< 2 February	4 February >
Discussions scheduled to run until at least 8 February 2009.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and close. Bad faith nomination coming just 11 hours after the close of the last discussion. Non admin closure. PC78 (talk) 12:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drift: The Sideways Craze[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable film. unreliable source. Delete per WP:WEB and WP:CORP as they require multiple sources. PSNMand (PSNMand) 21:07, 3 February 2009

Speedy close - previous AfD only closed 11 hours before this one was started, what can have changed in that time? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 00:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
concur with speedy keep. Last AfD said experts were needed to find better sources. 11 hours hardly gives them enought time! Did anyone even ask at the relevant wiki-projects?Yobmod (talk) 07:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close per bad faith nomination. 11 hours since the last AfD closed??? Sheesh. Further, and worth considering, the nom is/was blocked and using puppets to circumvent the block. Sheesh again. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close - regardless of my opinion from the last AFD (it was delete), this is far too soon to bring this article back to AFD. -- Whpq (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hayashida Heihachi[edit]

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Individual pages for Samurai 7 and Seven Samurai characters existed before and were deleted following a discussion. There is no change in the reasoning leading to the deletion then (characters were not pervasive beyond the two works). Eldar (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into appropriate article with more context. §FreeRangeFrog 23:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Character is already dealt with in more detail at Samurai 7 Edward321 (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)undant,[reply]
Delete as redtherefore merge not needed.Yobmod (talk)
Redirect to Seven Samurai characters section --DFS454 (talk) 13:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect either to Seven Samurai or Samurai 7. This is simply a stub covered in way more detail on those pages and the nominator is right. Though I'd never heard of S7 before the previous discussions, not only is there no sources, but more importantly, there are no outside sources to back up this article. Sasuke9031 (talk) 19:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable fictional character. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, no assertion of notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Free Rider 2[edit]

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

If you came here because http://trackmill.com/forums/showthread.php?t=380, 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)).

I am nominating this article for deletion because I believe it goes directly against WP:Notability_(web). This policy states that "[w]ikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers..." which is exactly what this page does. It only describes the features of the online game, including its vehicles, tracks, etc and does not discuss the site's achievements, impact, or historical significance. Furthermore, it seems to be collecting links not in line with WP:External Links, and even contains a whole section of related web sites with descriptions that read as an advertisement. Aka042 (talk) 22:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I disagree with your deletion. First of all, Free Rider 2 is NOT a website. It is a flash-based online game. Secondly, the article thoroughly describes Free Rider 2, not its affiliated websites (although it does mention a few of them). Free Rider 2 is a strongly community-based game, so it is obvious that some attention must be payed to the various sites that have sprung up around it. --Isneki (talk) 23:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- — Isneki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep: I don't quite see the reason why it should be deleted. People are arguing that it is not notable enough. Yet you allow club penguin, line rider, and runescape. Free Rider 2 is nearly as popular as those games. It has an extremely large community. 10,000 tracks are added on trackmill every day. Not to mention the other 4 database sites and the thousands of forums that have threads dedicated to this game. The Free Rider series is one of the most popular flash games of all time. 131.156.232.147 (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- — 131.156.232.147 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete. Lack of reliable, third-party, sources to establish notability per WP:WEB. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Esradekan. Flash games rarely meet the requirements for an article. This one clearly does not. JuJube (talk) 01:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 03:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's a review on Jay is Games, which is good, but it alone cannot hold up an article per the multiple sources required for WP:WEB. There's also a review of the original game on the same site, but that leaves each with only one review and they're both from the same site, it's not workable in creating even a basic reception section (notability). Someone another 03:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I too disagree with this. The article has been up and running for some time now, why delete it? Other online games are on Wikipedia, so why is this one so different? --Micky 1234567890123 (talk) 14:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See Other Stuff Exists. Just because these articles exist on Wikipedia doesn't mean they aren't against guidelines and policies. ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 14:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ArcAngel (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think we should keep the page because it basically explains the games. Just because another site has a page of reviewing doesn't mean Wikipedia shouldn't have one as well. Jay is Games does have a review on it but what says just because one website has something on a specific topic doesn't mean that another website such as wikipedia can't have something as well. As for some of the other things such as the advertising for other websites, this is a valid point that those should not be there. Instead of removing the page all together, why don't we just remove the free advertising. BUT, i think it is interesting that if someone is looking at a page for an online flash game that is free, why not link to a place that they can find it. I know there is google and all that if people are really interested, but honestly, what is a few links to external sites going to hurt.Pages such as the page for Age_of_Empires contain links to external sites, theres right around 92 external links when i checked it just now. The FR2 page contains only like 5 or 10. I know this probably isn't a problem and considering you all say stuff about the Other Stuff Exists rules, therefore none of that really mattered. But honestly, what is a page devoted to explaining a page going to hurt. You'll probably flame me for all of that, but I sincerely don't see any problem with an extra page. This game is getting huge and when searching for "Free Rider 2" in google, wikipedia is the last one on the second page. I'm sure you'll say it's statistically proven that no one googles and looks at the second page, but i'm sure wikipedia has had a few hits that have proven beneficial to the website from this article. Thanks for reading. --Moyyom (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just because an article is Useful, doesn't mean its subject is notable or it belongs on Wikipedia. ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 14:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note — Rally cry from their forum. See [1]. MuZemike 01:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:Notability. Articles must receive coverage by reliable third-party sources, which Free Rider 2 has not. -- Noj r (talk) 07:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are not the reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNo notability established. --Peephole (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under criteria A7 (web content with no indication of importance.) Marasmusine (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 00:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Republic Windows and Doors[edit]

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

In what way is this notable? Does being included in a question to a president confer notability? Is this a US Grunwick dispute? A real landmark? Or just another sad but not very notable company collapse. You decide. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This event was a notable chapter in the whole 2008 credit debacle, and garnered a fair amount of media coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant news event, sufficient media attention. DGG (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the nation's largest banks and the State of Illinois were involved in this situation and the media attention was heavy on this. Notability is assured. Nate • (chatter) 01:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This business was a fairly well known national manufacturer and seller of consumer products, even before the company failed. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (full disclosure: I created the article). The plant closure and resulting protest forced a national bank that received major bailout funds to change how it handled a bankruptcy. This could well be a turning point in US labor relations. Even if it isn't, it's certainly enough of a historical footnote to qualify for notability under Wikipedia's standards. Hope others come and expand the page. I would support changing the title of the article to reflect that it is mainly notable for the protest and response. Also note that I have proposed merging Republic Windows & Doors into this article. Notmyrealname (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To be pedantic, then, the article should be something like the Bankruptcy of Republic Windows and Doors since that is the notable thing - not the company but the interactions and ramifications of the end of the company. For much the same reason, we have an article on the Grunwick dispute but not on Grunwick the company. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hardly pedantic. I would have no objection to this or something along those lines (perhaps reflecting the labor dispute).Notmyrealname (talk) 01:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Google news archive search for articles before 2008 [2] and a Google Books search [3] show that this company was notable even without the recent developments. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep mentioned on national news. --Voidvector (talk) 14:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Its financial problems were an indirect cause of the fall of Rod Blagojevich. Bearian (talk) 16:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

British National Party election results[edit]

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

AfDs for this article:

We do not have articles on election results for other parties in UK politics, major or minor. Sure, they can be sourced (all results are published) but articles like this serve no purpose other than to inflate the importance of a marginal party; a similar article on the Green Party would be unmanagaeably big and the Greens stand about the same chance of being the next Government as a snowball does in hell. Much better to cover the elections themselves, and the parties separately, rather thangive undue weight to the minor successes of this reviled bunch of extremists. The article was deleted recently and promptly recreated, but this is not a G4. It is, however, one of the things Wikipedia is not: a distillation form primary sources with no independent evidence of the significance of BNP election results as opposed to those of any other party. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in its current form. However, there's a point to be made that the BNP vote has been pointed out to be a good indicator of the nation's quackery... Sceptre ^(talk) 22:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - adequately covered by British National Party#Electoral performance. PhilKnight (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article was recreated following a review of the original deletion, as shown by the rubric at the top of the talk page. Similar non-arguments were used when the article was previously deleted in what amounted to a non-debate. Note that, contrary to what the nominator says, the article was not "promptly recreated", unless 5 months is prompt! It would help to study carefully the comments in the review: they supported the recreation of this article, with the proviso that proper sources be cited (done). I must conclude that this is a vexatious and malicious nomination. Emeraude (talk) 22:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calling them "non-arguments" and invoking the previous deletion is worth precisely nothing as a contribution to this debate. The rationale is different, your assumption of bad faith is the only constant. Guy (Help!) 22:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the circumsatnces, I think I am justified in suspecting bad faith and still hoping I'm wrong. And surely everything said in the deletion review was a "non-argument" for you, seeing as you have jumped to overturn a debate in 24 hours. Now that is prompt! Emeraude (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm prepared to accept good faith, the problem here is that when a nominator describes the subject of the article that's he's proposing to be deleted as a "reviled bunch of extremists" then it's hardly conducive to a dispassionate debate. It smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and that will raise questions. Valenciano (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep referenced article and it would be good to see similar articles for other notable minor parties. Valenciano (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First, the nomination doesn't give me any valid grounds for deletion; I think the nom boils down to WP:WAX. Second, I agree with Valenciano.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As much as I agree with the sentiments of the proposer regarding the BNP, I'm afraid these are not good grounds for deletion of a referenced article. - Galloglass 23:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. It is hard to view this nomination immediately after a deletion review as anything other than disruptive, and I hope this AFD will be promptly closed as an abuse of process. In case that doesn't happen, I will make the case for keeping it (though I do wonder whether this is going to become a recurring saga). The significance of the BNP as a subject of detailed study is not that it shows any immediate sign of gaining power, but that it rejects much of the current structures of the British society: AFAIK there is no other political party in the UK whose membership is regarded as grounds for dismissal from employment (see 2008 membership list leak). Regardless of whether anyone supports or opposes the BNP, it is a highly controversial party whose electoral record is much more widely and deeply scrutinised than that of any other small party, both in the press and in academia and elsewhere. For some examples of the voluminous analysis of the BNP and its predecessor the National Front, see: Far Right in London: a Challenge for Local Democracy, British National Party: Inside the Roots of Its Appeal, Local context and extreme right support in England: The British National Party in the 2002 and 2003 local elections, ‘A day to make history’? The 2004 elections and the British National Party, Electoral performance of far-right parties in the UK, The National Front Vote, Exclusionary Populism in Western Europe in the 1990s and Beyond, Examining the Success of the British National Party, 1999--2003, The Canary in a Coalmine? Explaining the Emergence of the British National Party in English Local Politics ... and that's only a small selection, which excludes the newspapers. There's a whole section of The Guardian full of related articles, and a similar mountain of coverage on the BBC news website.
The nominator complains that the article lacks independent evidence of the significance of the BNP's electoral performance, but that is at best an argument for improving and expanding the article. However, the context of this article is well set out at British National Party#Electoral_performance, and this article is clearly marked there as a breakout section per WP:SPLIT.
Finally, the nominator fears that the data will "give undue weight to the minor successes of this reviled bunch of extremists", which part from being deeply POV is a clear breach of WP:NOTCENSORED. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Pulling the "undue weight" argument is a farce quite frankly. Perfectly good article.--EchetusXe (talk) 23:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To quote the original closing admin at the AfD: " If there are sources, then sure recreate it". A good example of why sources should be looked for first before nominating. It would have prevented AfD1, Deletion Review, and AfD 2. DGG (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As a bunch of statistics on its own it means little. wikipedia is not a repository of information. As PhilKnight says, British National Party#Electoral performance covers the topic. If such statistics can be linked to on an off-site page from British National Party#Electoral Performance then I suggest that is the way to go. There is no point wikipedia exactly duplicating content that is freely available elsewhere online. If the statistics are not freely available elsewhere on the internet, then they should perhaps be merged into the original article, if such detail is relevant to an understanding of the BNP as a political entity.

If other such stats don't exist on their own pages for other parties, then this implies there is something special about these numbers. Which violates neutrality. I don't want to be neutral either, but the fact is there is no reason that they should exist in their own right without elucidation. That elucidation is to be found at British National Party#Electoral Performance, so it is where they belong if anywhere. Either they are relevant to the Electoral Performance section, or they should be deleted as WP:NOCATALOG. Ddawkins73 (talk) 00:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. The stats don't necessarily belong at British National Party#Electoral Performance (see WP:SPLIT); but if you do feel they belong there, that's an argument for merger rather than for deletion.
Your point that a separate page for these states "violates neutrality" might be an important one if it were not for all the evidence that the BNP is a subject of particular interest (see my links above and British National Party#Electoral_performance). I say "might be", because this seems to me to be a very dubious application of the principle of neutrality: if taken literally, it would mean that we should not have a list of MPs of one party unless e also have list of MPs in another party ... and similarly for football teams, car models, or anything else which could be represented in a table of data. That approach would be a recipe for wholesale deletion: for example, we have much more detailed coverage of Iriszh politicians than of Mongolians. Your argument suggests that we should delete all the Irish political articles until we have similar coverage of Mongolia and every other country. That's covered in WP:OTHERSTUFF. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re all the analogies and neutrality, can we apply one overriding "super-WP": common sense?

Why should it be taken literally and spread to cover false anologies? The highly-politicized context is what's relevant. The relevant point is "why have separate statistics for BNP election results?" not "Why aren't all lists representative of all groups?"

My argument doesn't suggest anything of the kind re Irish and Mongolian politicians. Better analogies would be having, in the 1980s, a list of "Irish Nationalist political figures who have spent time in UK Police custody", but not having lists of other political figures who had spent time in police custody. Or having now a list of the teaching qualifications of Discovery Institute members but not having the same for members of other organizations who publicly debate regarding educational issues. Such lists might well be relevant (note I haven't advocated in bold Keep, Delete or anything yet), but if orphaned from the articles that give them context there is certainly a danger that they violate neutrality, wouldn't you agree?

If the stats are genuinely relevant to the BNP article, then merge. Or if that level of detail is not necessary, then delete, if the statistics are freely available off-site (and link to them) - purely on the grounds of WP:NOTCATALOG and "wikipedia is not a repository of information". Why duplicate statistics?

Either they are "just stats" and they are irrelevant, or they are meaningful stats and careful thought should be given as to whether they should exist as a wikipedia page in their own right. I think neutrality is very relevant. Ddawkins73 (talk) 01:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OKay, let's try commonsense! The problem is that we disagree on what commonsense means here.

