC back then, going to the exact same geographical location, even), a person, whom I only know on IRC, and who even insulted me on IRC(!) the only time we met there, LOL. So really, even if the guy agrees with me on these few articles here, he hates me.

Fourth off, I never delete posts on my forum, I only move them to the Spam and Trash section (which is why, statistically, the vast majority of the forum's posts are there).

Fifth off, as for the letter stuff, again, separate incident, and I merely told my Japanese contact about this Wikipedia discussion as a completely by the way matter, and he, on his own accord, decided to ask the author, who is his close friend, to tell him her opinion about it, which he then kindly forwarded to me. I didn't ask him to ask the author, actually, on the contrary, I clearly told him not to bother with this Wikipedia stuff, since it's not worth the time to fight for some random articles. - OBrasilo (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge and/or set redirect~~ ~~to Windows XP where this topic has its notability.~~ Now that the article is on Wikipedia, its ours, and it would be best to concentrate on the merits or lack of the article itself and not devolve into denigration of other editors in the absence of an SP investigation. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's already covered there to the extent that reliable sources allow. Pcap ping 20:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - But other than the section header, Odyssey is not mentioned in that entire article. _wjemather^bigissue 20:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then this searchable term per [16], [17], and [18] might even support a keep and expand. I'll muse it over. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —_wjemather ^bigissue 19:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment these codenames are only marginally related to Windows XP, Id actually propose a combined Windows Neptune and Odyssey article, instead, to combine these two into it.

the codenames resumed development after Windows XP released, using XP codebase this time, I have builds of both, so i know that for a fact. so they werent really codenames for windows xp.

Lin Godzilla (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to the development article, as that would seem to be the best place for this information. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I am quite sure that there are publications from around 1999/2000 that would give a fair deal of coverage to this once under-construction O/S. Finding them may be a problem though, as online archives often do not go back that far. Another issue is the current poor state of the article, but again that can be remedied. _wjemather ^bigissue 23:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep this is the sort of subject where the criteria for what counts as RS will often be somewhat loser than the ordinary. As Wjemather says, there is a reasonable chance of development. DGG ( talk ) 02:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, with WP:OR from sockpuppets. This this ANI thread. Pcap ping 02:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Puppets are dealt with by blocking. Article issues are dealt with through editing. Having giving thought to the comments here, the potential this article has for improvement, and in consideration of a brief serach [19], [20], [21], I have struck my "merge" up above. Now the the article belongs to Wikipedia, I believe it can be improved through regular editing. With respects, the GNG is a guideline, used by default when it seems applicable, but it will not and does not apply to all subjects. The notability of an idea or concept is not judged by the same criteria as notability for an person or a film. Further research in archives and technical journals not available online would be reasonable and prudent. Surmountable issues are never proper cause for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Linking to Google results is not research, and Verifiability is core policy, not a guideline. Which of your hits do you claim to source this article? I see a single, very minimal, hit on casual inspection of the web searches, unless you count links to warez downloads; and I have to wonder if you looked at any of the Google books hits at all, since not even one mentions this product: all are chance juxtapositions of the words "Windows" and "Odyssey". —Korath (Talk) 05:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  With a brief web search I see nearly 8,000 hits for "Windows Odyssey" (the 2 words together in quotes and not seperate nor without). I would be quite foolish to claim them all good... or all bad... based upon looking at a random few... and unfortunately, I am not able to spend the next few days researching all 8,000. But to me, the nearly 8,000 hits is suggestive enough to allow me a reasonable presumption that within that mountain of hits, there are the 3 or 4 or 5 or 7 that would satisfy requests for meeting notability... and further suggestive that with additional research in archives and technical journals not available online, the article can be brought into line. But the amount of work required means it will not happen immediately. It is at times like this that I am appreciative of Wikipedia being a work in progress that accepts that it is not perfect and that it has no deadline for perfection.
  In a nutshell: The discussions above have convinced me that the subject is notable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not asking you to look at all of them. I'm asking you to find one reliable source for a statement that won't fit into a single sentence in Development of Windows XP or an entry in Microsoft codenames. Surely that's not so hard? Is counting google hits without looking at the results, which you admit you have not done, to be considered research? There's exactly as much evidence for the existence of Windows Situation (7320 hits), Windows Circle (12200 hits), and Windows Fisher (3940 hits), the first three English words I got out of wikt:Special:Randompage, as you provide in your search for "Windows Odyssey". (More, in fact, since none of those results decrease significantly when you exclude "Wikipedia", as with Odyssey.)
    Even if offline sources exist, well, WP:DRV is thataway if and when someone finds them. Given the extreme overrepresentation of computer-based subjects on the internet, the woeful lack of online sources makes me reluctant to hold my breath. —Korath (Talk) 10:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've rewritten the article from what source actually says. Please watch out for SPAs and IPs pushing more WP:OR speculation in it. Pcap ping 11:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now rewritten what you left and added more sources which incidentally, were found very quickly and easily. The full contents of this article might shed even more light. _wjemather^bigissue 13:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's always better to have more sources, even though they don't add anything to what I could extract from Thurrott's article, and the mainstream press reports are more vague regarding the code base, e.g. [22] vaguer, project known as "Odyssey," and A company representative described Odyssey only as another "future NT-based operating system." or [23] Odyssey, the upgrade to Windows 2000, [24] Odyssey, the follow-up to Windows 2000, [25] Whistler also supplants Odyssey, referred to by some sources as NT 5.5, which had been slated as the first full-fledged upgrade to Windows 2000. etc. Pcap ping 14:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hence my weak keep above. With a project that was still in the early stages of development, it will always by difficult to uncover detailed information, but that does not mean it is impossible if someone is prepared to do the legwork. _wjemather ^bigissue 14:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Windows Neptune, and Windows Odyssey, while related to the development of Windows XP, were not code-names of Windows XP, so to merge them into that article would basically reduce them to temporary projects, which led to Windows XP, which isn't exactly true - as Lin Godzilla said above, there exist Builds of both projects compiled after XP was publicly released, and on the XP code base, as opposed to the Windows 2000 code base used in the Builds compiled before the release of Windows XP.

This is the only reason, why I oppose the merge. - OBrasilo (talk) 16:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your claimed warez beta activities notwithstanding, this product was never released. And no reliable source says that any build of it was ever leaked. Pcap ping 11:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no sourcing outside of your fansite speculation that says this codename survived XP. Please base your discussion on what Wikipedia deems as quality verifiable sourcing and not what strangers write on fansite webboards. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Keep This ~~Neptune~~ Odyssey is not merely a codename for XP (as Longhorn is for Vista and Blackcomb/Viena for Win7). --Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 11:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD is for Odyssey, not Neptune. Pcap ping 11:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete history and redirect to Development of Windows XP Even after re-writing and sourcing, it still says fundamentally the same thing as what is at the development article. This article is never going to grow past what is already written elsewhere. We do not need duplicated content. Odyssey, as shown by sources, was a minor development fork ten years ago. This subject matter has no growth potential. Anything to be written about it has been. There is a weight problem here, because the attention this article receives on Wikipedia is far more than what the rest of the world has shown it. A standalone article lends importance to a minor subject of duplicated content. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- Other than the fact that the team that worked on it formed part of the Whistler team, Odyssey was not part of the development of XP. As such that would be a inappropriate redirect. The sources do not show Odyssey as a development fork. On the contrary, it was to be a the next OS for the business market following Win2000 before MS re-evaluated their strategy. Article length and potential for future expansion are irrelevant, and there are no issues with either WP:UNDUE or duplication. _wjemather ^bigissue 11:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There in fact is growth potential for this article. One thing to keep in mind is that so far, there have been no builds of Windows Odyssey leaked yet. Taking that into consideration, what User:SchmuckyTheCat just stated is not true. In addition to that, Windows Odyssey was and still is considered to be a significant preliminary release. Windows Neptune and Odyssey are notable in fact. And the content is verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.234.20.47 (talk) 05:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC) — 76.234.20.47 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment IP above is one of several suspected meatpuppets of OBrasilo -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The IP Address 76.234.20.47 is a dynamic IP Address and I have no idea who User:OBrasilo is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.234.20.47 (talk) 05:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fully protected. The article has been fully protected by User:The ed17 due to edit warring. Pcap ping 14:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no assertion of notability, and there was no released product! This article can never be "improved" unless we imagine that WP:N includes every minor development cycle of Microsoft's products. The infobox saying "Part of the Microsoft Windows family" makes Wikipedia look silly because it is just a total misunderstanding of the normal development process of large projects. Johnuniq (talk) 08:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If this article is kept, and after the protection lifts, I intend to rename it (see its talk page--there seems to be consensus for now) and also change the infobox so it doesn't give the impression of a released product (thanks for pointing that out). We should have a different type of infobox for notable MS codenames like Cairo (operating system). Pcap ping 10:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just because Microsoft Odyssey was never released, does not automatically mean that it's not notable. It isn't a "minor development cycle" either. Part of what makes it notable is that the development of Neptune and Odyssey were cancelled and merged into the development of Whistler.76.205.142.13 (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Development of Windows XP This article is too short, has similarity of context with Windows XP and has little potential for expansion. Therefore, it is eligible for a merger, which will solidify its notability. Fleet Command (talk) 11:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Length is not a criteria for inclusion, nor is expansion potential. As explained above, the sources would indicate that it has very little to do with XP since it was the direct upgrade to Windows 2000, so if a merge is the consensus then that would be much more appropriate. _wjemather^bigissue 12:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lenght, similarity of context and expansion potential are VALID criteria for merger. The criteria for inclusion is what you are campaigning for and I do not contest.
    Besides, Odyssey draws half of its notability from the fact the its team joined that of whistler – That's what half of the sources provided say.
    Fleet Command (talk) 12:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Perhaps, but I cannot see a suitable article to merge into. Development of Windows XP is certainly not the place for it. _wjemather ^bigissue 18:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I am flummoxed at anyone who wants to keep this.Jarhed (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per arguments by nominator, Fleetcommand and all those in between. This is yet another AfD being disrupted by socks and outside canvassing. Shame, and I hope the closing nominator dismisses such commentary without consideration. If the nominator states previous agreements to merge or redirect were thwarted, the redirect should be permanently protected and the merge target closely watched. Miami33139 (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, there was no agreement or consensus to merge. It was originally performed in July 2009 ([26]) and has been warred about ever since.. Previous AfD closed with a suggestion to go to the talk page which never happened. Result, more edit warring.
  This article, and the one on Neptune, have been hit hard by continuous additions of false information and original research by an array of rogue contributors, but it has now been cleaned up and is properly referenced. I feel that we are here not because of the notability of the subject but because of the disruption caused by these editors, who are possibly not helping to keep the article with their input here either. If you can copy and paste, then so can I. _wjemather ^bigissue 22:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SNOW delete. Jclemens (talk) 07:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-disney villains[edit]