Your anaology with arrested nationalists is a bad one, because such a set of lists would be very different in scale (there weren't many of Conservative MPs arrested). I see no problem in having such a list of arrested nationalists, and no resaon to exclude it because others were not arrested. As to the Discovery Institute, I know nothing of it, but such a list would be appropraite (even without other similar lists) if there was evidence that the DI members qualifications were a significant topic of study (as BNP results are).

You are simply wrong to say that "wikipedia is not a repository of information"; the relevant policy says that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". That word "indiscriminate" is crucial: are you really trying to argue that this ist is indiscriminate?

So far as I am concerned, this article is at this stage a work in progress. There are things I would like to see added to it (sortable tables, some explanation of how heavily scrutinised BNP elections results are), but we don't delete articles just because they are incomplete: we judge them by whether they have the potential to become anything useful. This article is already useful, by compiling in one place data from a long historical period with links to the relevant articles -- for example it enabled me to quickly find an article on the highest-polling BNP candidate in the 1992 general election.

There's a very good reason for not mergeing it to the BNP article: this much detail would overwhelm it. That's a common situation, which is why we have WP:SPLIT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All analogies are bad :) but at least we moved away from the first one to a less bad one (As an aside, my first case - certainly would have been significant, trust me).

I think the sticking point is whether these stats are knowledge or information. I'm sure we can agree there is no need to represent mere information in an encyclopedia. Broadly speaking, encyclopedias contain knowledge. Information can be found anywhere, and there is no need to replicate it. Knowledge, in an encyclopedia, is the bringing together of information under a topic. That is, it presents information as associated with other information and weaves it together. Stats don't have a topic, any more than the contents of this page do. They are what they are. They are information.

It is in the sense described above that "wikipedia is not a repository of information". It is also what is meant by "indiscriminate collection". Information collected but not contextualized. Here I think is a major source of misunderstanding: it is not whether information is indiscriminate. It is whether the collection of it is indiscriminate.

The phrase is not "a collection of indiscriminate information". It is "an indiscriminate collection of information."

Reproducing as a separate page information that exists elsewhere is 'indiscriminate collecting' of information.

An editor or author of a page is showing critical discrimination (which is a good thing) by the choice not to include what is unnecessary.

So, are the stats freely available elsewhere online? (I'll check after posting this). Are they vital to the (actual) topic (which is, I would think, Electoral Performance of the BNP)?

Ddawkins73 (talk) 03:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see no grounds for deletion. Neither the absence of a similar article on other parties nor a comparison between the chances of electoral success with the survival chances of frozen snow in a place in the afterlife is sufficient. The page is organised and sourced. A merge to the main page would overbalance it. Sure I find the policies of the BNP distasteful but we have much on Wikipedia that I find distasteful and, luckily, that is also not grounds for deletion! There are plenty of highly reliable sources that discuss the implications of electoral success by the BNP. My preferred way forward would be to add textual context rather than deletion. TerriersFan (talk) 03:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)TerriersFan (talk) 03:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~abstain - Crucially, I cannot find the collated election results anywhere online (except in another encyclopedia). I think they are definitely relevant to the topic Electoral Performance, WP:Split is a valid reason to detach them from the BNP Page, the link from Electoral Performance and the top link to "main article" constitute context (so mitigating neutrality concerns), they are essentially an intrinsic part of "Electoral Performance" detached because of WP:SPLIT.

Edit: I don't know. I'm ambivalent. They do have some significance, points still hold, but there are a lot of stats in those stats. Then again, they only have to be updated every 4 years and it's not paper. Then again, hrafn's point over significance of K Hill 1983. It is a bit much. Maybe edit into a summary table as suggested. Ddawkins73 (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Brown-haired girl: (I'm glad we discussed it - cleared it all up in my mind :) )

Ddawkins73 (talk) 04:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Exhaustive lists like this are well beyond our scope. Individual successes, such as Richard Barnbrook's in 2005, can be mentioned in the respective articles. - Biruitorul ^Talk 08:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comments 1 The page was created to give background context to the main article section on Electoral Performance. 2 It would not fit into the BNP article without making it far too large (and there is an argument for reducing the size of the BNP article anyway). 3 The information/stats are not available elsewhere outside Wikipedia in a single source (which explains the large number of sources quoted). 4 The Electoral Performance section is going to change whenever there is an election if editors are on the ball. This data provides useful information for editors to hang their contributions on. 5 As stated by others, the page is a clear split from the main article and itself refers to the main article for alll the right reasons. 6 There are countless lists already in WIkipedia and most of them are available elsewhere (see for example List of minor planets: 199001–200000, one of I believe some 8,000 such pages all replicating what is online in a single source. That's not an argument for deletion; it's a demonstartion that "exhaustive lists" are most definitely within our scope. '7 And bear in mind that Wikipedia is not paper! Emeraude (talk) 11:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: ~~WP:NOTDIR~~ WP:NOT#STATS, wikipedia is not a depository for such primary-source data. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Agree with Hrafn - to give an example, Wikipedia has information about the climate in London, but doesn't (and shouldn't) have tables of figures for the amount of rainfall each day since records began. In the same way, there should be summary data about the BNP's electoral performance, but this sort of detailed information isn't required. PhilKnight (talk) 17:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment and comment and comment In your opinion, but which of the 6 points in WP:NOTDIR does this violate? In the deletion review, PhilKnight commented: "Allow recreation provided every entry is properly sourced. Unsourced content should be removed, and if the entire article is unsourced it should be deleted." That was done!! Emeraude (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your above comment is somewhat weird, however the answer to your question is number 6. PhilKnight (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - "4. 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." Would appear to be spot-on. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Reply. a) This isn't a complete list: it covers only parliamentary elections, not local council elections. b) This isn't a "long and sprawling lists of statistics", it's a well-organised and annotated list election results. c) You are quite right that the article would benefit from explanatory text, but if that is needed it's a matter for expansion rather than for deletion, and may not be needed since ths data is pslit out per WP:SPLIT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments outlined above. I have to say, from a purely selfish standpoint, I utilised this article as a reference when writing up my PhD thesis a number of times and was gutted when it disappeared. I agree, however, that it could use some explanatory text along with the results and I will be happy to dd some if the artice survives this process. Keresaspa (talk) 20:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You used Wikipedia as a reference for a PhD paper? Yikes. Madman (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination seems to be based on WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If the articles on other political parties are organised in a different way so that there isn't a particular article on their election results it doesn't mean that this one should be deleted. If you are coming from the standpoint of not wanting to give undue weight to a minority opinion, then I would have thought that this article very clearly demonstrates that the far right has very little support in the UK - far less than in most other European countries. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in its current form. Whilst the topic of BNP electoral performance is certainly encyclopedic this article doesn't attempt to analyse or discuss it. Instead it presents a huge mass of electoral data. WP:NOT#STATS says that "articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader", and this article is nothing but statistics. If explanatory text were added the article might be worth keeping, but this material is already present in British National Party. Hut 8.5 21:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the absence of explanatory text is not a valid ground for deletion. We expand articles that have deficient content not delete them which is the way the encyclopaedia develops. TerriersFan (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal: the title of the article ("results") clearly indicates it is intended to be on the "huge mass of electoral data" and that "sufficient explanatory text" is not intended. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-rebuttal - no problem; then move the page to a better title and add some explanatory text. Deleting useful, informative content on a fine interpretation of policy is not, in my view, a constructive way forward. TerriersFan (talk) 02:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The idea that a title which includes the word "results" cannot include "sufficient explanatory text" is bizarre. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is these defences of the article that are "bizarre". "Results" = raw data. That an article with a different title, and with different contents, might not be in violation of WP:NOT#STATS is irrelevant. If you want to address an article with a different title and different contents, then please find a different AfD (any other AfD will give you this). This article, by both title and contents, is clearly intended to be just raw data, and is thus a clear violation of WP:NOT#STATS. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You choose, for whatever reason, to read the word "results" as narrowly as possible, to preclude any discussion or explanation of those results. As other editors have repeatedly pointed out in this discussion, the article can be expanded to include just that sort of analysis, and I have pointed above to some of the many sources which could be used. Your bizarre reasoning appears to be that because you read a word in a particularly narrow way to mean only a list, you can therefore divine the intentions of any other editor who might seek the expand the article. Please may I borrow your crystal ball? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. I choose, for the reason that it is accepted usage of the language, to distinguish between numeric "results" and more descriptive "performance" -- e.g 'the results in the soccer game was a 2-1 victory to team A' versus 'team A's performance in the first half was good, but they rested on the laurels in the second half, allowing team B to score a late goal'. (i) The title of the article indicates that it is intended to be in violation of WP:NOT#STATS (ii) its current contents are in violation of WP:NOT#STATS (iii) no attempt has been made to attempt to alter it to be anything other than a violation of WP:NOT#STATS (iv) the amount of data is excessive (see my question on K Hill below) to be anything other than a violation of WP:NOT#STATS. WP:DUCK applies. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hrafn, that's pure pedantry. There is absolutely no reason why an article on "results" cannot include an analysis of those results, but if the term upsets you so much you can always propose a renaming of the article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"No reason" why it can't -- but no reason to believe it is intended to, no reason to believe that such an article wouldn't be better titled 'BNP electoral performance, no reason to believe that such an article wouldn't be better written from scratch, no reason to believe that such an article would use even a small proportion of this raw data -- i.e. no reason to believe that anything you've been asserting has any validity to it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hrafn, there's a very good reason: WP:AGF, which says "avoid accusing others of harmful motives without particularly strong evidence", which you have just acknowledged you don't have. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a red herring. WP:AGF does not mean assuming that, all evidence to the contrary, an article is assumed to be a good basis for an encyclopaedic article. If it did, AfDs would be redundent. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"All evidence to the contrary" is not what you said above when you wrote "No reason why it can't" ... and "all evidence to the contrary" ignores all the points made by several editors in this debate as to how the article can be expanded. You are not just assuming bad faith wrt to those participating in this AFD; you are also making a generalised forward-looking bad faith assumption that no editor will come forward to expand the article. The evidence required for that assumption to have any validity is to give the article time to be expanded, and if after a few months there is no sign of expansion then your argument might have some merit ... but using your crystal ball to make negative assumptions before an article has been tagged for expansion is the sort of bad faith that would lead to the deletion of every stub. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The idea that a title which includes the word 'results' cannot include 'sufficient explanatory text' is bizarre" -- (i) we have an article entitled "British National Party election results" (ii) its introductory, and sole prose-text, sentence is "The British National Party's election results in UK parliamentary, Scottish parliamentary and Welsh Assembly elections are shown below." (iii) Thereafter is (what WP:NOT#STATS refers to as) "long and sprawling lists of statistics". It is therefore reasonable to identify "results" with "long and sprawling lists of statistics" and to conclude that this was the meaning that the article's creators intended, and to delete this article as nothing more than a violation of WP:NOT#STATS. If some new article, on a related topic, comes into existence that is not simply a "long and sprawling lists of statistics", then that is not a problem. But its potential existence is no reason to keep this article that has zero encyclopaedic content. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we wanted to make this article encyclopedic we would have to essentially rewrite it from scratch. Hence there is no point keeping this version. Hut 8.5 07:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that's nonsense. An article which discussed in detail the BNP's electoral performance should include the data. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is your claim that is "nonsense". No reasonable discussion of 'BNP's electoral performance' (which I would note is broader than the topic of this article) would require electorate-by-electorate data, let alone the names of all their candidates. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to write such an article, one which omits the data, then why not go ahead and do so? This article is developing as one which does include the data, and I don't understand why you are so keen to find a reason to prevent it from being used as a basis for expansion. There are thousands of such articles on wikipedia with tables of sporting results and I see no move to purge them. Do you think that all those sporting articles (such as Sailing at the 1968 Summer Olympics) should be deleted because they consist mostly of data? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Obviously in order to win a medal at the olympics, sailors compete in a series of races. If the articles included the results from each race would be overkill. Producing a summary table OTOH is entirely reasonable. PhilKnight (talk) 16:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So tell me BrownHairedGirl, what use would your article make of the fact that in the 1983 general election, K Hill, the BNP candidate for 'Glasgow, Shettleston' gained 103 votes (0.3%). Now explain what your article would make of each and every one of hundreds more such details. What "sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader" would you provide so that this is not simply "long and sprawling lists of statistics"? I await your answer with bated breath. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hrafn, that's a silly question. An article on any subject is highly unlikely to make use of every point of data in a table, but for each election an article on this subject would discuss such points as the BNP's choice of which constituencies to contest, whether there is any regional or other trend in performance, and note any prominent campaigns. Providing the full data table alongside the analysis provides extra detail to the reader which may point to other areas for examination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No BrownHairedGirl, it is your defence that is "silly". Any original discussion on the basis of this data would be WP:SYNTH. Any secondary-source discussion, would not rely on data presented verbatim in this article, but would rely (most probably either by summary or citation) on data in the original sources. K Hill, and their vast army of fellow candidates are completely unnecessary here. Their presence is in direct violation of both WP:NOT#STATS and of WP:PSTS: "Primary sources ... may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care", and the article is clearly nothing more than a vehicle for such abuse. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Straw man, and I am disappointed in the gross bad faith which you display here, alleging that the articles is "nothing more than a vehicle for such abuse". I was not suggesting "original discussion", but analysis based on the numerous secondary sources available, some of which I linked to above. In that case, the tables are not "completely unnecessary"; on the contrary they illustrate whatever issues arise in the analysis. Selectively quoting WP:PSTS is mischievous, because at no point have I or anyone else suggested using the primary data as the basis for analysis, and WP:PSTS supports this use of primary sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No straw man -- I explicitly discussed secondary-sourced commentary as an option. That option would not require minutiae on K Hill and their hundreds of compatriots to "illustrate" them (an 'illustration' that would lose the reader in a 'can't see the wood for the trees' of irrelevant detail). This article is nothing but primary information, carelessly regurgitated at great length, so that policy is completely apt. Your arguments appear to be disconnected from the current article, from any article that could be created from it other than by a rewrite from scratch, and from policy. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you regard tables of vote shares as "irrelevant detail" in an article about a political party's electoral results (or electoral performance), then nothing is going to persuade you that any article on this subject can ever be appropriate. I really don't know what you are trying to achieve here, but since you contradict yourself from one comment to the next, there's little point in discussing this with you. I prefer the straightforwardness of the nominator, who at least made his prejudices clear at the outset rather than trying endlessly convoluted ways of justifying deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as overkill. Dahn (talk) 06:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- One person's overkill is another's comprehensiveness! Emeraude (talk) 12:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. This is just a bunch of statistics. Madman (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Please read Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. It says "articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader"; that means that this article should be expanded rather than deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree with your analysis. This article is solely a collection of stats and so should NOT be in Wikipedia. If someone wanted to write an article about the BNP and then include some stats, I would support that, but your proposal is backwards. There is a outlook amongst some editors that "If only this article had X then it would be appropriate for Wikipedia. So, let's delete the darn thing until we get the article with X. Madman (talk) 21:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you want to delete articles because they are incomplete and don't start in the way you like, you can similarly delete half of the articles in wikipedia. What's wrong with improving and expanding an article? It's worked for plenty of others. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - "Incomplete"? There is no encyclopaedic content whatsoever. There has likewise been no attempt whatsoever to add any "explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader" (that might provide encyclopaedic content), let alone to add explanatory text that would be "sufficient" to justify the shear level of detail of statistics. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The topic is clearly notable. The article itself should be expanded to include the necessary explanatory text (and the statistics listed should probaly be pruned). But the fact that the article in its current form needs a lot of work is not a valid reason for deletion. Rlendog (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it's a WP:Split, then perhaps Electoral Performance could be merged with it? If the two belong together, it makes sense. The split article being Electoral Performance, incorporating the statistics. It's a suggestion for discussion, not an advocacy.Ddawkins73 (talk) 06:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One factor which some contributors to this debate appear to be unaware of, and which I should have mentioned before, is that many wikipedia articles on parliamentary constituencies (known in other countries as "electoral districts" or other similar terms) include the full electoral results for each election held in that constituency. Some constituencies do not have this data, but those articles which lack it often have a stub section marked for inclusion of the results at a latter date, and in many cases the data is comprehensive, stretching back decades or even centuries, and sophisticated templates have been developed to assist in the elegant presentation of this material. Here are some examples from around the world, including some examples where the results have been split out it into separate articles:

United Kingdom

Southport
Dulwich
Edinburgh North
City of London (UK Parliament constituency) -- complete results for nearly 250 years (1713 to 1850)

Canada

Australia

United States

California's 8th congressional district

Ireland

New Zealand

Note too that very detailed election results are often included in articles on the electoral process: see for example United States Senate election in Oregon, 2008 and United States Senate election in New York, 2006.

So there appears to be a long-established consensus that the figures which comprise election results do have value in wikipedia articles on politics and the electoral process. This accords with the practice both in scholarly works and in newspapers, where this data is routinely published in full. I have on my bookshelf about half-a-dozen books which consist solely of election results from the UK and Ireland, and many others in which tables of such data are laid out in detail for the reader.

There is a few simple reasons for this widespread use and publication of the raw data. Firstly, raw election results are hard data: unlike statistics (which may be compiled in any different ways on many different bases), the number of votes received by a candidate is a single figure which (except in disputed elections) is accepted by all as a measure of electoral performance. Secondly, this data is the fundamental information on elections: after all the campaigning and recounts, what matters in the end is a very short list of figures for each constituency or electoral district.

Those in this debate who describe this data as "trivia" appear to be both unaware of the significance of election results and of the many ways in which they are analysed by psephologists, professional or otherwise. I presume that the advocates of deletion do not want to remove all the huge mass of election results on wikipedia, which would seriously undermine the usefulness of the relevant articles ... and if so the only issue in dispute here is whether similar use may be made of the data wrt one political party.

In have provided above a lengthy set of references to the extent to which the BNP's electoral record is the subject both of scholarly examination and of journalistic coverage. I have yet to see any persuasive reason why Wikipedia's coverage of the BNP's electoral history should not include the data tables which would be included in any scholarly work on the subject: the arguments against appear to be the misplaced charge of "trivia", or a peculiarly strict interpretation of WP:NOT#STATS which ignores the widespread use of electoral results tables both in scholarly works and in journalism. I find it hard to exclude the possibility that other advocates of deletion are motivated by the the nominator's view of the BNP as "reviled bunch of extremists". I dislike them too, but dislike of a subject is not supposed to be a barrier to its coverage on wikipedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hard to exclude the possibility that one line of your argument should be excluded.Ddawkins73 (talk) 14:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD:G4. Stifle (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are going to cite a policy, it's best to read it first. WP:CSD#G4 says "This does not apply to content that has been undeleted via deletion review", as is the case with this article (see Wikipedia:Deletion_review/British_National_Party_election_results). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would strongly recommend that editors take a look at BrownHairedGirl's examples above, and ask themselves if these articles are in compliance with WP:V, WP:NOR (and particularly WP:PSTS) and WP:NOT, and if they serve as a good example for what political articles should look like. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 00:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Londa Schiebinger[edit]

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable subject; no third-party sources on Google outside of book publishing/purchase sites. Conflict of interest with article creator, as article comes off as blatant advertising for the author and her works, and all references therein are directly related to the subject. sixtynine ^{• spill it •} 21:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. This is a complete mess. The author has a conflict of interest, the article asserts no notability and there is only one source. I'm tempted to put an A7 speedy tag on it. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 22:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add references. If citations can be provided for even half of the accomplisments claimed, this subject easily passes WP:ACADEMIC.WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 23:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All that is necessary, per WP:PROF, is to show that she is indeed the holder of the named chair, John L. Hinds Professor of History of Science at Stanford University. And that is sourced already. The books can be sourced through WorldCar. Perhaps the book summaries should be written a little more concisely and in a more neutral manner, but that's for editing. COI is not a reason to delete. Need for editing is not a reason to delete. Lack of sources was not even correct and in any case the criterion is sourceable, not whether it's presently sourced. Explaining the view taken in a book is not advertising. DGG (talk) 00:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Speedy, easily satisfies PROF criteria. Named chair, one look at gscholar shows top citations to her work starting at 373 ... continuing in the 100s, enough for any field.John Z (talk) 00:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 04:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Named chair, explicitly mentioned in WP:PROF. A rapid check like DGG did would have saved us all the time and effort of this unnecessary AfD. COI, of course, is a reason to edit, not delete. --Crusio (talk) 09:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: meets WP:PROF criteria, but may fall under its lack-of-sources caveat if no sources can be found. Needs a complete rewrite, regardless. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. I think he subject meets all of Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. The available sources (e.g. Book review in Science Magazine, discussion of work in The Guardian and many more) make it apparent that the individual meets the general notability guideline as well as the specific guideline for people. However, as it stands the article is a POV mess, if it is not cleaned up and sourced then it should at least be pared down to a basic stub. Guest9999 (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If nominators would follow the instructions before nominating for deletion we wouldn't have to waste our time on reviewing such nominations of obviously notable subjects, as shown by Guest9999's Google News archive search. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Citation impact indicates notability. As pointed out by DGG and Crusio, also meets WP:PROF criterion #5 (named chair or distinguished professor appointment).--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can attest that she is a well-known scholar within her field, and others have noted that she clearly passes the technical definition of notability.--ragesoss (talk) 00:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Many of the ghits I looked through weren't in fact for *this* Center for Research on Globalization (Canada-based), but for similarly named organizations from Iran to the UK. As noted by Dodd, many of these hits are simply republished papers by the Centre itself; while quoting and significant attention paid to these papers by reliable publications could be considered a benchmark of notability, these sites (for example, scoop.co.nz) are essentially blog-like in function. As current, fails GNG, no significant other ways to meet notability established. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for Research on Globalization[edit]

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable conspiracy website. No awards, no reliable sources. Survived a previous afd for god knows why. Fails WP:WEB. Peephole (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. —Peephole (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Peephole (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Peephole (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:ORG requires the organization to have been "the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources" that are "reliable, and independent of the subject." None were adduced in the previous nomination, the article mentions none, and a quick google search fails to identify any coverage meeting the criteria mentioned above. I don't rule out the possibility of incidental coverage in reliable sources, or significant coverage in unreliable sources, but on the basis of what I see right now, this organization is non-notable under existing guidelines. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 134 gbooks hits, 88 gnews hits, and 156 gscholar hits. Since they have many publications, coverage is swamped by references to publications. Some of the hits, particularly in the gbooks, seem to provide enough coverage to support keeping.John Z (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many - my impression is most - of the google book results and gnews hits seem unhelpful. It isn't enough that this outfit be mentioned in a source (reliable vel non) - for example, in a byline or disclaimer for an article written by their staff (e.g. [4]) or an endnote citation to a research paper published by their website (e.g. [5]). For purposes of WP:ORG, the coverage must be significant and the organization must be the subject of such coverage. I don't see the searches you cite as containing evidence that the threshold has been crossed. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"most" may be irrelevant to notability, but we just need 2 or so that are relevant, per the GNG. DGG (talk) 00:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then it would be nice if someone provided them.--Peephole (talk) 01:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had thought that GNG was a safety net, not an escape hatch. That is, it exists to ensure that every article has an applicable notability guideline, not to override more specific and restrictive notability guidelines that might apply - in this instance, WP:ORG, which is more restrictive than GNG. (The latter requires only that a topic "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," but the former is more restrictive, requiring not only that an organization "has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources" that are "reliable, and independent of the subject," but that "[t]he depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered." Incidental coverage in one source does not suffice: when coverage in a given source is trivial, "multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." And "attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability, whereas attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability.") I realize that Wikipedia is not a legal environment, but the maxim of statutory construction that the specific governs the general (see, e.g., Morales v. TWA, 504 U.S. 374 (1992); Gibson v. Ortiz, 387 F.3d 812 (9th Cir. 2004)) seems no less instructive - indeed, persuasive - in this context, too.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there is much to be said for this point of view, and I might well agree. But the relationship between the general and specific guidelines has never been really settled here, except to consider them as complementary and use them as needed to get a reasonable result. DGG (talk) 02:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, reasonable people reasonably disagree on what a reasonable result is. ;) To the extent the rules reflect actual usage, I humbly propose that the approach I've outlined above is the more sensible one, and while that won't settle the question, following it here will establish precedent for the future as a step towards consensus. It just seems contrary to reason (to my way of thinking, at least) to allow the general to control - to make surplussage of - the particular.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting discussion. I strongly disagree. Not using the "escape-hatch", using particular guidelines to exclude rather than include, easily leads to rather more ridiculous results than using it, and I think saying things are generally notable if they fit under any guideline is substantially the more popular view. I think the extra force or restrictiveness of WP:ORG here is greatly exaggerated - the additional "requirement" is just expanding on the word "significant" or substantial in the general guideline, and treated there too.

And for this particular deletion debate, I was not saying that the total amount of coverage shows notability, but that from looking at the search previews there are particular sources that have enough coverage to show notability under either the GNG or WP:ORG. As usual, something or someone that produces possible reliable sources, like a journalist or publisher, is a particularly hard case to explore because the sources it produces and citations to them swamp the sources with significant coverage on them in searches. Will pick out some from those searches later when I have the time.John Z (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give an example of the sort of "ridiculous results" you think would follow from the safety net theory of the GNG-SNG interaction? I can think of at least one glaringly obvious absurd result that follows from the escape hatch theory, namely that it makes surplussage of the more specific guidelines. It borders on the tautological to say this in as many words, but since it apparently isn't obvious, I must: The mere existence of notability guidelines other than GNG overwhelmingly makes the case that GNG does not override the more specific guidelines, because if it did, there would be no need for any notability guideline other than the GNG. Lastly, as with my reply to Ikip below, I have yet to see concrete, specific examples of reliable secondary sources supporting notability. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Simon Dodd. But for the love of God, man, don't cite cases in AfD Discussions! You'll freak the mundanes. --MCB (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on User:Peephole/911TMCruft#Conspiracy_AfD.27s. Ikip (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Strong keep per DGG and John Z, I looked through many of these references, and they are sound. It is a shame that Simon Dodd doesn't use in this case, his commendable debate skills and intelligence in the pursuit of contributing to this article. Because this organization has controversial conspiracy theory views, I strongly sense that this is simply a POV WP:IDONTLIKE nomination, wrapped in a policy facade. Ikip (talk) 03:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? The three references in the article itself are all to the org's own web site. And of the results of the Google searches, the Google News hits are mostly either one-line references or references to the org's press releases or self-published papers, quoting "Centre for Research on Globalization grants permission to use..."; and some of them refer to a completely different organization with a similar name, in Iran'. The Google Books references are also mostly one-line listings in directories and the like. The references are not even remotely "sound". --MCB (talk) 08:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ikip, while I appreciate the compliments, I must ask the same thing of you that I was asking John above (and that Peephold and MCB have asked): if "many of these references ... are sound," could you give us two or three specific examples of the references you think are sound? Thusfar, none of the people asserting notability have identified even one specific reliable secondary source establishing notability. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Simon Dodd. SELF-REFERENCES are not what we mean when we ask for non-trivial coverage. JBsupreme (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Simon Dodd and JBsupreme --rogerd (talk) 18:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 00:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oyster Injustice[edit]

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Almost certainly a hoax. A Google search turns up nothing for this other than mirrors of this page and a couple of blogs that use this page as their point of reference. The references look unrelated. The Grand Funk Railroad song doesn't show up on a Google search, either. Surely something that was purportedly so important to prisoner treatment in the Civil War would be mentioned SOMEWHERE online other than Wikipedia. I'm bringing this here in the hope that a wider audience can figure out if this is a hoax as I believe, or it really is some forgotten corner of American history. (Unlike the Chesapeake pirate, who really was a hoax. What is it with the Chesapeake Bay and hoax articles?) Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax. No references in Gnews, Gbooks, Gscholar--it doesn't exit. Drmies (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious hoax. Have to give them points for that though. §FreeRangeFrog 21:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as nominator. To the administrator who removes this article, if it is deleted: please make certain that "this article was deleted as a hoax" is included in the reason for deletion, so that people who come to look at this article from the pages of the couple of foolish bloggers who were taken in by this hoax will know that it's not for real. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G3. I'm almost certain hoaxes count as vandalism. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 22:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete - This article is not a hoax. It is maybe inaccurate and incomplete. There are plenty of references to these wars across the web, not just blogs, and a book has been written about them. It seems clear that there were oyster wars fought between Maryland and Virginia watermen during the 19th century. I have appended some "additional references" to the article for consideration. I propose keeping the article, but tagging as needing expert help - unless someone here can flesh it out properly in the meantime. --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of this article gave this citation: Report of the U.S. Fish Commission for 1873-74 and 1874-75 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1876), p. 289. This report is available online here. Page 289 occurs in this part. You can see for yourself that it does not support what was said in the article. In the light of the comments below, I have changed my vote to "delete". --Geronimo20 (talk) 23:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the above comment is that the additional references all refer to "oyster wars" from the 1870s, while the so-called "Oyster Injustice" doesn't appear anywhere in the refs provided. The whole thing smells fishy (pardon the pun); I suggest this be deleted' as a potential hoax that cannot be verified (unless someone turns up some bloody perfect references before the end of this discussion), and if someone feels like creating a page regarding the Oyster wars, they do so using the references provided. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverifiable at best. Edward321 (talk) 00:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as hoax; and why, pray tell, must this continue to discredit WP for 4 more days? Who added those tags? Can someone WP:IAR and close this early to remove this hoax? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per digging around for oysters online and not finding them. I'm convinced this is not just a hoax, but one that effort was put into off of Wikipedia. Incidentally, it's interesting how adding an article to Wikipedia creates so many "sources" in just a few days by sites copying it. FlyingToaster 22:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Independent Alliance[edit]

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Non notable failed candidate and party with no notable campaigning information on line. No notable history of campaigning or electoral history on line. As per Electoral Commission the party has long since been de-registered ^[1]. doktorb _words^deeds 20:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for complete lack of notability. Kudos to the nominator for doing the work. Drmies (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; as it is non-notable, and the article is a very short stub with almost no content. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 22:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Consider creating an article on the candidate himself if he has done other things of some note.--EchetusXe (talk) 23:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:N standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, actual party that contested elections, wikipedia isn't paper. Also noting that the person who created this AfD did not notify the creator of the article. --Soman (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply There is nothing on the current AfD page to advise me to notify the creator (I cannot keep up with every change in policy, so if this is new policy, please accept my apologies. Wiki is not paper, but neither should Wiki be a depository for each and every one-time failed candidate or party. We do not accept each and every One Hit Wonder, for example. doktorb _words^deeds 22:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 21:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crush (UK game show)[edit]

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

This article contains some incredibly unencyclopedic language ("gross things such as slugs...") and the article generally meets no notability criteria - does not assert its significance, etc. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 20:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--very non-notable: no hits in Google News, and I can't even find them on the BBC website (though correct me if I'm wrong). Drmies (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. here it is (although in a crystal-balling fashion) from the BBC. It would be useful when you make comments such as "no hits in Google News" for you to tell us precisely what searches you have done - that way we can avoid reinventing the wheel. I bet a search for "crush" does get hits in Google News, so you must have refined your search in some way. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Right, sorry--I was in a bit of a hurry. I searched for "crush" and "television", and later threw in "BBC." That's a fairly obvious search, perhaps, but I'll try to be more complete. Drmies (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The unencyclopedic language is irrelevant to deletion. I contested the WP:PROD deletion of this article on the grounds that nearly all nationally broadcast TV shows are found to be notable, but I can't see any notability for this one. Googling the title with the presenters' names and "BBC" - [6][7] - comes up with no independent reliable sources. The same searches in the Google News archive get no hits. I would expect any notable British TV programme of this vintage to have reliable sources available online. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor gameshow, no reliable sources. Icewedge (talk) 05:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 21:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Post Haste: The Letter Carrier Game[edit]

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Non-notable, "union-printed" (whatever that means!) board game. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for editing help. Removed "union-printed" - Nowadays, it is a rare thing to see a game printed by a union print shop in the U.S.Mkwiki368 (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or speedy delete. No assertion of notability. Devised sometime last year; hopeless attempt to use wikipedia for a bit of free publicity. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The board game is notable because of highly-configurable initial board setup, greater than 8¹⁶ combinations. This is more than Settlers of Catan, and differ from Ravensburger's Labyrith and Carcassonne because, in those games, it is part of the ongoing game play to lay tiles, the tiles in those games are one-sided, and by rule, not all tiles may be placed next to others. The initial setup of Post Haste is what sets it apart from other board games. The variability in game play in comparable to other games in which chance and decisions affect game play. Mkwiki368 (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point by a long margin. Read WP:N and associated pages for a clue. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notable. Objectively assessed. Combinatorics of initial board set up greater than other board games used today. Legitmate as tallest buildings per state, longest word in English, etc. Board game with highest variability in initial setup. Notable WP:N.Mkwiki368 (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no. To prove notability, you need to provide us with reliable sources - multiple, non-trivial references that are specifically about the subject. While I see you have a couple of mentions in the article, one is an incidental. The game's creator is Matt Kaminski; the creator's username of Mkwiki368 would perhaps suggest there's also a conflict of interest here. Delete unless better sources are presented indicating notability can be established. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{EC} :When you can find a citation to that effect per WP:V we might be in a position to do business. Until then this spam will be deleted. Finally, try WP:COI and let us know if you have any. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If a reliable source can be found to verify the "more possibilities than any other game in use" claim then it would be notable. The single non-trivial reference isn't enough by itself to establish notability. --Megaboz (talk) 01:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assassinations of Jewish leaders relating to Israel and Zionism[edit]

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I've declined a ((prod)) on this one as I think it needs a wider consensus. Original prod reason was "No assertion of the collective notability of the list of persons in this article. Individually, most definitely notable. But as a whole? We have here political assassinations, death during an arrest, Nazi war profiteers. Its just a hodge-podge spanning 75 years.", and I pretty much agree with that; I think it's an indiscriminate collection of information in the making. However, I recognise that there is a potentially valid article to be written here, ignoring the issues with the list. – iridescent 20:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In support of the nominator, in regard to WP:IINFO standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As the original prodder, I stand by the "No assertion of the collective notability..." line. Tarc (talk) 01:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If no source treats these as linked, we shouldn't either, otherwise it seems like original synthesis.Yobmod (talk) 10:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a useful list. Lists do not require the "collective notability". It is enough they provide brief information about each person who is individually notable.Biophys (talk) 02:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point here is that there is nothing especially notable about being assassinated and being a "Jewish leader related to Israel and Zionism" (egads what a clunky title this was). If the people listed are notable, perhaps they could be added to List of assassinated people, and this page be redirected if necessary, which is probably what I should've done in the first place. Tarc (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems like the inclusion criteria are arbitrary. Stifle (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Rename, keep. The main issue is that pundit is too large and vague a scope; needs to be recast as "political pundits" or something similar. That said, cats and lists are synergistic as per guidelines and WP:LIST, and such as distinction (while I find of dubious encyclopedic use) is still verifiable. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of pundits[edit]

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The only redeeming feature of this article is that all the names are blue links. But it is utterly subjective and un-maintainable. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment many "List of ..." articles have a similar expansive scope, (see our template: {Dynamic list}: This list is incomplete which may never be able to satisfy certain standards for completeness; you can help by expanding it.) and I am not sure that claims of "un-maintainability" fall within our parameters of deletion criteria. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:LIST **DELETE** doktorb _words^deeds 20:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No compelling, policy-based reason to delete. What part of LIST did I overlook that it fails? Townlake (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it actually fails at all three points listed under Wikipedia:Lists#Purposes of lists. Punkmorten (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure about that. The list serves an informational purpose and is a useful navigational aid for people who want to know more about the subject of pundits. I'll admit I feel a little silly defending this, because I agree the list could theoretically stretch to the moon and back in length if it was ever completed... but if it's properly sourced - per DGG's good point - I think this is workable. Perhaps with more stringent criteria than it currently requires. Townlake (talk) 02:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep and source precisely, limiting it to people called such in multiple authoritative sources. But there is a problem, that might make the article impossible: a great many people have been called so at various times, so it may be usually difficult to find a good criterion. DGG (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely indiscriminate, unsourced, original research. It's clear that whoever wrote this has no idea about pundits. I would at least have expected to see Pundit Nehru on such a list! AlexTiefling (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I did create the article, I cannot take credit for writing the article. The content was removed wholesale from Pundit (expert) as potentially useful information that was not appropriate for the parent article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the figures listed in this article are talk show hosts, not pundits. This list is indiscrimiate and counfusing, and unfortunately I can forsee within a year this will become a cruftfarm where anyone who's ever appeared on cable news in a little box will be on this list. Nate • (chatter) 23:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It appears to be a non-encyclopedic, highly indiscriminate list. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination is the worst kind of punditry being subjective opinion made without effort, evidence or expertise. It utterly fails WP:BEFORE as a quick search shows that there are good sources for this and so I had no difficulty in sourcing 15 entries in as many minutes. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Waaaay too open; this kind of information is best organized via a category (such as Category:Political pundits). EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, since there seems to be some scope for debate about inclusion, a category would be inferior per WP:CLS: "There is no provision for referencing, to verify a topic meets a category's criteria of inclusion". See Category:American political pundits for example. Is Oliver North really a political pundit? Colonel Warden (talk) 07:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If editors can agree on who qualifies, this could be a category, or perhaps a container for categories by country. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WP:CLS explicitly says "... Therefore, the "category camp" should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists, and the "list camp" shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system—doing so wastes valuable resources. Instead, each should be used to update the other.". Colonel Warden (talk) 13:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I said if. The category (which, as you point out above, already exists) may also be a bad idea, but is probably worth keeping as an aid to navigation—that is another discussion. This article should be deleted either way. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The list guidelines are far more inclusionary than the category guidelines. If a category is appropriate, there is generally no good reason why a list would not also be appropriate, especially since a list can be annotated, and can be organized in ways that categories cannot be. This guildeine means what it says—categories are useful to keep lists maintained, and lists are useful to keep categories (when they are appropriate) maintained. Deleting one in favor of the other, except in cases of overcategorization, serves no useful purpose. DHowell (talk) 04:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand descriptions. I share DGG's concern that I could find many notable folks to add here. What would be helpful is applying wp:attribution and a description on each on their cultural significance and impact. -- Banjeboi 14:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: ill-defined and unmaintainable -- how many opinions make you a "pundit"? Inherently WP:OR. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - as per User:Hrafn. How on earth is Tim Henman for example a "pundit" - he has co-commentated on a couple of tennis tournaments. - fchd (talk) 17:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC) Now changed my mind. Merge and redirect - take a few of the more notable pundits to the Pundit (expert) article, and then use this title as a redirect. - fchd (talk) 06:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- reply since when has one piece of inappropriate information in an article been cause to delete the whole article? Tag the item as needing a source or remove it from the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - reply it was stated "for example". I'd be of much the same opinion in relation to just about all the British entries on the list. Pundit to me means a lot more than some ex-sportsman brought in to be the summariser on a commentary. - fchd (talk) 18:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
request for comment - would the expansion of the table created for Australian pundits satisfy people's concerns that the article "fails to meet WP:LIST? -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while trivia like date of birth, specialty, medium etc, might be regarded as convenient for navigation, this is an invalid argument per WP:USEFUL. Furthermore they are directory-type information easily found in the articles on the individuals concerned. Benefix (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pundit is not objectively definable, hence this is all un-verifiable and WP:OR and Subjective. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not objectively definable? Townlake (talk) 00:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, I don't understand what this fails? As far as undefinable and OR, there is a reference to Forbes so that should settle that.Smallman12q (talk) 00:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More reliable sources exist for this: see, for example, "Punditry: Performance art with a paycheck". Reliable sources can define who is and who is not a pundit—and unless you can find reliable sources disputing that someone is a "pundit", then ignoring the reliable sources that say they are is just as much original research and biased as including entries which aren't verifiable. Further, categories and lists work in synergy, and should be used to maintain each other. DHowell (talk) 04:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: a blog is usually not a reliable source. In any case, the definition of "pundit" it outlines is too heterogeneous ("professional thinkers", "repurposed white collar professionals" & "performance artists") and too vague (all of the above classifications would include members who would not be generally considered pundits), to form the basis of a well-defined list. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: "1.A source of opinion; a critic": a political pundit", "2.A learned person." Pundit (expert) and "3. Hinduism. Variant of pandit." All qualify as pundits. The list does not people who are given the title of pandit/pundit like Pandit Nehru, it includes people who referred to as pundits by definition 1 and/or 2. There are thousands of people are pundits in their fields. XYZ person may be considered a pundit by ABC, but NOT by PQR. My point since pundit is NOT a formal title, one man's pundit may not be another man's pundit. Let us take Rush Limbaugh's example (given in the list). Reference: "US pundit addicted to painkillers" (BBC). For the LA Times, he is just "a field marshal in the Republican revolution" and "radio host", is NOT refefered to as a pundit.[8] Same applies to others. Forbes uses the "pundit", does not mean the person is defined as "pundit", it means (s)he is praised as a pundit. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 21:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Saade[edit]

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Non notable subject Beirutbio (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with Jacques Saadé at Saadé family. The feud between the two brothers seems to have generated significant news coverage. Jfire (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or mergewith Jacques Saadé at Saadé family. The news coverage relates to CMA-CGM a company that was founded by Jacques Saadé and later became one the world biggest. I wonder if the fact that a person is involved in a legal dispute with a notable person automatically qualifies for notability... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.126.21.5 (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no point in merging articles. Someone (i might be doing it)should instead improve the article about Jacques Saade and mention the legal woes related to the CGM privatization. The feud with his brother Johnny is anecdotical and does not justify a paragraph on Johnny Saade businesses, while the real big story is the presumed link between former president Chirac and Jacques Saade and the scandal related to the privatisation of CGM for 1 symbolic french franc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yajabalmayhezzakrih (talk • contribs) 23:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus to keep (non-admin closure) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reverting that non-admin closure of this discussion.

These deletion discussions are, in all cases, debates. Reasoned, policy based arguments based upon clear, factual discourse will be given prefernce in determining "rough consensus" over opinions, or policy arguments based upon interpretations outside of the cultural norms.

The nominator of this article for deletion specifically points to Wikipedia:Notability and says that "no single reliable source" could be found. That guideline specifically exludes press releases, as the nominator states so vociferously. The sources provided all clearly fall into that category, even to the extreme of being labeled as such. No credible refutation of this argument was presented.