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

A list of "lovable" cartoon villains whose defining characteristic is not having appeared in a Disney movie. Not notable or significant as a concept (though the 66 Google hits are frankly more than I expected). Speedy declined and PROD contested. Glenfarclas (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable, too wide cross-categorization and unlikely search term. Negative definition is no definition. "Non-Disney" villains? Might as well write "list of popular plays not written by Shakespeare", or "pets that aren't cats".--137.122.49.102 (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete....my first thought is "WTF"...how is being a "non-disney" villain any sort of valid defining characteristic? Not being a Disney villain is common. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic categorization of exclusion. Fails notability and not an indiscriminate collection of information. The recentism of the list could be fixed by adding older cartoon villains such as Wile E. Coyote from the Roadrunner cartoons, Bluto from Popeye the Sailor, "Dr. Claw" from Inspector Gadget, "Gargamel" from the Smurfs, "Dishonest John" from Beany and Cecil," "Dudley Nightshade" from Crusader Rabbit, and "Crabby Appleton" from Tom Terrific , but it would still be a bizarre partitioning of the cartoon villain universe. (See comment following).Edison (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A look should also be taken at Disney Villains, which might have inspired this article. Why does that list get a pass without an AFD? Most of the characters in this article direct to the article about the cartoon rather than an article about the character. The lone exception is Lord Farquaad, but he does not show up in any category of "Cartoon villains," just as a "Shrek character," a "fictional character with dwarfism," "fictional nobility" and "2001 introductions." There should probably be a category of "Cartoon villains" who could be then subcategorized into "Disney cartoon villains," Warner Brothers Cartoon villains," etc, rather than "Disney" and "non-Disney," as if they divided the cartoon world into equal parts. The Bluto character from Popeye, not listed here (recentism?), could be in the "Fleischer Studios cartoon villains subcat. Bluto is not in any cartoon character category, just fictional character categories. Edison (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unwieldy list with an far-too-broad criteria for inclusion. Certainly if the villians listed can be sourced, they would best be written of in the various articles for this broad range of disparate films. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Disney villains is a reasonably well defined list. this one is not. Possibly such an article could be constructed if there were sources, which there might possibly be--but they are not in the article. Since I do not know the sources in this subject , I would not want to rule out the possibility. . (When I declined the speedy--because it fit no speedy category-- I suggested taking it here) DGG ( talk ) 18:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete now this is undefinable (well, definable by exception), with a very arbitrary criterion of "disney-ness" Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to be structured based on the assumption that there are two types of villains in the world-- Disney villains, and non-Disney villains. I'm considering a career as a non-Disney villain. Mandsford (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pointless Wp:LISTCRUFT. There are plenty of cartoon villians that weren't created by Disney (also - do computer created cartoons - like Shrek - count?). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 23:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I see that they do. (Also, why no entries for those aliens from Space Jam or Team Rocket?) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 23:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Edison: could be improved by including less recent cartoon villains, but would still be indiscriminate. I don't see the point of this list, and doubt there is a reliable source for the "non-Disney villain" genre as a whole (though obviously articles on specific non-Disney villains can be sourced). Few Google hits (I get 17), and nothing appearing to be scholarly.[27] Firsfron of Ronchester 04:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hermagenesis[edit]

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

Previously deleted by PROD in February 2009. Appears to be a made up word - I cannot find any references except to this article, the deleted article, or a young lady called Herma Genesis. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I PRODded it the first time it cropped up leading to its deletion then, and remain of the strong view that it is a brand-new neologism if not an outright hoax. Glenfarclas (talk) 17:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Interesting concept, but probably implausible. It doesn't help that there's no information on this to be found anywhere and I've never heard of it before. Insorak ♫ talk 20:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Made-up word. I don't think the process it describes exists. Narayanese (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 21:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of non-English versions of Family Guy[edit]

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

Unnotable and insignificant list of random, almost entirely unnotable voice actors used to dub the series in other languages. Gives WP:UNDUE weight to secondary translations of the series, fails WP:N as there is nothing notable about this series airing in other countries (extremely common), and almost completely unsourced which depending on ones point of view could be seen as a WP:BLP violation as some may see it as insulting to be associated with a series. Further, such extensive details on foreign adaptations are not part of any properly done television article, which at most would mention (with reliable sourcing) that it was broadcast. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notability and significance is a matter of opinion, although there is no comparison between this article and the other nomination, about The Simpsons. This may be more appropriate for the entertainment wiki, although voice actors are not inherently "non-notable". I'd prefer redlinks within an article of this nature, rather than attempts to make articles about each individual person. I'd say I'm more along the line of WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than WP:ILIKEIT, but Family Guy has a devoted following, and others may see more value in the article. Mandsford (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless one can provide evidence for independent notability of the dubs, list of voice actors in other languages are best left to the article in the appropriate language wiki (e.g., fr.wiki for the French version, etc.).--137.122.49.102 (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all sure how that's best. Most of us don't know enough French to read the French wikipedia. Mandsford (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just as with the following nomination. The coverage of Wikipedia is world wide; since the basic version is of course the English, this is a suitable way to summarize the rest of it. The French and other WPs give a very clear list of whom the voice actors in those versions are, and I think we can use them for this,--this is essentially just a translation of that part of the articles. DGG ( talk ) 04:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per DGG. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. --Saint Pedrolas J. ^{Hohohohohoh merry christmas} 23:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Could use some improvement but there's a good deal of source discussion about this. Cirt (talk) 02:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 21:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-English versions of The Simpsons[edit]

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

Excessive coverage of a non-notable aspect of a television series. Many series air in other languages, they do not warrant a separate article listing such minute detail on the differences (AKA WP:OR) and almost entirely unsourced or fansourced material. Such material is not generally considered appropriate for inclusion in a television article per WP:MOS-TV and WP:UNDUE, and giving these non-English versions a standalone article goes against both. At best, its being translated and released in other languages, with any actual notable information about it (i.e. changes that got significant coverage) belongs in the main article, but not here. This article has been deleted previously in several other forms: List of TV channels that air The Simpsons, Broadcasting of The Simpsons, The Simpsons in Australia, however as the names are different enough, AfD seems more appropriate than CSD. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The marketing of a very successful television series in foreign markets is notable enough for its own article. Unlike the other nominated article about Family Guy, this one has content and sourcing. While I do not like references to The Simpsons within serious articles (a problem that has cleared up), I see no problem with articles about the business of the show itself. I'd prefer a few less in-universe articles (character bios, episode summaries), and a few more out-of-universe articles (business aspects, actor bios, animation details) about this series that has been a success for more than twenty years. Mandsford (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How it is notable? Many television series are marketed in foreign markets. What makes the Simpsons one more notable. The general topic of Simpsons marketing as a whole may be a notable, which would cover the actual business information rather than just throwing out characters and voice actors, but that sort of section would belong in The Simpsons (franchise) and this article really has nothing that would go there. Such content must, of course, be sourced to reliable sources, of which there appear to be none specifically about foreign language versions (and not just TV listings indicating it aired, but actual, coverage). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps someone will agree that this should be deleted. Mandsford (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Mandsford. The referencing needs work, but the subject clearly has enough coverage to meet the GNG. I see nothing in MOS-TV indicating an article of this sort as inappropriate (if anything, the MOS encourages creation of contentlike this), and the nominator's reference to WP:UNDUE is unfounded. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - though it certainly requires work and sources, at least ~~one~~ three master theses were written about translations of The Simpsons into other languages. And that was back in 1999.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What makes that site a reliable source? Looks like a fansite to me, and one violating WP:COPYRIGHT if the articles are legit, as they are clearly stolen from copyrighted sources. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, google got me to that page more easily than to the Montreal Mirror online archive, which for pre 2002 aren't completely accessible. But that is beside the point, which is that academic papers on the subject exist if you bother to look for them. Of course, for the article, proper cites would point to the actual masters theses/scholarly articles and not The Simpsons Archive.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A student paper is not enough to indicate reliability, and the article promoting this was in the Montreal Mirror, which is not a major newspaper, but a small alternative paper of questionable notability itself. Further, where are these other thesis and what makes them reliable sources? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable notability because its wiki article is only a stub? How about this? Or are Britannica and the Journal of Film and Video also not scholarly/notable enough? It's not because The Simpsons Archive has a bigger google presence than scholarly sources that the scholarly sources don't exist.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC) ETA: Master thesis by Eric Plourde at Université de Montréal library.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per the IP. You could craft this entirely out of scholarly sources, if you want.[28][29] But, newspapers have even more on it, I imagine. Anyways, passes the GNG. Be thankful it isn't one article per country. The GNG would probably allow 10s of articles on foreing countries and their Simpsons stuff. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to be some good discussion in secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 02:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Kilter[edit]