Delete.

brenneman 13:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This closure was subsequently overturned to no consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 February 8. Stifle (talk) 09:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Artivist Film Festival & Awards[edit]

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Non-notable film festival, not a single reliable source in the article. Scoured Google News for articles about it and found only press releases. Delete as per WP:NOTE. Peephole (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Peephole (talk) 19:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Have you seen this search? 22,000 hits and Google reveals a mention on the BBC website. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 20:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: A Google search, what about it? Google hits aren't a claim to notability (20.000 ghits isn't even a lot). Also, please provide the BBC link you are talking about. The only one I found was about a different festival. Finally, keep in mind that we're looking for "several reliable sources" that provide "significant coverage". --Peephole (talk) 20:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you're right about the BBC link, it's for a different festival but it does refer to an award coming from this one as 'prestigious'. I'll have a closer look for reliable sources, but I'd feel bad deleting this now. I have a hunch there's more behind this than you first thought. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you take a closer look at that source, it uses very fluffy language for every movie it lists [9]. Honestly, looks like they just copy-pasted official summaries of the films. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See [10], [11], and many others. Reuters is probably a fairly decent demonstration of notability. As someone else said, search google -- not to see the number of hits, but to see all the news outlets that post stories about the festival. It's quite notable. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:30, 3 Feb 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: Those are press releases, written by the festival's owners. Not independent sources. I did check Google and found the same sources as you, read more closely next time.--Peephole (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It doesn't matter who wrote them. A reliable news organization doesn't pick up a story unless it's notable enough. The source that needs to be reliable is not the author, but the publication. If the reliable publication saw fit to carry the story, it's notable enough for us. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:38, 3 Feb 2009 (UTC)
    - Comment: Those are articles written by the owners of the festival and then paid for to be distributed by a service called "Market Wire". Just because it somehow ended up on Reuters does not make this a reliable source.--Peephole (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Again, it doesn't matter who wrote them. Reuters doesn't blindly post every press release they're sent. If you wrote a press release on something non-notable, you couldn't get it to appear on Reuters, even if you paid Market Wire. Anyway, here are some from Variety: [12], [13]. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:56, 3 Feb 2009 (UTC)
        Comment: If you look at the link url it even says "press release", real Reuters article are filed under stuff like "politicsNews", "entertainmentNews" and "scienceNews". We might as well start using the ads on the Reuters website as reliable sources. I mean, I'm sure Reuters wouldn't pick up an advertisement if it isn't notable. Here are some other examples of Reuters publishing press releases: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20] This is a terrible, terrible source and should not be used on Wikipedia.--Peephole (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        "Real" Reuters articles? I think you'll be hard-pressed to find people who would say Reuters is a bad source, yes even their press releases. But okay, let's see what others say about that. Regardless, we've got the Variety sources as well now. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:15, 3 Feb 2009 (UTC)
        Did you check out the examples I provided? It's pretty clear it's just an advertising service. The Variety sources are better, but I don't think they're "significant" enough as Wikipedia:Notability suggest they should be. --Peephole (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Comment: By the way, Equazcion, Peephole is actually completely right about the press release. Drop Marketwire some money and they'll dump your press release on hundreds of media outlets, including newswires like Reuters [21]. There might be some degree of fact-checking involved, but it doesn't count as "independent coverage" if you're paying them to carry it...Someguy1221 (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The festival seems pretty notable in my opinion, regardless of whether or not the sources available make it technically and wiki-legally notable (which I think it is regardless, but let's leave that aside for now). Granted it's not the Oscars, but it tours internationally, is attended by a lot of big names, and even mere mention in Variety is significant for an event. Considering those things, I think the article more than qualifies as being worth a Wikipedia article. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:37, 3 Feb 2009 (UTC)
Keep and send to WP:CLEANUP for expansion, format, and additional sourcing. I am satisfied that Reuters, News Blaze, KPFK, Channel G, LA's The Place, and many others found with a cursory google search satisfy the notability and verifiability criteria for inclusion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Jesus Christ, does anyone actually read the discussions in afd's or do they just blindly post stuff? --Peephole (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nope, no one ever does. TL;DR. flaming lawyer 23:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I might ask that WP:CIVIL be maintained here. I did my own search and posted my opinion without letting myself be biased by WP:WAX arguments. Plus, I was courteous and polite. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you would have read the above discussion, you would have known that the Reuters source was really bad.--Peephole (talk) 01:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - He appears to disagree with you. It might be best to just leave it at that. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:36, 4 Feb 2009 (UTC)
Strong keep for once in my life I would love to see editors who delete add references themselves instead of criticizing everyone elses'. Also keep because of the incivility of editors here. A lot of major news organizations reference this festival, as mentioned above. Nominator made zero effort to clean up this article before nominating the article for deletion, in violation of the policy WP:PRESERVE: "Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of removing", WP:BEFORE, WP:Notability "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself." WP:INTROTODELETE and WP:POTENTIAL Remember that deletion is a last resort.Ikip (talk) 01:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I hate when the people on my side make arguments I don't agree with. I just have to speak up even though it hurts the keep side. The nominator did say he tried to find sources for this and didn't find any. Of course now that's changed, to not finding any that satisfy his criteria for a "good source". Furthermore I really think it's fine to nominate an article for deletion despite not being willing to try cleaning it up yourself, and there's no policy against that -- although again, the nominator does claim to have made that effort. All that having been said, I think this festival is quite notable and should be kept. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:08, 4 Feb 2009 (UTC)
  - To Equazcion; We each look at the same information with different eyes. WP:PRESERVE is an Official Policy of Wikipedia that is quite often sadly ignored. We can accept in good faith the nom's statement that he "scoured google for sources", but at the same time pursue our own search with perhaps different search parameters and are allowed to draw our own conclusions from our independent searches. To show examples of bad articles in Reuters is an argument that can be made of any Reliable Source, hence the GNG. Every WP:RS has portions that are unusable... without exception. If I have a good faith assumption that sources exist, that is enough for me to opine a keep. That I offered independent in-depth reviews that do not meet another's interpretation is fine as well. They need not agree with my opinion. There was just no cause for rudeness or WP:BITEy behavior. But Ikip is correct that nominating an article for deletion that might improve Wiki if it could otherwise have simply been tagged and sent to WP:CLEANUP does contravene the instructions and suggestions at WP:ATD. But that guideline is another that is often overlooked. Your opinion "The festival seems pretty notable in my opinion" toward an international film festival that gets coverage is good enough. Further, it is quite reasonable to expect that coverge will continue and get stronger. Its a keeper. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:Preserve has nothing to do with deletion nominations. It's just about editing articles. ATD provides alternatives to deletion but doesn't tell us that, at all costs, we should avoid nominating things for deletion. The nominator in this case felt that there was enough of a possibility that the article could not be salvaged as to warrant discussing its removal. That's what a nomination is, after all, just a discussion, a way of saying "I think this article might not belong here, what does everyone else think?"
      If you want to think of deletion nomination as something no one should ever do unless they themselves have exhausted every other possibility for an article, that's a valid opinion shared by a few editors, but it is not yet a clear result of the current policies (though it is one possible interpretation). I think those who feel that way should band together and finally try to make it a policy once and for all. Really, write a page actually entitled "article deletion is your last resort", and see what the response is (and if you do that please leave me a mesage cause I'd be interested in how it turns out). Barring that, there's no grounds for saying yours is the only way to interpret current policy. Anyone can nominate anything whether or not they have put in a cleanup effort. I've never heard of a deletion discussion closing early cause someone didn't try cleaning up an article first. It's just not a rule yet. Maybe it should be. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:03, 4 Feb 2009 (UTC)
Keep...per ikip above...also agree w/Editor:Schmidt to keep it civil. Jesus Christ has nothing to do with it. That behavior just creates unnecessary animus.--Buster7 (talk) 06:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment...considering the list of narrators presented in the article, how can it be other than Notable--Buster7 (talk) 00:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this one looks to be actually notable, wow. JBsupreme (talk) 20:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sepideh Jodeyri[edit]

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO, although as sources are unlikely to be English I stand to be corrected. Stifle (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has verifiable references to sources giving issue and page numbers. There is no requirement for sources to be available online, so unless someone has checked these and found them not to support the article content the presumption should be in favour of keeping. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Maybe direct the creator to WP:FEED? Without titles for the books, it is difficult to search for sources (in English), but assuming the sources given are true, then she has at least one book of poetry with significant coverage. To avoid systemic bias, articles on non-western topics clearly written by new foreign contributors should be given help before AfD, imo.Yobmod (talk) 10:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is some likely sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry here, and the votes alone would be a no consensus leaning keep. However, in this case, the arguments are not sufficient, and the delete reasons have been given more weight. Therefore I have no issues closing this as delete. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scrotwm[edit]

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

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)).

Nascent software project. Article was up for PROD, which was contested. Subject matter does not meet WP:NOTABILITY; project has just begun development, is not widely used, creator is not independent of subject and there are no supporting tertiary sources for it. §FreeRangeFrog 19:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nominator per reasons given above. Template:Window managers was also modified in conjunction with the creation of this page and will have to be modified as well if the AfD holds. §FreeRangeFrog 19:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nascent software it may be, but judging by the name, the contents of this article could well be bollocks. pablo_hablo. 20:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do not judge the the article or the software only by its name - the software exists, it runs and it's definitely not vaporware. The code is available to anybody who bothers to download it.--89.212.42.176 (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC) — 89.212.42.176 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
More serious comment There seem to be copyvio issues:[22], first para will need rewriting. pablo_hablo. 22:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Don't see how that is a violation because I wrote it and obviously am surrendering the rights but sure I'll rewrite the first paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco peereboom (talk • contribs) 03:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC) — Marco peereboom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I'm a happy user of scrotwm, I sent a few patches too. You have all the evidence that this piece of software exists. Please remove that header from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.199.104.3 (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC) — 91.199.104.3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep i'm writing some documentation for it. it's also already been accepted into the openbsd ports system. if that doesn't legitmize it as real, then articles on firefox and openoffice should go away too Azmarco (talk) 04:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC) — Azmarco (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete as non-notable software. Keep voters seem inexperienced with notability guidelines: verifiability is not enough. Nothing against recreation if it becomes notable, so maybe userfy if desired.Yobmod (talk) 10:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yet another time-wasting, spurious deletion request. The software exists, is in use by a number of people, and has been covered on online news sites like OSNews. Stop wasting everyone's time proposing everything for deletion and improve wikipedia by contributing content. --David Chisnall (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This software exist and is usable, anyone with a compiler could verify it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benoitc (talk • contribs) 20:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC) — Benoitc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - no significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 00:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snowbagging[edit]

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing seems to be a problem at this time, and I'm not sure this activity (sport?) has caught on sufficiently to justify an article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--it doesn't appear to be very notable, and it certainly hasn't taken on in Alabama (why not???). Drmies (talk) 21:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--it doesn't appear to be very notable, no, and some of the information is wrong. Snowbagging in Stockholm is not an usual or popular sport (can't find anything on it). I hate deleting things but I suspect that this is only Kenny’s friends~special amusement. I am sure it's great fun, even if it is not really encyclopaedical knowledge.... Warrington (talk) 22:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but nice try lads. Utter nonsense. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as wikipedia is not for games invented by one's friends. Need non-trivial independant sources to become encylopedic, which don't exist, as it is to new and unpopular.Yobmod (talk) 10:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - while it can be verified, there is no evidence from reliable sources that it is notable. The burden is on the creators to find and fix it. Bearian (talk) 16:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Gsearch isn't coming up with this usage other than a couple of youtube videos; gnews isn't coming up with this usage at all.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Dice Man. Redirect as originally recommended (non-admin closure) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dice Living[edit]

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I first redirected this to the book from which the term is drawn. That redirect was reverted, so I am bringing it here with a recommendation to redirect to The Dice Man. I believe the article as it stands today is Original Research and that the term is not notable per se, thus the article will not survive as an article about "Dice Living", and that the best service we can do is redirect it to the book. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. There's a possibility that this could develop into a worthwhile article if coverage of the subject not directly related to The Dice Man could be found, but at present I'm not convinced there's enough to justify a separate article. It should be noted that Rhinehart/Cockcroft wrote two other books on the same subject, a second novel and The Book of the Die: A Handbook of Dice Living, so a redirect to Luke Rhinehart is another option. --Michig (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect Per nom & Michig. I don't believe it is a notable term in its own right. Sources don't suggest otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddawkins73 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
redirect per nom. Don't think AfD was necessary, redirects should be detirmined on talk pages unless contorvertial.Yobmod (talk) 10:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is no consensus on a rename or merge below but those possibilities can be further discussed on the talk page. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Level bomber[edit]