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

Not notable. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 16:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND. I can't find any independent coverage of this band. Angryapathy (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BAND, probably a speedy. ukexpat (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, if not speedy delete A7 for containing no credible indication of notability at all. Glenfarclas (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Also need to consider Galore Nation, separate article on this band's debut EP. can this be added, or a new nom? vulture19 18:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Something I've seen a lot of lately... new bands launching their careers via various social networking sites (which is reasonable in this day and age), but then doing the same on WP as if it is yet another social networking site, and using the other sites as references. Good luck to them, but building one's own promotional pages in the network-o-sphere is not a notable musical accomplishment. Also, note the comment by Vulture19 above on Galore Nation which will become orphaned if the band page is deleted. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ...as further commented upon here. – ukexpat (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The AfD for their album, Galore Nation, is here [30]. Angryapathy (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and the EP. I'm not finding in-depth coverage in reliable sources for thsi band. Gongshow ^Talk 00:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BAND due to lack of reliable third party sources; single the band is broken up now, seems unlikely to become notable in the future, either. Cocytus [»talk«] 02:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snit Beer Chaser[edit]

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

Obscure, non-notable, and not sufficiently cited Mblumber (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All refs to it on Google are from unreliable sources, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Angryapathy (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per the above arguments. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary, then delete. Although there is an article at wikt:snit, it does not mention this regional term. Cnilep (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no coverage from reliable sources; perhaps send this to Urban Dictionary? Nyttend (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Those arguing for keep have provided references, while the delete !votes are mainly per WP:JNN and haven't addressed the sourcing. Olaf Davis (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DFCU Financial[edit]

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

non notable credit union WuhWuzDat 15:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:COMPANY. Angryapathy (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This most certainly passes WP:COMPANY. Check the news archives. Gobonobo ^T ^C 20:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple sources in the article establish notability. Largest CU in its state, public commentary from a sitting governor on its proposed conversion, and multiple non-local sources clearly pass WP:CORP. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 17:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Boston Globe, Deroit News, references in article, and opinions presented by Jim Miller establish notability. Needs work to restore information removed by apparent subject. vulture19 18:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the largest credit union in Michigan. Within the financial sphere, DFCU has garnered attention for its attempted conversion to a bank and its multiple record breaking dividends. Gobonobo ^T ^C 20:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Gold[edit]

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

Does not appear to fall under the criteria listed at Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Pornographic actors and I don't see anything that would otherwise establish notability. BanyanTree 14:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Maya Gold won a 2003 Venus Award for best new female starlet.[31] That should satisfy WP:PORNBIO. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per award win. She's also had a few nominations. Epbr123 (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Tabercil (talk) 02:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Veloes[edit]

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

This is a completely unremarkable group for whom a quick Google search reveals (a) no reliable sources or (b) anything remarkable. (Was taken to CSD, but was denied without explanation). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 16:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another band that fails WP:BAND. Angryapathy (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too early in their career, with no support that I can find for any of the 12 criteria in WP:BAND. Article can be recreated in the future if they accomplish anything beyond their own social network pages. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BAND; a link to MySpace and another blog is insufficient. Cocytus [»talk«] 02:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cel-Man Iller[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:BAND judging from the tone of the article and the lack of relevant Google search results. Sandstein 12:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 12:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND by a long shot. Angryapathy (talk) 14:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It also fails this interesting essay: Wikipedia:No one cares about your garage band. Very poor article. Wait until truly notable. This comment is also interesting. Read the diff and the following comment in the next diff. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too early in career. His attempts to launch his career in the various social network sites that were referenced in the article is reasonable, but WP is not a social network. Page can be recreated in the future if the act becomes notable to the outside world. I also removed the References section in the article due to incorrect usage and the fact that WP flagged one of them as a spam site. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. May become notable at some point, but at this time I can not find coverage in reliable sources sufficient to pass WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow ^Talk 00:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 End of Evangelion (soundtrack). (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Komm, süsser Tod (song)[edit]

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

Was up for CSD, which was contested on the article's talk page. Thought I'd bring it here for community discussion. Essentially it's unreferenced and notability may be lacking. NJA (t/c) 10:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 10:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Could've sworn we'd already have an article on this one, as it's a very very old song (apparently remade). And, here it is - Komm, süßer Tod, komm selge Ruh by Bach. That one's not much better, honestly, but a Bach piece has some notability that this lacks. Not sure if a merge would be worthwhile; if this is a re-recording using the tune or melody from the Bach, then there is a connection. I'll see if I can source either of the articles. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Completely different. Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe that an effort has been started to possibly merge the majority of the articles relating to music from the Neon Genesis Evangelion franchise into one article, which would absorb this article; it would be best to hold off on deleting this until that is confirmed. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 15:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a merged list being built right now in my userspace and i copied the information of this article. Information is preserved --KrebMarkt 19:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even if this Afd discussion conclusion is near forgone, i should point out that there is a prior consensus to create a merged list of soundtrack or whatever you want to name it and it is is no way an attempt to hijack the result of this Afd. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Evangelion#OST_and_Singles the discussions edit time stamps as a proof of it and last edit is anterior to this Afd nomination time stamp. --KrebMarkt 19:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. If that's consensus, great - then this article would be merged into the article for the soundtrack, this title can be redirected, and the debate closed. I think that would be a good option; it preserves content. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it's hard to choose, very small piece of information and i think the information in here is already covered in other articles.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It can be mentioned in the description of End of the Evangelion album. --KrebMarkt 08:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

that's what i think is the best course of action to take.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to The End of Evangelion (soundtrack). If the discography ever makes it to mainspace, the redirect can be directed there instead. Dandy Sephy (talk) 06:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, it's a copyvio and there is a landslide amount of !votes toward deletion. –BuickCentury Driver 02:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sinamalls[edit]

Article about a shopping site, by a new user. Notability anyone? –BuickCentury Driver 10:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete pure WP:SPAM wording, non-notable per WP:COMPANY, unreferenced. MuffledThud (talk) 10:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An advertisement, not an encyclopedia article. Warrah (talk) 11:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:WEB and WP:COMPANY. I can't find any reliable secondary coverage. Angryapathy (talk) 14:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio from their about us page. So tagged. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete -- copyvio, spam, non-notability, no reliable sources. More reasons than I usually see. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as in this revision. WP:SPAM and WP:COPYVIO are the case in this one. Ilyushka ☃^Talk!_Contribs 18:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not seem to be covered in reliable sources. Not the same as Sinamall (mall.sina.com). --Apoc2400 (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Giridharilal Kedia[edit]

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

Completely unencyclopedic article about a non-notable person. Little claim of notability is made in the article itself. Unable to find sources. Raziman T V (talk) 10:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Topic is non-notable.Angryapathy (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable.--Sodabottle (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as db-bio. WWGB (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, perhaps speedily, as per WWGB above. Doesn't appear to assert any notability to merit inclusion. Cocytus [»talk«] 02:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alonso Chehade[edit]

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

Notability is exclusively for the immigration case, which itself fails WP:NOT#NEWS but, more exclusively, leads to Chehade failing WP:BLP1E. Ironholds (talk) 09:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the nom says this is a classic example of WP:BLP1E. Judging from what is found here it also seems that the creator has a conflict of interest which might also explain the elaborate details in the article. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 09:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I should of course have looked at all the images. This is apparently the creator's own work. Blatant conflict of interest here. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 10:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems that the article is trying to tie the subject with the topic of immigration issues in the U.S., and seems like spam for the cause. Either way, Mr. Chehade fails WP:BLP1E. Angryapathy (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monsters and Critics[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Fails WP:WEB and WP:N. In the 3+ years since the last AfD, no significant coverage of this site has been found. It gets "Google News" hits primarily because it is pulled as part of its resources, which in itself does not make the site notable. While it meets the criteria for being a reliable source for critical reception sections of media articles, it is not in fact notable. In the end, its content has not "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself", neither the site nor content has "won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization", and as it is a self-published work, the content is not "distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster". Its claimed "hits" are not an indicator of notability, as they are neither validated numbers nor do they make up for the basic lack of actual reliable, third-party coverage of the site. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable site. Doesn't stand up to WP:WEB. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 10:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just for starters, it appears that its reviews are quoted widely in books -- as to the books themselves. See Gbooks search.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting WP:N via WP:GNG. Note WP:WEB is a descriptor of what constitutes web-specific content, and does itself actually offer criteria for determining a website's notability. For that we use the GNG in determining the notability. Aside from that, as the nomiator has already stated that Monters and Critics is a Relable Source, it would seem prudent to keep and expand the article so that our readers, in seeing it used as a reference, would then be able to read an article about THIS reliable source so as to better understand what the site offers and what makes it reliable. Further, in the assertion that it has not been improved in 3+ years, with respects, I find WP:NOEFFORT to be an unconvincing argument. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – sorry, but I'm not seeing how it meets WP:WEB or the general guideline, even after looking at the Google Books results; every result I see has "according to Monsters and Critics...", which is not enough in my view. –MuZemike 18:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that Monsters & Critics does not constitute web-specific content? That's all that WP:WEB really has to offer... a descriptor. My specific question here is only in regards the assertion that it fails WEB's "This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia should avoid articles about web sites that could be interpreted as advertising. For material published on the web to have its own article in Wikipedia, it should be notable and of historical significance. Wikipedia articles about web content should use citations from reliable sources." I believe it has proven its historical significance through its influence, as shown by searches. Sourcing is a surmountable issue and as such is not cause for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Schmidt.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news search shows many news sources mentioning this website. [32] Dream Focus 20:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and work to get better third party references The problem is there are too many references to it in Google News, picking out a review of the company is hard when there are over 100 news articles referencing the website for the reviews of movies they host. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not merely notable , but famous, and the sources show it. DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just did some (mostly) formatting cleanup on the article. There's no doubt that the article itself needs (a lot of!) work, but to assert that Monsters & Critics itself is non-notable seems a little... er, pointy? I mean... we use it as a reference all over Wikipedia itself. If there were actual controversial information in the article or something then I could understand deleting it, but there's nothing obvious that I see that is wrong with the article itself. Like I said, it definitely needs to be improved, but holding a metaphorical gun to it's head doesn't seem to be the most constructive action to take.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 14:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have a really hard time finding any sources actually about Monsters and Critics, but with so many references to them in all kinds of media, I think M&C is notable anyway. --Apoc2400 (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has potential to meet wiki requirements. --swissmark ) (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC) — swissmark (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 need to relist this debate. The question whether to merge the information or to keep this article in its current form can be discussed on the relevant talk page(s) but there is no consensus to delete this article, so further discussion here is not required. Regards So Why 20:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muck Sticky[edit]