Delete: Level bomber got a ((unreferenced)) tag in September 2007, without receiving any sources since. Any aircraft with a bomb is a bomber but the word bomber aircraft is reserved for specialized aircraft. Many bombers drop their bombs in level flight so the word 'level' is superfluous as 'space astronauts' or 'Federal President Barack Obama'. This article's minuscule content could easily be inserted in the Bomber article. However there are some errors. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'd actually tag this for SD as nonsense. I don't even see anything there that might be salvageable for the bomber article. §FreeRangeFrog 19:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be misuse of the G1 criteria: incoherent nonsense is "haha lol fdgiua" not "A level bomber is a bomber aircraft capable of attacking a ground object with bombs."--Patton^t/c 20:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Carpet bombing, because "'Level bombing" means the same thing as "carpet bombing". The article as it is is completely wrong though.--Patton^t/c 20:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Level bombing is not necessarily the same as Carpet bombing - level bombing has often been used against individual precision targets with varying levels of sucess - If this article were to be merged or redirected, perhaps a better target would be Bomber (which also needs a lot of fixing).Nigel Ish (talk) 00:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect--this may not be "uhgsildrbn;sddibn," but I see nothing worth merging here. The term exists, as evidenced by Google Books, but that's about it. Drmies (talk) 21:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after complete rewrite (sorry Drmies!). Wikipedia should have an article on this; it should be the counterpart article to dive bomber. It should have a substantial subsection focusing on World War II and while it should certainly reference carpet bombing, Lancaster bomber, B-17 Flying Fortress, the Dresden firestorm etc., it would also need to mention non-carpet bombing missions such as the Dam Buster Raid, Operation Crossbow, the sinking of the Tirpitz, etc. -- I happen to have good sources on my bookshelves, so I can and will rewrite it.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I am shocked! How could you? Well, alright then--I'll gladly wait and see what you produce, in accordance with WP:IHAVEFAITHINMYFELLOWEDITORS and WP:SHOWME. Drmies (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hahaha!:-) --S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--I'm putting my work in progress on that on the article's talk page.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Bomber#World War II distinguish between dive bomber, light bomber, medium bomber, heavy bomber and torpedo bomber. Perhaps you should use your knowledge to expand these subarticles. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those need expansion as well, but level bomber should still be an article. By analogy, Wikipedia has (and should have) articles on invertebrate, arachnid, spider and tarantula. The hierarchy here should go bomber, level bomber, heavy bomber and B-17 Flying Fortress.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The term level bomber is a common one and so the article should be retained as a useful search term. Improvement and rearrangement of the various articles about bombers is not a matter of deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep: Because looking back at the discussion, it's obvious this term means different things to different people, no one has provided a source saying that "level bombing" is the same as "carpet bombing", besides this article is about "level bombers". And last of all I completely agree that the term is superfluous. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[23] [24] [25] [26] level bombing is the same as carpet bombing.--Patton^t/c 17:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your very first reference, at the bottom of the first page you link, mentions level bombers being used against ships at sea. Which isn't carpet-bombing.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of those sources say "Level Bombing" is the same as "Carpet Bombing". Although I will concede that "level bomber" is a now a term, if someone improves the article a bit I'll be more than happy to change my !vote to a keep. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've done some further work on the draft article.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I moved the draft onto the main page at this point, which substantially changed the content of the article. --S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job, love the references, although I think you should announce in bold: Article has been rewritten/expanded! Please take a re-read. Plus you could also send Necessary Evil a nice message informing him too. Ryan4314 (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but move to Level bombing (which isn't the same as carpet bombing) I've dug through my references, and haven't been able to find a class of aircraft called 'level bombers'. 'Level bombing' appears to be a WW2-era term and the tactic was used by heavy, medium and light bombers. Nick-D (talk) 01:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Ryan4314 (talk) 02:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to whichever seems best target (Bomber/ Level bombing). Even if a real term, a redirect would point interested readers to a more useful and comprehensive article, which is preferable. Merge if the newly added material is useful.Yobmod (talk) 10:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is notable and deserves an article. Perhaps we need to add a few articles to the see also section, but otherwise it's fine. Malinaccier (talk) 01:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Level bomber is totally different than carpet bombing. There is more than one way to carpet bomb, level bombing just one of those methods. I've heard the term carpet bomb refer to the Russians in Afghanistan, doing wide spread attacks, having a bomb that split into many smaller ones, and wiping out entire areas to get their target. Two different terms, both relevant enough to have their own articles. Dream Focus (talk) 01:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close (as Delete). A more appropriate occasion for one will rarely arise. DGG (talk) 21:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Shrewsbury Snowfight of Feburary 3rd[edit]

~~Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)~~

Snowball fights are not notable, especially one where the only reference is from facebook. -- Darth Mike (join the dark side) 18:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete I can't see anything, ever, making this notable. Probably made by schoolkids looking to have a bit more fun after a snowball fight. Delete per failing WP:NOTABILITY. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 18:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. The only frustration is that I cannot think of an appropriate speedy criterion for it. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. let me explain guys..This WAS important to the town, and appeared in the evening newspaper, which does have a website, and when it is on the site, shall be referenced here.
~~Keep~~; in addition, there will be lots of people who want to see this. If you have to delete it (essentially be miserable), then at least consider it until morning x —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rollingstone69 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please don't !vote more than once. AfDs are kept open for 5 days or so anyway if there is any contention, so a fair trial will be given. However, just because this was in your local newspaper, doesn't make it immediately notable. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 19:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete RHaworth, neither can I...didn't keep me from trying, though. :-) (Perhaps I'm in a mean mood today?) --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 19:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't see the problem with the page i suppose. It happened, people are interested, it made local news..of course more references will be added when they become available :) So no problems whatsoever, it would seem! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rollingstone69 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Um, the "evening newspaper" in which this appeared wasn't even cited in the article. As far as notability, I would expect an additional cite other than the local newspaper alone otherwise one could write a wikipedia entry on the weather in Shrewsbury that day, which, I presume, was also reported in the same issue. (kind of a fun article though) --Quartermaster (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cheer up :) I didn't realise everything on wikipedia had to be of global historical importance. What is wikipedia for, if not for people to access information? This is information! It fulfills all the criteria for a relevant article, and none for a useless one! Don't automatically assume it is void because it doesn't involve yourselves or isn't a massive event. :) be happy, its snowy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rollingstone69 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean except for WP:N, WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:V? —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 20:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~; It was notable, especially locally. The research is original, with contributors to the page taking first hand accounts from people involved, as well as those that weren't, and merely expressed an interest in a local matter. The source and verifiability of the article seems fine to me, but then I am of course biased. it would be a shame for this article to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rollingstone69 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have stricken your two previous keeps since you voting numerous times. Please, you have expressed your opinion above, feel free to keep on commenting, but you can only vote once. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - per the list of reasons cited by Cyclonenim. This might make it into a town wiki, if the town has one. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipeida is not for something invented in school doktorb _words^deeds 20:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Or we might as well scrap the notability guidelines and write biographies of our stuffed animals. Ray (talk) 21:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Notability has been clearly established, and all delete !votes come from newly registered SPA users with an edit style that is strongly indicative of sockpuppetry. (non-admin closure) Mayalld (talk) 11:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ignatz Lichtenstein[edit]

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

AfDs for this article:

Verification could not be obtained from independent sources. There are lots of messianic partisan sources adduced in the article - but nothing independent and impartial, non-notable and not independently verifiabile. Could just as well be a messianic legend. --Joseph3333 (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC) — Joseph3333 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Closing administrator please note: This editor has 13 edits total. Ikip (talk) 14:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete, I myself used to be a Messianic Jew, and I can tell you all of the alleged Orthodox rabbis who became Christian or Messianic, were never rabbis to start for example many Messianics still think Michael Esses, was an Orthodox rabbi, he made a book claiming such, later research showed the alleged yeshiva he attended never existed to start, yet Messianics still claim him as such, the fact is this guy never was an Orthodox rabbi--Jacob Cohen 1977 (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC) — Jacob Cohen 1977 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

and what does the notability of Esses have to do with the notability of Lichtenstein? If your claim is that no messianic leader can be notable, I think that might be regarded is not showing a NPOV. DGG (talk) 00:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here is some verification: [27]. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment: source you provide is unreliable, it is published by Missionary Publication co, an unreliable source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpha166 (talk • contribs)

Keep based on Pastor Theo's info and the numerous sources shown in the article and previous deletion review. Nomination incorrectly categorizes these sources. Edward321 (talk) 05:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jacob Cohen --Alpha166 (talk) 12:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Jacob Cohen and Joseph--JewishTeen111 (talk) 13:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC) — JewishTeen111 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strong keep This appears like a WP:IDONTLIKE argument dressed in a policy facade.

429 google book references, including:

How Jewish is Christianity? By Stanley N. Gundry, Louis Goldberg, William Varner, John Fischer p. 51: ...Isaac Lichenstein...were leaders in an earlier "Messianic congregational" movement.

Testimonies of Jews Who Believe in Jesus By Ruth Rosen p. 300, biography listed.

Also from past AfDs:

An early biography appears in Smith, Eugene R. (1894). The Gospel in All Lands. New York: Hunt & Nation. pp. 507–508.. The text is freely available on google books. It's unclear why he is sometimes referred to as Issac instead of Ignatz, and othertimes both. An Ignatz Lichtenstein also witnessed a Jewish birth certificate in Slovakia (then part of Hungary no?), on 25 May 1886 ([28], see also [29]

The journal cited, The Gospel in All Lands seems to be a chronicler of worldwide Christian news, founded by Albert Benjamin Simpson; it in turn cites a magazine it calls the London Christian. And the story presented seems to mesh with what's in the wikipedia article up to 1894 in this person's life. There doesn't seem to be grounds to doubt its reliability out of hand.

Entering his name in the Harvard library catalog turns up some of his books.He seems relatively unknown and may only borderline pass WP:BIO, except that he is apparently an important historic figure for the messianics so I see no reason to delete.

If editors don't like the way this article is written, then help rewrite it. If editors think this man is a hoax, find sources to back this up and add it to the article.

Wikipedia has articles on hoaxes too.

As is, this AfD is a disruptive waste of everyone's time. In violation of WP:INTROTODELETE and WP:POTENTIAL "Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article." Also WP:Before and the policy WP:PRESERVE. Ikip (talk) 14:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable source show he was an Orthodox rabbi, if he was a Jew is not the question --ParisYid (talk) 15:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC) — ParisYid (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep I found this on the DRV - "* The 1929 Zsido Lexikon (Jewish Encyclopedia) article [30] says the following about him:

"In the 1890s the village [of Tápiószele] became known nationwide because of a remarkable incident. Ignác Liechtenstein, the rabbi of the village, published a pamphlet called Judentum und Christentum [german: Jewry and Christianity] with the motto "those for whom the Jewish creed is too difficult, should seek their rapture in the arms of Jesus". The pamphlet's publication caused great consternation across the country and demands for the removal of the rabbi. He also had supporters, which laid the ground for a massive conflict. In the end the rabbi stepped down voluntarily following the public indignation. The rabbi's seat remained empty until 1923."

Ergo: He had his 15 minutes of fame when he was known nationwide; he also published articles and pamphlets." The AfDs and DrV are quite a read for those into it all. -- Banjeboi 15:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this guy is really not notable, you simply want to keep this article because you want to convert the Jews to shirk (idolatry), Lichtenstein doesn't even have his own entry on that source--Texas Muslimah (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)— Texas Muslimah (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Closing administrator please note: , editor has 3 edits total, all here. Ikip (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suspisious activity All of the delete votes thus far are by brand new, Single purpose account editors, except Alpha166. Ikip (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, bordering on Speedy. Clearly notable from the Google Books list above and from a Google Scholar search as well. Many of the delete arguments seem to be more from a content dispute ("no reliable source show he was an Orthodox rabbi"), or an IDONTLIKEIT/POV angle ("you simply want to keep this article because you want to convert the Jews to shirk"), neither of which are a reason for deletion, but rather for discussion on the talk page of the article. Arakunem^Talk 17:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment Can someone favoring deletion please explain what has changed since the 2nd AfD? What new arguments are there. What was erroneous in that AfD. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there might be arguments that the article needs to be improved, but clearly sails over the notability bar and is verifiable through multiple reliable sources. Once looked at that way, what else is there to say?Bali ultimate (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as a bad-faith nomination propagated by SPA and/or meatpuppetry at the least. Article is reliably sourced as-is, and notability is clearly established. MuZemike 19:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural and substantive keep - we don't need wikidrama of people gaming Wikipedia by dominating AfD discussions through socking or meatpuppeting. On the face of it there does appear to be independent reliable sourcing sufficient to establish notability (though by their nature they may not be fully reliable, or at least not the end-all, in establishing controversial matters related to his religion). Given that it is a credible article, that the person clearly existed and is of some historic interest to some people, and that it has already survived two AfDs, I see no reason to more fully entertain a new deletion discussion at the behest of Wikipedians who are either brand new and inexperienced, or conversely who are signing up on duplicate accounts. Wikidemon (talk) 03:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
snowball keep it looks like to me. Is clearly notable.Yobmod (talk) 10:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Arnott (academic)[edit]

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

1) Poorly referenced article. 2) Looking at the advice on WP:ACADEMIC, I don't think he's sufficiently notable for an article - he is an honorary professor[31] for his teaching. Potential conflict of interest: I know him. RupertMillard (Talk) 18:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of "His career and work has been personally featured in the Lancet (“Lifelines” in No. 9313, 6 April 2002).' (From his bio at the Royal Society of Medicine). It seems he was a Reader, not Professor, but that does not imply he isn't notable. Since 2 of the 3 bios at Birmingham call him Professor, it was a not unreasonable mistake. He is listed there as the author of several books, but he is only the editor. 2 are conference proceedings, The Archaeology of Medicine (Oxford: Archaeopress, 2002), The Genius of Erasmus Darwin (Aldershot:Ashgate, 2005). Third, is as one of 3 principal contribs: Trepanation: History, Discovery, Theory (Liss, 2003), All held in relatively small number of libraries (on the order of 100) but it's a narrow specialty, and I'm going by Worldcat, which is mainly US. There are 3rd party reviews of them all: Darwin in Brit J Hist of Sci & Isis ; Archeol. of Med. in Medical History ; Trepanation in Bull. Hist.Med, J Hist. Behaviorial sciences & J Hist. Neurosciences; By our BIO standards these reviews are sufficient to show notability as an author. DGG (talk) 01:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep solely on the basis of Lancet piece? I'd not seen it before but despite what it says in the RSM bio it does not feature his career and work. It's a one column interview: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08207-7 (For those who can't access it, it has his one sentence replies to the questions "Who was your most influential teacher, and why? What would be your advice to a newly qualified doctor? What alternative therapies have you tried? Did they work? What apart from your partner is the passion of your life? Do politics, spirituality, or religion play an important part in your life? What is your greatest fear? What do you think is the most exciting field of science at the moment? What part of your work gives you the most pleasure? Where were you in your sibling order, and what did you gain or lose as a result?") Looking at the article for a second time, I see that it's hardly linked to[32], I wonder if it's autobiographical[33] and I see that parts of it are lifted verbatim from the pages on Birmingham University website (eg. first sentence.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RupertMillard (talk • contribs) 07:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That he was selected for the interview by this journal is clear evidence of notability. That an article is not linked to in Wikipedia is not reason to delete, neither is autobio. The article did need cleanup, and I began that. DGG (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 04:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe that by being a fellow in the Royal Historical Society he meets WP:PROF criterion #3 (elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association; fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor).--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I checked the Society’s web site, and he is indeed listed as a Fellow. However, there are apparently a few thousand fellows, so fellowship is not as selective as I thought.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Fellowship is not a great honour (you need another (2?) fellows to recomend and have to pay,) but thousands is still a very small number, as 1000s graduate each year. Note that Readers are an old fashioned position, and if younger he would probably have gone directly to prof at UK uni. But i weak keep anyway based on the number of high level posts.Yobmod (talk) 10:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Needs additional cleanup and improvement (non-admin closure) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Israel[edit]