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

not significant, admitted copyright violation (pasted and copied from a commercial site), not notable etc etc Rasputin72 (talk) 05:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See WP:BEFORE. Google news turns up reliable sources that review his music, discuss his shows on MTV, etc. etc. The article itself is pretty shitty, but the subject appears notable enough. There's enough out there to support notability and to reference to turn this into a good article. --Jayron32 05:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Alert. User Jayron's adamant "keep" posture probably does not spring from the worthiness of the article topic itself (which is limited), but is more a function of Jayron's hostile attitude toward me, as the nominator. Evidenced by his snide and hostile comment he left me on another page where he remarks in his edit summary that yes, "I am an asshole.". Please take his motivations into account, as they are plain. Rasputin72 (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Blatant copyright violation. Delete this and re-create with acceptable content, 99.12.243.20 (talk) 06:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for deleting copyright violation, Jayron 99.12.243.20 (talk) 06:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio was added very recently. The copyvio text was not there when this article was nominated, and it was removed shortly after it was added. Please re-read the article and re-evaluate, and please also see the Google News search I provided above. As I noted, the article is a total piece of shit as written now, but the subject itself appears to meet baseline notability requirements. Since deletion is not a cleanup method, I am not sure that deletion is the answer here. You are of course free to think that the sources cited above are not enough to establish notability... --Jayron32 06:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the explanation--I've struck the speedy vote above. I don't think the results of the news search are impressive. There are recurrent mentions in the Memphis Commercial Appeal, but usually as a bit of local color, and they appear to be glancing references. Likewise, the reviews I found are usually included among others. Perhaps I missed them, but are there any articles from reliable sources solely about him? Must be, as stated in WP:MUSIC, the subject of multiple non-trivial published work. 99.12.243.20 (talk) 06:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, he has been featured extensively in the MTV.com online series $5 Cover, so its not JUST local newspapers that have noticed him; MTV has deemed him worthy enough to give him a prominent role in its online content. I am also seeing enough in a regular Google search to indicate that he's a well-enough known artist around the web. The MTV cites plus the sheer volume of stuff out there indicates that there's likely to be sources one could use. If you dig enough, you can find notable publications that review his work, such as High Times: [33]. The signal-to-noise ratio for reliable sources is low, but only because the NOISE (i.e. the number and magnitude of "unreliable" sources") is so high here. An artist with this large of a web footprint is bound to have been noticed by someone that could be considered reliable, its just a matter of weeding through the crap, which is sizable. --Jayron32 06:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 10:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Unsure still, though edging toward keep. Can other people help with removing the huge amounts of junk in this article? --Dweller (talk) 10:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, leaning keep I decided to do some substantial editting to the article, trimming the discography section down to just titles, and added two refs, one from the Boston Globe and the other from the Memphis Flyer. I also included his presence on the MTV show "$5 Cover", which arguably is his greatest claim to fame. Other than the Boston Globe article, the only other mentions of him are in local Memphis publications, with no other (as far as I can see) national publications. All of his albums are self-published. Still, he is more notable than a lot of artists that attempt to have WP articles, so that's why I did some editting, and will let the community decide what to do with the article. Angryapathy (talk) 15:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am the one who created this article... Though there might not be a whole lot of information on this person, he is still an artist. There are references on both this article and on the discussion board for this article, Articles start off small and grow to be large, they do not just grow over night, I believe this page will continue to grow as he becomes more and more known as an artist. I heard about this artist on the internet, heard his music, seen his music videos. Everyone starts somewhere, either you start in a garage or a studio. This artist is growing, and quickly. You can vote to delete it, but I would ask you to consider keeping this article, as it is of an artist, he is known... Deleting this article would be like deleting Kurt Cobains article... another artist, just more known... Thank you <removed contact information> 01:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shane198three (talk • contribs)
- No, deleting it would not be like deleting Kurt Cobain's article. Existance is not the minimum requirement for an article at Wikipedia, so please read up on our policies and guidelines rather than making yourself look uninformed by making such claims. The relevent reading in this case is Wikipedia:Notability. I play guitar too, like Kurt Cobain. I can even play a passable rendition of Smells Like Teen Spirit! Should there be an article about me at Wikipedia? (the answer to THAT question is located at Wikipedia:Notability). --Jayron32 03:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "#10 on Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles

Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article.)" MTV's $5_cover... Shane198three 04:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

- - Preaching to the choir, dude. I voted keep above. That doesn't mean you shouldn't familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines... --Jayron32 04:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep The television appearances alone ought to satisfy notability guidelines. Jayron, can you download your rendition of 'Teen Spirit'? 99.12.243.20 (talk) 04:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- If I do, can I move my userpage to the article space? --Jayron32 05:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Depends on how well you play the bridge. There must be a Wikipedia guideline covering that somewhere.... 99.12.243.20 (talk) 05:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, in that case, not so much. But I can play the rhythm part at the beginning real well. F-B-G#-C#. Rinse repeat. Oh, and that little octave-F thing he does after each line of the verses. --Jayron32 05:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another Comment I have done some more work to the article. I have removed the Early Life and television sections because according to WP:V "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." These sections made some exceptional claims that are not backed up by reliable sources. If there are any questions or comments regarding the article, feel free to continue the discussion on the Talk page of the article. Angryapathy (talk) 15:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, how are we looking now? We have had alot of the information removed, there is a list of references on the discussion page... I am just curious as we still have the tags on the page for "Deletion", "References", and "Citations". Thanks. Shane198three (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and hopefully my last: I've struck my latest opinion. This ought to reflect the mercurial business of this odd article, with unsourced claims that come and go, and a preponderance of references to blogs and the subject's website. Color me neutral and out of here. 99.12.243.20 (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment I give up, every time I add something it gets shot down... There aspiring artists on here that aren't anymore notable then Muck Sticky, but their pages are up... I am not Muck Sticky, I am Shane Blume... I feel that he is notable enough to be on here. If you are going to vote for the delete then make sure you look up everything you can on him before you vote... There are plenty of references on the discussion page... Go look for yourself... LA Times, High Times, MTV, AOL, etc. You have permission to post anything from his OFFICIAL website given by Muck Sticky, if you want to be sure you can contact him via the website, his email address is located there, I will not post it here as it will get deleted... As for if the page stays up, please notify me via email, my email address is located on my contact page, also not located on here because it will get removed... Thanks for all your time... I am going back to just browsing Wiki, I will not edit anymore...

Special Thanks to: Angryapathy , Jayron32 and Rasputin72 For the time and effort you put into this article to make it worthy of Wikipedia.

Peace Out, Shane Blume Shane198three (talk) 00:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I believe notability has been established through the Boston Globe, the MTV series, and a host of other mentions to the artist, and that the consensus seems to be keep thus far, I will iterate the changes to the article for any new people coming to this AfD. While Shane is not well-versed in WP policy, he has done a great job providing links that have been used in the article. All info on the article is from Allmusic, the Boston Globe, or MTV.com, and none is from unreliable sources. While the article is of course not perfect, I think it reflects the artist well, and abides by WP policy.

And a note to Shane: Wikipedia policy is very confusing at first. I think you can be a great editor, but you should take some time to read over the five pillars of Wikipedia and ask questions. It takes a while to get the hang of it, and it's OK to make mistakes. Even veteran editors don't know all guidelines and policies. Please don't be discouraged by this. We all have to start somewhere. Angryapathy (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significance of the artist demonstrated by the multiple sources in which he is written. The Boston Globe is a very reputable newspaper. I also saw Muck Sticky mentioned on "Fox and Friends" on Fox News last week. WordupBrah (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Striking comment by blocked sockpuppet (of the same blocked user who started this AFD). NawlinWiki (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to $5 Cover. All of the sources and everything I could find have him only notable in the context of the "show", ergo, he should be in the shows article. Also, relist this, please. --CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 05:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Thanh Tran[edit]

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

Article about an apparantly non-notable film director. He has won some awards, but mostly non-notable prizes from non-notable local film festivals and stuff like that. Lacks indepth, independent coverage in reliable sources as explained at WP:N. Jayron32 05:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Added findsources for name without middle name -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Added findsources for name as identified on their website -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Added findsources for stage name as identified in article -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search of Google News/Archive, Books and Scholar failed to find any reliable sources of information for this person under any of the names. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is impossible to verify the content using reliable sources, it seems they don't exist.--Vejvančický (talk) 10:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails our notability tests. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:BIO ukexpat (talk) 15:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

House of Tagle[edit]

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

Unreferenced article on non-notable family claiming nobility. User234 (talk) 05:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've invited the author to come up with sources. Otherwise, it looks like an elaborate hoax. - Richard Cavell (talk) 06:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's a hoax. ~ DC (Talk|Edits) 06:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear hoax. As always with this sort of thing, if it were true there would be plenty of easy-to-find sources, there aren't. "House of Tagle" gets 14 google hits, all either WP, mirrors of WP, or random unrelated stuff. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Without reliable sources to back it up, it seems like a very elaborate hoax. Angryapathy (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:QUACK as a WP:HOAX. Unless someone can provide some sources, it certainly appears to be a hoax. Cocytus [»talk«] 02:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boss Hardy[edit]

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

From what I can tell, article does not satisfy WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 04:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable high school musician. ~ DC (Talk|Edits) 06:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 10:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as the subject fails criteria for musicians. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Vejvančický (talk) 10:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I sang in the shower the other day, does that mean I get a WP article? Yeah, fails WP:BAND completely. Angryapathy (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a notable musician. Could have been speedied under A7, I should think. Glenfarclas (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article is a press release that will maybe help the kid become a notable musician... in the future. See also WP:PROMOTION. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 04:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:MUSICBIO; reads like an advertisement as well. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lemon battery. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fruit battery[edit]

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

How-to manual. Fun but unencyclopedic, and the topic is already covered at Lemon battery and elsewhere. Declined prod. Hairhorn (talk) 03:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also appears to be an uncredited translation of this "Baudi Wikipedia" page, see the Google translation. Hairhorn (talk) 04:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NOT#MANUAL. Ironholds (talk) 04:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lemon battery. — æk ^Talk 04:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect It's a HowTo, and is already covered. Angryapathy (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lemon battery, not sure there's anything here worth merging. This gets plenty of Google hits, could be a plausible search term. Glenfarclas (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to lemon battery per above. Insorak ♫ talk 20:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thug-u-cation[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Thug-u-cation

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

This is self explanatory. It does not meet WP:ALBUMS, WP:N, and cites no sources. I can't believe this article has latest for two years looking like this. SE KinG. ^{User page.} _Talk. 02:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: horrid, racist, misogynistic noise whose sole purposes are to promote street gangsterism and portray people of African ancestry as violent criminals. Jennifer500 (talk) 03:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that none of these are reasons for deletion, if an album is notable then it warrants an article, regardless of our opinion of the subject matter. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 04:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, Jennifer500 was blocked for ban evasion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any mention of this album anywhere, looks like it was just a rumoured album name maybe? It's pretty much an orphan article so I guess this explains how it's slipped under the net for so long. Time now for it to go. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 04:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No google search results. No sources at all on the page. Appears to be a hoax. ~ DC (Talk|Edits) 06:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 10:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with above, can find no reliable sources but must say that I was suprised to find this [34]. Does not meet WP:NALBUMS or WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 10:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Something odd is going on here. Akon is a notable artist but his discography and biography article make no mention at all of this supposed 2009 album, which would be between his real 2008 album and a new one proposed for 2010. This orphaned article is maybe based on a hoax or a rumor. Either way, notability isn't really the question to ponder. It's more telling that there seems to be no mention of this album anywhere in the world except for here, so it is not verifiable. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No in-depth coverage found; does not pass WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 00:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be either a WP:HOAX or, if not, fails WP:NALBUMS (odd since the artist is notable). Cocytus [»talk«] 01:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. if we are going to merge this somewhere or rename then we can't delete and retain our attributation for license so deletion is out and any other option can be left for editorial agreement on the article talk page Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of invasive species in Australasia[edit]

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

Delete after merging contents to Invasive species in Australia and Invasive species in New Zealand. An article with this title does not make any sense ecologically so it does not need to be retained as a dab or redir. See also Talk:List of invasive species in Australasia. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal - why not split it into List of invasive species in Australia and List of invasive species in New Zealand? These lists could prove useful. The other articles you mentioned are not exactly the same topic. - Richard Cavell (talk) 02:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. In retrospect that is not a bad idea. The lists will be extensive if completed. In NZ there are 100 odd species listed as national plant pests and the Department of Conservation reckon there are up to 2500 weed species. The Invasive species in Aus/NZ articles can be an overview like the Aussie article is heading towards. Given the prceeding would you agree with a delete after merging? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, or perhaps a disambig or redirect just so it's not red. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. I think that articles are more appropriate than straight lists in this instance, though the result will probably be something in between. dramatic (talk) 04:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. If the contents are merged, then this article cannot be deleted as we need to keep the article history as a record of the origin of the material. See WP:MAD. It should be truncated to be a disambiguation-like page with links to the two articles the content is merged to.-gadfium 05:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:MAD the article can be deleted. I find the title "objectional" in an ecological sort of way. It is not a valid search string and a serious encycolpaedia should not contain such a page. Invasive species are determined geographically in the first instance and politically in the second. Deletion depends on whether the seriousness of saving the edit history trumps "ecological correctness. (I wonder if wine helps my editing... hic ...) -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 06:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —Canley (talk) 06:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. —-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as Alan suggests, but then redirect rather than delete, per Gadfium. Retaining the edit history is required if we reuse the content, even if the redirect's title might seem silly. Of course, the redirect could also be moved if anyone has a better title. -- Avenue (talk) 08:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I'm not so confident that anything can come out of splitting the lists into Australia and New Zealand since within Australia there are species which are native to one part but invasive to another such as Crested Pigeons. I think that this would be better explained in an article. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 10:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Australasia as a term is problematic and is currently at CFD at - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_3#Category:Australasia - Satu Suro 15:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toggo[edit]

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

I don't think the subject meets the notability requirements as either a musician or an author. I did PROD it before but it was contested citing his writing and an article about his band. Thinking maybe that I had been too harsh in PRODing it, I tried tidying it up but I wasn't finding RS references so I changed my mind again and brought it here. Without RS sources, I can't see how we can get a verifiable article out of it. He has an article on the Norwegian Wikipedia but that is an unreferenced stub and hence offers no help.

The subject was in a band which does not seem to be very notable. It had one EP/mini-album. His writing to date seems to consist of a short section in a book featuring many authors. He is working on a full book, which might make him more notable if it is published, and gets attention, however that is speculative and there is no indication of a publisher that I can see.

My partial tidy up has removed some content, most of it trivia that would not help its case, however if you would prefer to judge it by its full, previous state then here it is. DanielRigal (talk) 22:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 10:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 10:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because of the lack of reliable sources. ~ DC (Talk|Edits) 01:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, delete, WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uber pownage[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non-notable neologism, not the least bit encyclopedic. Strong delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Its a neologism. ~ DC (Talk|Edits) 01:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with extreme prejudice as soon as humanly possible. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to pwn. - Richard Cavell (talk) 02:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without redirect, not notable. Hairhorn (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a G3, obvious misinformation as the author stated "Pownage or Uber arent every day words or really in the dictionary." Handschuh-^{talk to me} 10:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm guessing the author really meant "pwn" but is not familiar with the more mainstream spelling (seeing as they don't mention it anywhere). Una Laguna^Talk 13:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not worth a redirect. I agree with the above, this was apparently an attempt at another pwn article, but the author wasn't aware of the spelling. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NEO. Warrah (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete – blatant neologism. Borderline speedy delete (G5) if you wish to extend WP:BAN that far. I am quite certain the creator of the article is a sock puppet of Gigogag (talk · contribs). –MuZemike 17:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above, this concept is already sufficiently covered at Pwn. Glenfarclas (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Rice Reader[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable publication. I'd nominate for speedy deletion (no claim of significance or importance), but I don't think publications apply. Steamroller Assault (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —Steamroller Assault (talk) 02:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a newspaper that is asserted to be distributed to 200 businesses in Ada, Minnesota isn't notable. And there's no coverage about the newspaper. For that matter, I can't even find an online presence for it. -- Whpq (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete more of a business newsletter than anything. No coverage of it at all. ~ DC (Talk|Edits) 02:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the distribution of 200 affirms total non-notability, and the article doesn't even include the barest facts (who distributes it, what's the content, why does it exist?) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Enough souces found for my view of WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Pcap ping 19:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ratpoison[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

After I speedily closed the previous AfD as a gentlemen's agreement to redirect, an anonymous editor has reverted the redirect. So, nominating again. This time I'll let an admin decide.

My (re)nomination is: This tiling window manager gets mentioned alongside others in lists in various books [35] [36] and articles [37], but there's nothing in-depth in reliable secondary sources to justify a separate article, and we have an article on this type of product, which mentions ratpoison at a level of detail commensurate with coverage in reliable secondary sources.

Before anyone raises more procedural red herrings, I'll point out that the normal procedure for an AfD-decided redirect is to first delete the article's history, then redirect. So an AfD is entirely appropriate in order to complete the first step; see this for example. Pcap ping 12:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, as the nominator doesn't seem to want this deleted & there has been absolutely no arguments made for deletion.

In the last nomination, I suggested that the nominator (who acknowledged that he would be fine with a merge) use the merge templates & discuss on the talk page for the respective articles whether the two should be merged. Pcap took it upon himself to make this merge with no discussion. I did not revert him; I'm ambivalent about a merge, but I am not surprised it was reverted. Pcap doesn't seem to actually want deletion & has even given example sources that are reliable and secondary and surely cover the few facts listed in this brief stub.

There is no reason to delete the page history. Not all merge/redirected articles have their history wiped & the history of this stub is not sullied by a copyvio or any other compelling reason to abandon the history. The GFDL would would discourage page history deletion if content was merged.