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete: Yet another conspiracy theorist, article fails to establish notability through reliable sources according to WP:BIO. The article was already deleted once. Peephole (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7. I have tagged the page as such. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 22:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the sources, seems to be a notable conspiracy theorist. Edward321 (talk) 06:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment All of the sources are written by Israel himself. --Peephole (talk) 14:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on User:Peephole/911TMCruft#Conspiracy_AfD.27s. Ikip (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Speedy keep I have found and added several sources, including New York Times x2, BBC x2, Boston Globe, and the Los Angeles Times. Wikipedia:Notability states clearly: "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself." There were no efforts at all by the nominator to find any sources. In fact, this is clearly a WP:IDONTLIKE nomination, see User:Peephole/911TMCruft#Conspiracy_AfD.27s for nominators strong POV, dressed up with a facade of policy. Speedy deletion clearly does not apply, because there are several sources which exceed notability. Therefore this AfD should be speedy closed. Ikip (talk) 04:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Actually I did look for them and I just thought they weren't good enough. The articles you referred to are in essence about Slobodan Milosevic. Being mentioned as running a support group of his doesn't warrant inclusion in my opinion. What I'd like to see are articles about Jared Israel himself, or articles about a category of people to which Jared Israel belongs (for example an article on who the people are who still defend Slobodan Milosevic). I just don't think these sources qualify as "significant coverage". "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." from WP:BIO and "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." from WP:NOTE.--Peephole (talk) 13:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep. Added references aren't great, but from good sources, so enough for notability. I wish people wouldn't keep throwing "speedy" around when inappropriate, as both the speedy delete was (notability is claimed) and keep (if someone already voted delete, cannot be speedy keep).Yobmod (talk) 10:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Peephole (talk) 14:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. —Peephole (talk) 14:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - it can be verified that this person exists and is a consipiracy theorist, but I'd like to see some better sources to confirm that he's notable per WP:BLP. I'm not ready to invoke WP:HEY yet. Bearian (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC) P.S. I could not read the NY Times article, but, if anyone who's Neutral has an account can read it, please confirm the statement. If he's in there, then he's notable. Bearian (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN - Just because it is referenced does not make him notable. And he is not notable. --rogerd (talk) 17:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improved sourcing which now pushes past the bar for notability. Stating toward a search to say "I just thought they weren't good enough", is opinion and apparently contravened by Ikip's presentation of reliable sources. Being "Yet another conspiracy theorist" is no reason to delete. A person may not like 'em. A person may not agree with 'em. But meeting the requirements of coverage in reliable sources shows notability per guideline. A7 speedy certainly does not apply as there is a credible and sourced assertion toward notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: So, you really think that being part of a support group of some dictator that is mentioned passingly in a couple news articles is enough to make one notable? Once, again, the notability guidelines state pretty clear that there has to be "significant coverage".
  - I have no use for conspiracy theorists. Usually a bunch of hogwash. However, I keep my personal animus seperate from my opinions at an AfD. Bringing an article into line with policy improves wiki. Regards, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources indicate some notability, although it is perhaps only marginal. Everyking (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean-up/expand. Clearly there is GNG here and between his writing and bio there should be enough to write at least a short article on the subject. -- Banjeboi 17:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

This probably needs to be stressed more often: The parenthetical notability guidelines do not overrule the parent guideline. Note that it says right in the film guideline As with all subjects, a film should satisfy the general notability guideline. Further, the "won an award" bulleted item has this footnote: This criterion is secondary. Most films that satisfy this criterion already satisfy the first criterion. Thus, when an item has only an award to hold onto, and you're debating if the award is notable enough to "justify" the article's existance, you're not only missing the spirit of the guideline, you're missing the letter as well.

The general notability guideline is clearly not satisfied for this article. None of the references provided are from reliable sources. The award itself does not automatically confer notability, per the above.

brenneman 12:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zeitgeist: Addendum[edit]

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

AfDs for this article:

At the last AFD, this article was kept as "no consensus" because a number of !voters believed that winning an award in a minor film festival made it notable, and others felt it was wrong to delete an article on such a new topic, and wanted the opportunity for the article to be improved. Well, its almost four months later, and this article has not surpassed its most significant issue: the complete absence of reliable sources. The only seemingly reliable sources given in the article are either reprints of press releases, mention Zeitgeist only in passing, or are actually about the film festival it appeared in or one of the topics covered within. The only secondary coverage of the film comes from conspiracy theorists, and not reliable publishers. Zeitgeist addendum very plainly fails the basic definition of notability, that it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a single reliable source present. Also, there's already an article on Zeitgeist, the Movie. We don't need an article on an "addendum" of a movie, this sort of stuff can fit perfectly in the original article. --Peephole (talk) 17:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Of course. It's a separate movie, with different content. If it is'nt Notable, then all other movies from the same festival should also be afd'd, as many of them also exist on Wikipedia. --Roberth Edberg (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If you're talking about this festival, very little of the movies mentioned have their own article. And those that do, have an article because notability was established independent of the festival in question. --Peephole (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, just as does this one in such independent sources as Ctnics Unlimited, Daily Paul, Freedom Force, Northwest Nerdcore, Disclose, Bleeping Herald, Khyron, Heyoka Magazine, Conspiracy Science, and others. I'm not much for conspiracy theories... but coverage is coverage. Certainly you won't find Washington Post reviewing this film... but then you won't find articles about Barrack Obama at Nerdcore. Sources must be considered in context to the subject. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: "Sources must be considered in context to the subject." - No, they don't. All we need are reliable sources (WP:RS, WP:V). What you posted were all blog posts. --Peephole (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I do not see them as such. The GNG specifically states "Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability" and "Sources, for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred". You are certainly entitled to your opinion of what this means. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment: The problem is that by that standard, my friends and I could put our personal reviews of some random movie on our blogs, and suddenly that film is notable. That part of WP:FN was not meant to lower the bar of reliability for films outside the mainstream. Indeed, that would actually defeat the very purpose of the notability guideline. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Comment: From WP:Verifiability (official policy) "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published. For this reason, it is usually not acceptable in Wikipedia to cite self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, podcasts, vcasts, patents, patent applications, forum postings, and similar sources."--Peephole (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Let me save people some time... Cynics Unlimited = a self-described blog; Daily Paul = a forum; Freedom Force = the writer's own site; Northwest Nerdcore = self-described blog; Disclose.tv = video sharing site; Khyron = the writer's own site; Conspiracy Science = the writer's own site. That leaves the Bleeping Herald, an e-zine, and Heyoka, an online art magazine with a regular staff. Note that the review in question was not written for Heyoka, but is copied from Infowars, which copied it from Freedom Force. WillOakland (talk) 08:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as film has an independent notability beyond its parent article and can survive with no dependence on the former for notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And...how is it notable? Someguy1221 (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NF, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Multiple coverage in sources independent of the film have been offered, and per W:GNG, "Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability". And again, I personally have no use for conspiracy films or theories. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Independent sources have been offered. Reliable sources have not. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. —Peephole (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Peephole (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article should be deleted for many of the same exact reasons that the Truth in Numbers article should be deleted. This is a minor film which lacks reliable and substantial coverage from multiple independent sources. End of story. JBsupreme (talk) 01:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "winning an award in a minor film festival [makes] it notable" Ikip (talk) 02:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So if a film wins an award, no matter how trivial, it automatically becomes notable? I don't think so. JBsupreme (talk) 16:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, thank God wikipedia has self-appointed deletion guardians to decide what stays and what goes on wikipedia. Ikip (talk) 03:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm sorry, but I don't see how that is directly relevant to this article, which remains to be about a non-notable subject. JBsupreme (talk) 08:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Agree with sentiments of above editors; the film has won a film festival award, and should be considered in context to its subject matter. That more people seem to be interested in this film might it make more commercially notable, but should not detract from the context and encyclopedic-worthiness of Zeitgeist Addendum's treatment of a much more esoteric subject matter. CriticalChris 09:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It won an award, and is gathering increasing numbers of followers.Autonova (talk) 09:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To those who believe the film is notable because it won an award from the Artivists: The relevant guigdeline is WP:NF, which states that notability may be achieved by winning a "major award" which the Artivists award certainly is not, with the minute coverage that festival has received. The film also obviously fails all other criteria listed in NF. And the film still fails the general notability criterion in its entirety. The keep arguments above me come out more like requests that the guidelines simply be bent or ignored for this article than an actual argument for being notable. Someguy1221 (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sourced outside itself, or obscure connectors like J. Fresco. Also, there's already an article on Zeitgeist, the movie, that mentions this Addendum, the basic information is already in the main Zeitgeist movie article Zeitgeist, the Movie . skip sievert (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re-write, Keep The content of the article is notable. It could use a re-write, however. Nevertheless, this is notable. More notable than many articles I've seen. It has 3rd party sources (Artivist, Alex Jones, Griffiths, etc) there is no reason to be having this debate.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.203.72.218 (talk)— 209.203.72.218 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Note: This debate has been included on User:Peephole/911TMCruft#Conspiracy_AfD.27s. Ikip (talk) 03:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Delete: non-notable film. Lacks substantial and reliable independent 3rd party coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 05:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Has far more independant sources than are needed for notability, and some are substantial (articles reviewing just this film). I think it would be better merged, but that is for the talk page, not AfD.Yobmod (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources.
- Cynics Unlimited Blog
- Daily Paul Blog, consists of links to YouTube.
- Freedom Force Conspiracy theorist.
- Northwest Nerdcore Blog, based on an unrelated topic.
- Disclose YouTube for conspiracy theorists.
- Bleeping Herald "In this issue: Multi-dimensional energy biology".
- Khyron Blog.
- Heyoka Magazine Republished from Freedom Force
- Conspiracy Science Fully admits that he is not an expert. He hasn't updated his site in a long time, and has barely anything on Zeitgeist: Addendum.

Even if the festival is notable, there is no evidence that the film inherits notability from it. You can call us deletionist bastards, but that doesn't change the fact that no good sources have been provided. There isn't enough here to write a good article. --Phirazo (talk) 05:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC) --Phirazo (talk) 05:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh.... but is it wins an award from a notable festival that DOES indicate that it may be notable per guideline WP:NF: "The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking". So it does not borrow notability.... it gains its own. And is an indicator that a source not available this very second may exist tommorrow, or may as yet have not been brought forward. There is no WP:DEADLINE after all... and articles about conspracy theory films don't usually grace the front page of the New York Times. However, specially when one considers that it was chosen as opening film at a notable festival, it may be safe to presume that more and better sources will become avaialable. If the article is to grow and prosper, it must be nurtured... not pulled out as if a weed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who can translate the following non-english sources: e-consulta (Spanish), medium4you (Belgium), gunel (Turkey)? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The medium4you link is a blog post [34]. And the Turkish one seems way too trivial.--Peephole (talk) 13:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good. That would mean the the e-consulte one has not fallen off the list of suitable sources. Now we need a translation. And could you pease post your translations used in your determinations of the Belgium and Turkey sources? They may contain informations that will lead to more sources. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. Vandalism - doctored copy&paste of the Albert Einstein article. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark collins (student)[edit]

Article is a copy-paste (with personalization) from Albert Einstein; PROD objected to by 128.232.246.153. Recommend speedy delete as duplicate and misnamed article. A More Perfect Onion (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as nom advocates merge. Non-admin closure - feel free to revert. Olaf Davis (talk) 22:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Human feces[edit]

Merge with Feces? --80.44.254.152 (talk) 13:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Listed at AfD at 17:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This was orphaned. Listed now. Also note that Bullfish111 (talk · contribs) was the actual creator of this page, not the IP address. — TKD::Talk 17:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close AfD is not the place for merger discussions. Ray (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It can be used for merge discssions, and redirect ones.--Patton^t/c 22:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Not enough content to justify its own article, though no prejudice against recreation.--Patton^t/c 22:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 00:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sébastien Lintz[edit]

Non-notable artist, none of the sources given are reliable. Speedy was denied by myself earlier and prod removed by the creator of the article. Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not sufficiently notable WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 05:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet notability criteria. --Megaboz (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:MUSIC. One track is claimed as a "real success", but i couldn't find any evidance of charting. Userfy if desired.Yobmod (talk) 10:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 21:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Horseshoe theory[edit]

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Not notable, not credible. The term 'horseshoe theory' is the brainchild of a little-read blogger, who has initiated this article. Searches in Google and Google Books produce no evidence of the term in a political context, while he provides no direct links referencing the term. Should be deleted ASAP.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LB QC (talk • contribs) — User:LB QC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete. Notability of the topic does not appear to be supported by reliable independent sources. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and possibly expand. I'll add refs culled from Google if anyone thinks sources don't exist; it appears the term is used both in political and more traditionally "hard science" enterprises. (Incidentally, this was originally speedy tagged as "patent nonsense", which strikes me as peculiar.) Townlake (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or reduce article length to match notability of topic. Google searches provide no reliable sources. Article has been created and modified by blogger who believes he/she coined the term. Top Google result is wikipedia, followed by same blogger. (I submitted the speedy request as the current version of the article was indeed nonsense.) - Damian Doyle (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I've heard people arguing over essentially the theory described in the article for about twenty years, so I can't believe it fits WP:MADEUP and would be astonished if it doesn't have some basis in verifiable sources. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, but trim the garbage as per Damian Doyle above. The term is genuine enough in political theory, but that's just a coatpeg to hang the rest of this twaddle onto. The first para is really all that stands up. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Townlake.--EchetusXe (talk) 23:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Gnews and Gscholar searches turn up some sources in which "horseshoe theory" is used. But the problem is I couldn't find anything about the political context (far left and far right) that the article refers to. The Ghits are for Saturn's rings and geographical stuff. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 04:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - I believe this may be a bad faith nomination from an SPA along with other delete !votes from SPAs. It would be interesting to compare the IPs for User:LB QC, User:LeonsMum, and User:OfficerBlue. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 06:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have removed comments from LeonsMum and OfficerBlue - they represent nothing more than obvious trolling and silly personal attacks. -- Ed (Edgar181) 01:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am offended and outraged by your actions. Go on, compare IP's. Maybe you should have done that before deleting my vote, mmmm? You can't delete it because you disagree with me. --OfficerBlue (talk) 02:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have removed your personal attacks again. (And if you look, you'll see that I'm one of the few that agrees with you about the article.) -- Ed (Edgar181) 10:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I tend to agree with LinguistAtLarge. Bad faith and personal dislike for individual seems to motivate those who want to delete this article. The theory may be a little obscure, but it also seems to be well-known by some. Apollo1986 • [> 06:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep. Trimmed article looks like a worthy stub. Needs more sourcing to prove notability, but seems likely such sources exist.Yobmod (talk) 11:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is not well sourced and needs work but it has enough to show that both adherents of and dissenters from the theory recognise its existence and have written about it. It is described as "famous" and attributed to a notable writer in the Le Figaro reference. I also share the concerns about the good faith of the nomination. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 01:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thor Granitos e Mármores LTDA.[edit]