--Karnesky (talk) 00:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The topic doesn't meet the usual standard for a standalone article, and it's already included in tiling window manager in WP:DUE detail. Since the redirect has been edit warred over, we need to gain broader consensus, which won't happen on the article's talk page edited by anonymous WP:ILIKEIT users plus you. That's why we are here. Pcap ping 02:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I argued previously, WP:N is met for the limited content provided (there is no need for original research for the article. Please assume good faith & try to discuss a merge through the usual venues for that. Why list an article for deletion if you don't believe it should actually be deleted? --Karnesky (talk) 06:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy, strong and obvious keep. This is widely used, widely discussed, and well-known software. It's hard to imagine any shred of good faith in nominating something so obviously notable just because it is FOSS. LotLE×talk 18:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This editor is voting on all FOSS AfDs with identical reasons. Pcap ping 18:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - If Lulu's comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UC4, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FormatFactory, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Redis (dbms) are 'identical reasons' (and remember, you said all), then your nominations are just as identical and as you yourself insinuate, thus mendacious. --Gwern (contribs) 19:56 10 January 2010 (GMT)
    - UC4 is not FOSS, but it's WP:ARTSPAM written from press releases, by a well-known spammer. It just goes to show how much analysis goes into Lulu's votes. Can you find a single delete vote in his [38] as of 20:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC) ]? All his software AfD voting started after the WP:Software notability RfC, which I was the first to oppose, by the way. Pcap ping 20:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - And if you want identical reasons on unsourced FOSS (of course worded differently), look at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/HOCR_(software), Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GNU_Typist, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Model-Builder, or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ProjectPier (3rd nomination). Surely he voted keep also on some articles where I found sources, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FormatFactory or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Redis (dbms), but that's not the point here. Pcap ping 20:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per notability. 149.77.44.165 (talk) 23:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pcap has not given any clear indication of what he might consider notability for Ratpoison. Is being comparable in popularity even now, and more popular for years, than xmonad or dwm enough? Are 5 books in Google books favorably mentioning it as a lightweight WM suitable for use in things like Knoppix enough? (How much is 'significant'? Is a short article with version, URL, description - basically ours - enough?) Are 3 or 4 papers in Google Scholar mentioning or using it enough? Is an O'Reilly article using Ratpoison enough, or IBM.com article with an entire section on the Ratpoison/Ion philosophy, or a FreshMeat article, or a LinuxPlanet article just on Ratpoison, or Daniel Webb's article? Do mentions and sections on OSNews count? You're fond of the linux.com animadversion of stumpwm; are you also fond of "A command-line interface for X"? Linux Gazette covers & mentions Ratpoison several times; as apparently so do http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1119461 & http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1519536.1519662 & http://dev.gentoo.gr.jp/~hiyuh/misc/PDFs/wmii_ja.pdf & http://artengine.ca/~catalogue-pd/12-Mansoux-Lee.pdf Are the many hits on FreeSoftware Daily, formerly part of Free Software Magazine, valid? What am I to make of slides for what seems to be a lecture on X, and WMs such as Ratpoison, like http://www.salug.it/~fabioviola/pdf/lez1-xorg.pdf ?

I can assemble links until I'm blue in the face, but without any clear indication of what makes notability for software - you can't interview it, in many cases you can't write a book about it, etc. - all I'm doing is giving Pcap a chance to move goalposts and get some vocal exercise saying 'no', 'nope', 'not enough', 'insufficiently in-depth', 'yes, other articles link to that site, but I have higher standards' and so on. --Gwern (contribs) 16:43 12 January 2010 (GMT)

Please do not misrepresent the sources. None of those books recommend ratpoison as you claim. E.g. the knoppix book says:

“

Look at the list of cheat codes to see a number of other window managers, including kde, icewm, twm, and fluxbox if you are using the CD, plus gnome, larswm, openbox, ratpoison, wmkaker, xfce, and xfce4 if you are using the DVD.

”

This is the only mention of ratpoison in that book, so clearly it's not recommended or anything for use with knoppix. I will address the rest of your refs shotly. The basic question here is: how much coverage like that amounts to notability for our purposes. Pcap ping 18:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that 500 people having installed, but are not necessarily using ratpoison [39] confers notability is funny to say the least. I install plenty of stuff I don't use on my linux boxes. Pcap ping 18:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The O'Reilly article is about running applications in Firefox. There's some incidental coverage of ratpoison a lightweight wm:

“

Figure 2 shows Firefox running without a window manager. The tabs work as expected, and even dialog boxes are largely usable. For now, a minimalist window manager (blackbox or ratpoison, for example) would improve some functionality, such as the dialog boxes. The next step is to integrate native applications with the browser. Virtual Network Computing (VNC) is the most mature option. Figure 3 shows a default Ubuntu 6.06 LTS (Dapper Drake) desktop, running inside Firefox using the TightVNC Java applet. This is a common approach for remote system access, but here everything is on the local machine. Firefox is running without a window manager, like in Figure 2. Note that Sun's Java is not yet fully open, but Sun is committed to FOSS licensing. Of course, a Firefox tab is ideally suited to focus on just one application. Figure 4 shows OpenOffice, running with the ratpoison window manager. The VNC-based integration with Firefox is nearly identical to that in Figure 3. If Firefox included some window manager features, it could control applications directly.

”

Please note that newsvac section [40] of linux.com is user contributed and that Daniel Webb is a "a process control engineer at a gulf coast chemical plant" publishing on his persnal site. FreeSoftware Daily is a blog aggregator. The Italian pressentation has just a screenshot and a one sentence description; it's from salug.it, a Unix user group. I did not find anything useful in Linux Gazette on this. Pointing to searches that turn out chat transcripts and what not is generally hand-waving. Also, please do not point to random articles you did not read. The 1st ACM portal link you gave is actully this LJ article: another mention in a list. Pcap ping 19:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Covey is the guy running Freshmeat, so the coverage there is WP:SELFPUB basically. But, the coverage is non-trivial and can be used as a secondary ref. The devworks article uses "Ion and ratpoison" as generic for tiling window manager, but does spend one paragraph on the design philosophy of ratpoison. These and the coverage in linuxplanet vacation story are enough for WP:GNG in my view. Withdrawing nom. Don't put this to heart, I'm not doing this annoy anybody. You did find some good sources, but apparently have trouble distinguishing between passing mentions, blogs, and something that can be used as reference for an article. Pcap ping 19:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archaic (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable Hungarian heavy metal musical group. Cannibaloki 22:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I can't even find them on the Hungarian wikipedia [41] J04n(talk page) 02:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 02:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. not appropriate redirect as there is another more notable album of the same name Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hope for the Hopeless[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Single allegedly RS is a dead link to one review. Jclemens (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep according to my interpretation of WP:NALBUMS, it is notable because it was released by a notable band. However, the lack of reliable sources is a concern. ~ DC (Talk|Edits) 02:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage or reviews found for this b-sides compilation apart from a couple of blogs. No reliable sources found, and even in discographies on allmusic and discogs.com the album isn't listed. As a technical point, we also have Hope for the Hopeless (album), an album by Brett Dennen, which I came across a lot on my searches. There are references available for this album (and will be added soon), so as the more notabe album, do we move that article here, or maybe make this page a redirect to that? Or something like that....Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reference Check: There is a review of an album called "Hope for the Hopeless" in the October 25, 2008 issue of Billboard, but that album is by Brett Dennan, not Kill Hannah. No review of a Kill Hannah album of this title in Bill board that I can find. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kill Hannah; WP:NALBUMS says "officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles"; without significant coverage they do not meet WP:GNG for inclusion. J04n(talk page) 04:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nonsense; one of many variaons of the same theme by this user

18717 B St. E. Spanaway, Wa[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non-notable house WP:IAR speedy delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Consider using speedy delete for these instead of afd. This article is essentially nonsense. ErikHaugen (talk) 01:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm bringing it here because none of the defined speedy criteria apply to this article. And that's also why I'm asking for the invocation of WP:IAR. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Going to be bold and invoke WP:SNOW. This user has posted several variations of this garbage. It's gone. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Julijo Pisk[edit]

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

Fails WP:CREATIVE, unsourced BLP Jclemens (talk) 22:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced BLP with nonsense in it. Alio The Fool 18:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Joe Chill (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MediaMan[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 20:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I found three reviews [42] [43] [44], although none are on really good review sites. YMMV. Pcap ping 07:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Sangha[edit]

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

Fails WP:N (WP:ORG). This organization is not notable. The external links are primarily to websites that promote this organization in some way, and not to 3rd party sources. ɳoɍɑfʈ^Talk! 11:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 15:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The organization is clearly notable as shown by the following Google News hits, [45] And Google Scholar [46]. At worst case this is a Merge/Redirect to either Robert Baker Aitken or Anne Hopkins Aitken who have had articles here on Wikipedia since 2005. Research before nominating! Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 21:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) As per WP:ORG: An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. None of those Google News hits qualify as significant coverage; they all mention Diamond Sangha incidentally in relation to the actual subject of the article, which in most cases, is Robert Baker Aitken. Further, none of the Google Scholar hits are about Diamond Sangha. They simply mention it as an institutional affiliation of the author or subject of the article. That means the subject of the article is notable, not Diamond Sangha. If you can show me a single third-party article that is about Diamond Sangha itself, and not about Robert Baker Aitken, I will be happy to withdraw the nomination.

2) Notability is not inherited. Robert Baker Aitken does not make Diamond Sangha notable, just because he is notable and he founded and ran it.

3) Lastly, regarding your comment "Research before nominating!" please assume good faith. ɳoɍɑfʈ^Talk! 10:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The New York Times - Travel - By TERENCE NEILAN = Published: September 24, 1995 – [47]. Hope this helps. ShoesssS ^Talk 11:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While the New York Times is a big name, that still doesn't qualify as significant coverage. That's a weekly Q&A travel column, where Diamond Sangha gets listed along with five other zen centers, in response to the question "Where can I find a retreat in Hawaii?" Hardly significant coverage. Diamond Sangha is not the subject of the column. In addition, that column is 14 years old. One mention, where they are not the subject of significant coverage, 14 years ago, is not notable. ɳoɍɑfʈ^Talk! 02:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Shoessss provides evidence that there isn't sufficient coverage. Nyttend (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coal oil lamp[edit]

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

Article states item is identical to a regular oil lamp. Prod removed by IP and replaced with redirect to coal oil, but that would be speediable, as an implausible typo. AfD seemed like the best option. Dweller (talk) 09:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment since it's not a typo, it's not speediable for that reason. Coal oil lamps use coal oil, the coal oil article talks about using coal oil for light, therefore, the coal oil article is an appropriate target. The other choice is to redirect it to kerosene lamp. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 05:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to coal oil or kerosene lamp. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 05:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Dweller's assessment. The first sentence of this stub contains only information that is redundant to Oil lamp#Fuel. The remainder appears to be original research. I disagree with 76.66.197.17's redirect proposals – if anywhere, the target should be the "Fuel" section of Oil lamp. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Coal oil lamps" in the U.S. burned kerosene {paraffin in UK). See [48], [49], [50], [51], [52] and [53] which clearly show they are the same. A redirect to Kerosene lamp would be in order. This article creates the false impression of a separate series of lamps and a separate distribution system existed for "coal oil" as opposed to kerosene. (The Coal oil article should be replaced also by a redirect to Kerosene, but that would be a separate AFD). Edison (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redirect, and include a sentence about it in coal oil (if that is kept) and whatever it is redirected to. I think a redirect to kerosene lamp would be preferred, since the general consensus currently seems to be that coal oil and kerosene are synonymous. On the coal oil issue, I do not believe that it should be redirected, as - and I quote - "Coal oil is a term once used for a specific oil shale oil used for illuminating purposes" and is thus different from kerosene. That article could use some expansion saying exactly how it is different. Insorak ♫ talk 20:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Better Off Ted episodes. ffm is now L Faraone 21:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heroes (Better Off Ted)[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

These articles are nothing more than an expanded episode synopsis with a ratings figure and a single review included in the "Critical reception" section as a thinly veiled attempt to give the article notability and avoid failing WP:PLOT.

"Heroes", "Through Rose-colored HAZMAT Suits", "Racial Sensitivity" and "Win Some, Dose Some", as well as the Pilot episode (not nominated) were originally created as copyright violations and tagged for speedy deletion. Speedy was rejected and the copyvios were removed, with the articles reduced to little more than an intro, cast list and infobox. They were then prodded by different editors but the article creator, a new editor, removed the prods. The articles have since been expanded to the level they are now, with more ("Goodbye, Mr. Chips" and "Get Happy") added. I have attempted to assist the article creator by working on Pilot (Better Off Ted), fixing various issues in the hope that the he, who is virtually the only editor working on these articles, would incorporate the changes into existing and new articles but he has not, instead incorporating the same mistakes into each one. I've also left some advice on his talk page, pointing him to various policies and procedures by way of ((Welcomeg)) but he has not heeded the advice or made any attempt to bring these articles up to a reasonable standard.

Most of the information in these articles is already incorporated in existing documentation. The cast list is included in the main and character articles and the ratings figures are in the main episode list. The only new information included is the single review in each article. However, a single review is insufficient to establish the "significant coverage" required by Wikipedia:Notability. The articles are essentially just an expanded synopsis and therefore fail WP:PLOT and should be deleted. AussieLegend (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to List of Better Off Ted episodes per WP:EPISODE. Long plot summaries are for fan sites or wikis, not an encyclopedia, and other than the pilot there's no evidence these are individually notable TV episodes. Glenfarclas (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge as the default way of dealing with these, but preserve adequate content. DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to hear these differences you made to "Pilot" so that I may recreate them in the rest of the articles. If you mention the citations, as I am a new editor, I am still inexperienced in creating the citations you created on the Pilot article. Also as for deleting the Prods, I was unaware that that would stop other editors from editing the page. Skuzbucket (talk) 02:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can check the differences yourself here. Si Trew (talk) 11:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment I've subbed the article (Heroes (Better Off Ted)) to clean it up a bit, for example for the overlinking, links to other WP articles, references, date format. I've left a message saying so at the article's talk page. I hope this helps and shows a way forward for other articles. Si Trew (talk) 10:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should make clear, this is not in any way a vote to keep or delete (on which I have no opinion yet), merely some wikignoming which for example removes "references" which are actually links to other articles, removes overlinking, fixes date formats, changes "Starring" to "Cast" for a section name, and so on. It in no substanitial way changes the content, but may help see past these minor details. Si Trew (talk) 10:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your gnomery, Simon. I remain of the view that these episodes are not individually notable though. Glenfarclas (talk) 17:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, and enforce it. Abductive (reasoning) 03:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BT Radianz[edit]

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

This article has been around for over three years and is still an unsourced stub. There's probably nothing of significance that can be said about BT Radianz which isn't already covered in BT Group, or could be added to that article. Not to mention that this reads like an advertisement. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:06, 29 December 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) 00:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with BT Group, or delete. Bearian (talk) 01:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability. Nyttend (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Locus (web comic)[edit]

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

No reliable sources found that have significant coverage. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this web comic. Joe Chill (talk) 23:30, 29 December 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) 00:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB, no reliable sources exist. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon McComb[edit]

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

No evidence of meeting WP:BIO, no reliable sources, prod removed presumably of a misunderstanding as she's not an assembely member Delete Secret ^account 20:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As far as I can tell, the only thing remotely resembling coverage of the subject in a reliable source is this puff piece in a local newspaper. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:59, 29 December 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) 00:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete seems notable, but there's a lack of sources. Also would need to be written from a more neutral POV. ~ DC (Talk|Edits) 02:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stroud Consulting[edit]

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

This is a promotional article that fails to meet the primary notability requirements of WP:ORG. I find no matches in Google News for "Stroud Consulting Inc" and references in the article are either self published or the report by Consulting Magazine. Consulting Magazine alone does not constitute significant coverage in secondary sources. Ash (talk) 16:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Do a search for "Stroud Consulting" without the Inc and you will get some hits, but probably not enough ones from reliable sources to save the article. I also tried a search for Stroud Marblehead (no quotes - first name of company name plus the name of the community where it is based) and didn't get anything useful. I mention this only to offer hints as to better ways to search, not to argue that the company is notable. - Eastmain (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. On the basis of the references, I think that notability has been established. - Eastmain (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see four current references. Two are Consulting Magazine as mentioned in the nomination, the Salem News reference just points back to the Consulting Magazine report and the Industry Week article appears tangential as it quotes a couple of Stroud's consultants without saying anything to establish notability of the organization itself.—Ash (talk) 16:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete best small firm to work for is not notable. Relative importance in the industry is relevant to notability DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an operations management consulting firm that the general public is unlikely to be aware of. Receiving a mutual admiration award from a "Consulting Magazlne" provides no notability, given that such a magazine is likely to have limited circulation and interest outside the consulting trade. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

though I agree with deleting, that is not a good reason. We cover more than consumer businesses, and business firms that cater to other businesses can be equally notable. The general public" is not the standard, but rather being known and notable in their field of operation. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - in my opinion, the article's subject does not satisfy WP:CORP. Winning some minor awards, to me, does not indicate enough notability to merit inclusion. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 sense of the discussion is that with further editing, the list may be improved. Rough consensus to keep. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Disney film soundtracks[edit]

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

Claims to be a list of notable disney soundtracks, but actually appears to just be an indiscriminate list of Disney films without any discretion used as to whether a soundtrack was in fact released, or any further information regarding said soundtracks Rob Sinden (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 15:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although the majority of entries are just links to the films without apparent concern for the notability of the soundtrack, several dozen do actually link to articles of the form '[film title] (soundtrack)'. I'm not sure how many of those are notable, but if several of them are then this list could be kept and pared down to just include the notable entries. If on the other hand none of them are notable in their own rights we should delete all those articles, or perhaps redirect them to this list if it's kept. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTCLEANUP. The issues that the nominator listed are all editorial-based; the phenomena of Disney music is certainly a notable one and the article needs to be improved rather than deleted. WossOccurring (talk) 18:06, 29 December 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) 00:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not doubting the notability of the topic, but as this only a list, and has no other information to offer, is this not best served by a category for now? My point being really that this page is not a list of notable Disney soundtracks, but an indiscriminate list of Disney films. If we remove everything that isn't a link to a soundtrack, all we have left is a list of links to soundtracks, which could be served by a category. Of course the article could be improved, with release dates and information regarding different formats, but until someone does that, should this page be here? The Disney soundtracks stub page actually holds more information. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have Category:Disney film soundtracks and Category:Disney animation soundtracks which, when combined, still don't list all the films in the List of Disney film soundtracks article. It appears the reason is because a lot of the film articles on this list have a section detailing the soundtracks, but not a dedicated article about the tracks. Could the category be added to all the films in question, whether or not they have a separate article? Probably, but for now, I still like the idea of having them all listed here, as opposed to the category-only route.—DMCer™ 21:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The discussion did not reveal sources to support the article. As always, I am happy to userfy if anyone wants to work to bring the article suitable for mainspace. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isabella Eades-Jones[edit]

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

article's claim of 4 episodes is a clear failure of WP:ENT. 1 hit in gnews. [54]. LibStar (talk) 14:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is all that I can find for significant coverage. Fails WP:ENT. Joe Chill (talk) 14:17, 29 December 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) 00:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article does not meet notability standards as there is little coverage in reliable sources. Laurinavicius (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided - evidently a child actress, but she has been in a notable TV series and a notable film, in named roles (ie. not just an extra). Deb (talk) 19:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Anne Brown[edit]

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

Non-notable photographer. I searched hard for links to assert notability and could find none. Jenafalt (talk) 13:45, 29 December 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) 00:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Thus, she does not meet notability standards. Laurinavicius (talk) 00:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. Deb (talk) 22:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Musgrave[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article about a living person. It gives no indication of notability and (in a previous revision) relied soley on IMDB as a reference. My PROD tag was removed because "it's important that Robert Musgrave be added to Wikipedia." ╟─Treasury Tag►draftsman─╢ 10:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added 3 great sources for you and for the world. I hope that will suffice. Also, IMDB has been used as a source for probably thousands of entries in Wikipedia. But that's just an aside. 96.238.16.225 (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)Alyssa Amaral Decide4u[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. iMDB is not considered a reliable source for the purpose. The Netflix link is just a cast listing, not a notability test, and Wikipedia is not to be used as a reference for itself. This person had a one shot in a movie, aside from those details, and is accordingly not demonstratably notable at this point. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability. Evalpor (talk) 06:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of types of seafood[edit]

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

This article is an out-of-date data dump from the Monterey Bay Aquarium's Seafood Watch. This seems an unreasonable use of their data, if not an outright copy violation. It would be better to leave the Monterey Bay Aquarium to update and present their own information, which many pages in Wikipedia link to. Geronimo20 (talk) 09:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: a mere list of seafood, like telephone directory information, lacks sufficient originality to be copyrightable. Apart from perceived copyright problems, it's a perfectly reasonable topic for an article, and one for which presentation here confers the substantial advantage of wikilinking. Sarah182 (talk) 18:13, 29 December 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) 00:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Sarah182's argument that a list of types of seafood is not copyrightable because it does not entail creativity on the author's part, and facts cannot be copyrighted. Moreover, this is a perfectly legitimate topic for a stand-alone list. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually it is not true, as Sarah claims above, that this is just "a mere list of seafood". The article evaluates the extent to which various seafoods are or are not okay to eat, based on sustainability and other criteria researched by Seafood Watch. These are Seafood Watch's recommendations, and I would have thought that lifting their recommendations on a scale like this like this would be invading their rights in some way. The other problem is that the list is not kept up to date, and there is no guarantee that it will be kept up to date. Seafood Watch constantly update their recommendations, and the Wikipedia article is attempting to mirror them, but is not keeping pace. Thus, the article is misrepresenting Seafood Watch. I think the whole idea is very disrespectful to Seafood Watch. Other articles, such as sustainable seafood advisory lists and certification, explain what Seafood Watch is about and link to their site. This seems to me how it should be handled. --Geronimo20 (talk) 06:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Geronimo20 is right about the content of the article. It needs to have all of the Seafood watch stuff pulled, though the list in and of itself is neither copyrightable nor unencyclopaedic. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 10:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Torbjorn Sassersson[edit]

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

Non-notable autobiography. No reliable sources have been provided, and I can't find any. Woogee (talk) 08:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Material below from Sassersson moved to correct position on page. When posting here, please put your post following others (unless, like this one, they have a relevance elsewhere. Peridon (talk) 16:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Comment. To whom it may concern. I have added registration numbers, archive numbers referring to the sources such as: The National Library of Sweden - The Department of Audiovisual Material, The Swedish Radio and TV Authority, Swedish Patent and Registration Office and the Swedish Companies Registration Office in order to fullfill the demands of source's reliability. Sassersson (talk) 10:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Woogee, the page has several verifiable sources. Why can't you find the sources? In what format do these sources need to be presented? I am confirming the person Torbjorn Sassersson exists. I am that person. Please let me know if there is anything missing on the page named Torbjorn Sassersson in order to make it a complete biographical page of a living person. Of course the page must not contain anything that may be percieved as commercial, not neutral or irrelevant. I am ready to swiftly correct anything that don't follow Wiki standards. Sassersson (talk) 17:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We don't need confirmation that Mr Sassersson exists. We do need confirmation that he is notable enough for an article. Apart from being on the advisory board of what has been described as a 'Ufological research' organisation, and a few appearances on TV, I can't see much reason for an article. I would also point out to Mr Sassersson that articles are supposed to be 'about' not 'by' and writing an article about yourself is not really a good idea. It is difficult to be neutral in an encyclopaedic manner about oneself. Peridon (talk) 16:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence at all of encyclopedic notability. minor appearances in various little-known videos is not notability. DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 certainly could benefit from more sources, but there is a strong consensus to keep the article at this time. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fragmented distribution attack[edit]

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

more research needed. Adi4094 (talk) 08:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Having read the conference presentation, it seems that this is a means of attack that has been seen in the wild already (presentation says September 9, though I haven't found a news article about it yet). I bet there's more here - and I bet the attack vector goes by different names, which might be part of the reason it's hard to find material. But it smells notable! Would love some assistance finding out for sure...--Vivisel (talk) 16:37, 29 December 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) 00:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It appears important to me as well; it would be better to tag it as a stub and do a little additional research/expansion. Insorak ♫ talk 20:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to the one and only source, this is a notable topic. The source appears credible. Let's keep this for now and wait if new sources arrive. If they don't, we should renominate this after some time. Offliner (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Incubate - Hmm, perhaps we should incubate this article; the topic definitely seems noteworthy, as other editors have attested to, and Symantec is certainly a high-profile name in electronic security. Why not give this article some time? Cocytus [»talk«] 01:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anabate[edit]

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

Prod tag removed. Not speediable. WP:NEO and WP:NOTDICTIONARY Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 00:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should be. Neologisms are completely NN and fall under the same criteria as NN bios, band vanity, etc. IMO, that is. Still going to vote speedy delete. PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, they should be, but unfortunately I think they are explicitly stated as not. Correct? Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 00:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the exact rule, but I'm not against letting this run its course. I'll investigate the rules a bit deeper when I have some more time. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This what I'm going by WP:NOTCSD. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 01:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO, which says that a neologism may be fit for inclusion if it "has sufficiently widespread coverage to be notable, and a fairly newly coined term may be the simplest and most natural way to refer to the concept." That is certainly not the case here. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- — æk ^Talk 04:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIC, WP:NEO. — æk ^Talk 04:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NEO. Warrah (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIC, WP:NEO, and probably WP:MADEUP. Cnilep (talk) 17:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIC Defender of torch (talk) 07:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NEO, etc., as a legion of editors have pointed out. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 08:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Human Weapon Cast[edit]

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

Contested prod. Normally, this should be merged with Human Weapon, except that there is just nothing to merge that isn't already there. No reason why this should exist as a separate article. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 06:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - As the nom says, nothing new here. This is a possible redirect candidate. Perhaps we should redirect it now, but I think deletion is still in order. The article name only clutters search lists, provides no new information, and is a waste of resources and time. Shadowjams (talk) 08:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to merge that hasn't already been done. Unnecessary topic for a show with no regular cast beyond the two hosts. Sarilox (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two regulars does not a cast article merit. Everything useful here is already replicated in other articles, so this can just be deleted. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Incubate. Moved to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/A Marine Story (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Marine Story[edit]

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

Unremarkable as-yet-unreleased film (see WP:NOTABILITY). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 06:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not create this article. However, I respectfully request that rather than deletion, this article be incubated. The film is planned for release in spring 2010 according to some Hollywood insiders I spoke with. Like The Gymnast, this film is expected to be a very notable and remarkable film for the Lesbian and Gay community, and also to veterans and their families affected by the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. Thanks. Action grrl (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can support that motion. I think the incubate option is underused, unfortunately. Spring 2010 isn't that far away, and it seems like a fair enough request. I'd suggest adding more references, etc. as well. Cocytus [»talk«] 04:11, 3 January 2010 (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) 00:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate per above. Its expected to be released relatively soon, and in the interim could be improved. ~ DC (Talk|Edits) 02:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate Quite sensible to allow the article to be improved as imminent release date nears. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandra Pileva[edit]

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

fails WP:ENT and WP:BIO. she does not even have a Macedonian WP page. and coverage is very limited in gnews [55]. LibStar (talk) 06:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. —LibStar (talk) 12:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. The article is a BLP so a second relist is reasonable.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no real evidence of notability and the article is clearly promotional, verging on advertising. Deb (talk) 12:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There's no way to determine consensus with this and I'm not going to relist a third time Valley2city^‽ 03:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Annelise Manojlovic[edit]

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

fails WP:ENT and WP:BIO. no significant multiple roles. gnews: [56] and alternate spelling. LibStar (talk) 07:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. The article is a BLP so a second relist is reasonable.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Eight years playing the same role ought to be enough to pass notability. WP:ENT needs to be refined to recognize that some people are notable for playing a single notable part. - Eastmain (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no you're reinventing the criterion to suit your keep vote. one role does not meet WP:ENT. LibStar (talk) 12:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —LibStar (talk) 12:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, WP:ENT is subject to the caveat that "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Wikipedia is chock full of articles about actors who have only had one significant role, as long as its a significant show. (And i'm using OTHERSTUFFEXISTS the proper way in making that observation.)--Milowent (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

then this person should meet WP:BIO, which she doesn't. LibStar (talk) 02:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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