The improvement and marketing of ornamental rocks, fails notability. Waterjuice (talk) 14:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Could be speedy deleted under WP:CSD#G11 or possibly as a copyright violation under WP:CSD#G12: I can't read the page, but Google finds the same text in http://www.thorgranitos.com.br/br/historico.swf. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - take your choice of speedies - I'd say WP:CSD#A7, non-notable company. JohnCD (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is the English language wikipedia, we shouldn't be trying to usurp the place of other wikipedias from poor countries.Yobmod (talk) 11:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G11, and so tagged. My Portuguese is pretty weak, but I can read enough to see things like they'll "give your customers the best care".--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 01:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suffering Silence[edit]

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't appear to meet the requirements of WP:NMG. Stifle (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. None of the 12 criteria have been met. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:MUSIC. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It would appear that there are some substantial reasons for keeping this article, as well as the obvious arguments to delete. If the album doesn't show up on the shelves after its alleged release date (tomorrow), then it would be reasonable to renominate the page. The sources are suboptimal, but also non-trivial. Stifle (talk) 12:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Labyrinthes[edit]

A future album with info just "leaked" into file sharing networks - 7-bubёn >t 07:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NALBUMS - no release date, no reliable source. JohnCD (talk) 12:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm not sure what you are looking for, but I have got other sources if you'd like them. The band is pretty notable which is why I included a page for this album. I am also not entirely sure what JohnCD means by "no release date", it is clearly listed on the page and also all of these references provide the release date as well (although some of them say it is Feb 10, which is currently incorrect) Banjaloupe (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of further references: [35] [36] [37] [38] [39]

- You write: "some of them say it is Feb 10, which is currently incorrect" - and how do you know that? That's the whole point of the rule "wikipedia is not a crystal ball": unless the band is huge and releases from a major label, the premature album articles are frowned upon in wikipedia: rumors which may me changed tomorrow is not what is to be written in an encyclopedia. In addition, since you seem to be rather new, please review the policies about what is accepted as a reliable source for wikipedia. - 7-bubёn >t 18:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I had looked at WP:NALBUMS and it said Once the artist or their record label has publicly confirmed the title, track listing and release date, an article about an album is not a WP:CRYSTAL violation. That is why I used the Dare to Care Records page as a source, even though that usually is not "reliable", since it would have to be used to show that this was not a "crystal ball" infraction. Furthermore, after checking the page, it does seem that Feb 10 is the correct release date! So that was my mistake and I will change it in the article. Banjaloupe (talk) 18:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~: ~~per WP:HAMMER~~ --JD554 (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, I am not sure why this applies, the name of the album is known, it's Labyrinthes! I'm sorry but I'm kind of confused... Banjaloupe (talk) 18:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right, HAMMER doesn't apply, however I'm leaving my vote as delete because their is so little information in the article it just isn't worth keeping. Recreate when more information becomes available. --JD554 (talk) 07:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: WP:HAMMER. JamesBurns (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm sorry, I still don't see how this applies, when the name is clearly known. Is there some generalization of usage that I'm missing here? Banjaloupe (talk) 01:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:HAMMER is not a policy. It is an essay, and people are citing it just for simplicity of voting. In this case I think the voters don't consider the sources reliable enough, since the band and label are not that big and all these announcements are just copy each other, with dates Feb. 10, 17, 19... Don't take this close to your heart; relax for 11 days and resubmit the article (if deleted; and maybe not) when the dust settles. - 7-bubёn >t 02:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I guess what I'm trying to figure out is why a band/label's own site is not reliable, and yet that is what is required to avoid a WP:CRYSTAL or WP:HAMMER infraction? In other words, is a reliable second-hand source enough to count as the band "publicly confirming" the album? For instance, Pitchfork mentions it on a list here, does that count? In any case, if it gets deleted now I'll certainly try again after the album release, I just want to know for my own good and to inform future edits. I hope I'm not being too annoying... Banjaloupe (talk) 02:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - There are two separate issues involved: notability and reliability, which often mix and play in different proportions. Band's site as reliable, but if it is the sole source of info then notability is questioned, unless we are speaking of real big players. Pitchfork is just a compilation site which does not always show the source of the info, so there are problems of reliability (original source is better) and notablity: it lists everything it can lay their eye on (and this is good for its purpose). Wikipedia is more picky (and this is good for its purpose). To establish solid notability, nontrivial independent party coverage is required, which say much more than just "hey, these guys crawled from under the carpet once more and kicked the drum again." - 7-bubёn >t 20:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I see! So I guess all I have now is some reliable information, but like JD554 also said above, there's not much to say about it now (aka it isn't notable). I guess then it makes more sense to delete the article until any major reviews come out. Thanks for the help! Banjaloupe (talk) 22:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: In what way has consensus not been reached here? Three editors have said delete, and given their reasons, and the one editor who originally wanted it kept finished their last edit with I guess then it makes more sense to delete the article until any major reviews come out. (diff). --JD554 (talk) 18:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The editors presented rather shallow arguments, including stand-alone links to WP:HAMMER, which is simply an essay. Thus, because AfD isn't a vote, it is impossible to determine consensus. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 18:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify for the next editor to look at this AfD with a view to closing: I agree with JohnCD's original comments in that the article contains no reliable sources to show notability and therefore fails WP:NALBUMS. --JD554 (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect back to parent article as a plausible search term. Even if it was released, it still doesn't pass notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums as it is little more than a tracklisting. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Julian's comments above I'm recasting my vote here to clarify:

Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party notability WP:NALBUMS. JamesBurns (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The album is indeed entitled Labyrinthes and will be released on February 10, 2009. Here are more 3rd-party info about the new album. Hroyer (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Bang Bang Té Mort
- Journal Voir
- Sympatico
- Hroyer, I think the problem was that there is little to nothing to say about the album itself besides its release date and the tracklisting, which in and of themselves do not make the album notable. I am pretty sure that more will be published about Labyrinthes after the release date (reviews, the music video, etc) which would then make this article worthwhile. Banjaloupe (talk) 05:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - So, the Porté Disparu music video, as well as a live version of Hérésie, came out recently. I added a music video section, which I'd encourage everyone to check out, since it might change your vote...? Banjaloupe (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources have been added, and remaining time until the album's release date is literally countable in hours. Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources have been added, and the release is close enough that we can implement WP:IAR and let it stand for now. Malinaccier (talk) 01:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree we should now WP:IAR, if the article gets deleted today it will only be re-created (legitimately) tomorrow. --JD554 (talk) 07:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Disambiguate. MBisanz ^talk 21:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St. Matthews School[edit]

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete non notable elementary school Mayalld (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and mention in Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Milwaukee. TerriersFan (talk) 02:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge with Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Milwaukee per TerriersFan. SMSpivey (talk) 00:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with comment Huh? Why would you want to merge it into the Milwaukee Archdiocese? The school not even located in the archdiocese! Green Bay, Wisconsin is located as the center of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Green Bay. Delete because it's a one sentence article with no information in it, barely passes WP:CSD#A3 if it even does. Royal broil 02:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be okay with a disambiguation page only if the article was expanded to have some meaningful content. Royal broil 03:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But DMB pages don't have meaningful content other than being a list of schools? TerriersFan (talk) 01:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and strong do not merge/reditect! Does anyone know how many 1000's of St. Matthew's schools exist in the world? Try googling it - He is one of the disciples and a massively popular name for schools worldwide! Redirecting this search would give false information. Better to delete it or, If people want to search for their school, it needs at minimum a disambiguation created at this namespace that sends searchers to the location of the specific school.Yobmod (talk) 11:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate per Yobmod. Bearian (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate per Yobmod's persuasive arguments. TerriersFan (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 21:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

K. Muthukumar[edit]

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Non notable individual. The only mention of him in the media is related to his suicide. As it was for political reasons, he could be mentioned in a related article, such as Sri Lankan Civil War or Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. However he does not require and article on his own, see WP:ONEVENT. snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 16:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep : This article is no longer about an individual. This is about an event and the rule to follow is WP:Notability. Taprobanus (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As per Taprobanus should't be deleted.-Iross1000 (talk) 00:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

WP:NOT#NEWS. This incident got local news coverage when it happened, but that's it. It is already mentioned in the article Tamil Eelam. I don't think it requires a separate article. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 17:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~::::::If there is no more significant coverage then it can be redirected to Tamil Eelam.Taprobanus (talk) 18:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep for now As press coverage shows, this incident has quite radically changed the nature of support in Tamil Nadu for Eelam separatism - as a direct result of Muthukumar's self-immolation, a new political front has been launched in Tamil Nadu, student protests've risen to the extent that colleges had to be shut for over a week. We've even seen the LTTE flag being openly flown at protests, something that's more or less been taboo since Rajiv Gandhi's assassination.

I'd support a merge and redirect, if it were to an article specifically dealing with Support for Sri Lankan Tamil separatism in Tamil Nadu (why don't we have an article about this as yet?), or even specifically with the protests of 2008 and 2009. Tamil Eelam, in my opinion, isn't the right article to merge this into. -- Arvind (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of places named for their units of production[edit]

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Unnecessary list, and in any case wrongly named as "units of production" is not the same as "main products". Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What makes this list any less worthwhile than anything else in Category:Lists of placename etymologies? --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep. I changed title toList of places named for the main products. ( A unit of production is a barrel of oil , not oil.) A reasonable set of things, useful for browsing, which is sufficient reason for a list. DGG (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is now called List of places named for their main products. Kingturtle (talk) 17:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many people enjoy lists, and lists of common things can develop some very interesting information. When I started List of persons considered father or mother of a field 4 years ago, it slowly developed into a very interesting article (at least interesting to a number of people). Rather than delete the article, please give it time to grow. Although it may not be your cup of tea, it is of interest to others. Kingturtle (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cute, and it doesn't seem likely to become too long or crazy. Ray (talk) 21:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Ray (talk) 21:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:INTERESTING is not a reason to keep a page. WP:CUTE doesn't exist. An article "Places named after their main products" which described the sociological and/or historical relevance of such namings would have a place. This list is arbitrary. The items on the list are known better for being places than for this incidental secondary characteristic.

WP:SALAT .Does this article contribute anything to knowledge? No. It's just "quirky".

Ddawkins73 (talk) 00:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unnecessary nomination. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not an indiscriminate, indefinite, subjective list. The article being about a niche-interest or somewhat trivial subject is not a reason to delete. Each name can be verified as a product produced by the community and sourced. SMSpivey (talk) 00:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Toponymy is encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gran Turismo (series) per bold move by Esradekan. Non-admin closure. MuZemike 22:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

High Speed Ring[edit]

No real world notability. Padillah (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need AFD for this? Why not just redirect it to Gran Turismo (series) ? Friday (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with Friday here, we don't need an AfD here, a simple redirect would be more useful than deletion. -- Sabre (talk) 18:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boldly redirected, per WP:BEFORE. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Class M planet. Merge appropriate info to Class M planet. Class M is repeatedly mentioned and integral to the Star Trek series, given that 90% if all planetside action takes place there, and there are at least enough scant mentions to meet bare requirements of the GNG. Content like the creation/development of the planet classification can still be covered in the article. It should also be noted that while Okuda could be considered a secondary source in some respects, he is not when he is writing an officially sanctioned Star Trek encyclopedia. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek planet classifications[edit]

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Topic receives trivial, passing references within the franchise; no indication or claim of notability in the real world. Has a single in-universe reference; no third-party, real-world coverage. --EEMIV (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete Any salvageable (ie sourced) information should be merged with Class M planet, which is notable in ST canon. §FreeRangeFrog 20:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Acceptable spinout from main article that aids in understanding the setting. Edward321 (talk) 06:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And with regards to a lack of reliable sources evidencing notability as concerned in the nomination? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 00:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion argument is void now. I added 10 footnotes and more references, something that editors who wanted to delete this article were unwilling to do. I suspect these additions will not satisfy some editors here (who contributed nothing to the article), but it is enough for the average person to say it should be kept. Ikip (talk) 15:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete completely in-universe with no real prospect of relating this to the real world, with no Reliable Sources. - fchd (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Compare Emilia_(Othello) for relevance to the "real world". --ScottAlanHill (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article provides no evidence thereof. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 00:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An important part of the series, and when it won't fit on the main article page, you make a side page for it. Dream Focus (talk) 18:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, more like an incredibly trivial part of the series. - fchd (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnotable topic with no significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources, and fairly irrelevant even within the various series. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Consists of primary sources and plot with no evidence of having received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject (WP:N). — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 04:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Class M planet (or better other way around). Spin out list are ok, but then having stubs for entries in the list is not.Yobmod (talk) 11:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage in real-world reliable 3rd party sources. Star Trek's classification schemes for its planets, sourced to a mention here a snippet of dialog there, a hint and a prayer... no, not encyclopedic any more than Stanford University course numbering or anything else of trivial note. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, This definitely falls under WP:N for any startrek fan. In addition, I don't believe the main article has room for this list, but it should instead be kept the way it is. As for sourcing, that could use some work, but this isn't a hoax.Smallman12q (talk) 00:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you misinterpret Wikipedia:Notability; in a nutshell: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." This article has not. You said sourcing could use some work, and that's the rub. There's only one reliable source provided, and it's not independent of the subject. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 00:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I suspect that you are misinterpreting the word "subject" here. Consider an abstruse mathematical topic like the abc conjecture; no reference outside of "the subject" of mathematics is ever going to talk about this conjecture, but it is still a notable article. My guess is that this rule is meant to prohibit vanity articles: it doesn't count if there are fifty references in support of Joe Schmoe's article if they were all written by Joe Schmoe. In this case Joe is the subject. --ScottAlanHill (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major element of notable fiction. The GNG is at best guideline if nothing else will serve, and it does not restrict us from considering notable whatever seems appropriate for an article. I would merge separate classes of planets into here, but that's a separate discussion,and does not belong on AfD. DGG (talk) 01:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as subsection of very notable fictional universe, that needs to exist as a separate file for (no pun intended) space reasons. Reasonable to assume that article on types of planets is relevant to a science fiction show that revolves (pun intended) on traveling to mysterious planets, and it's impressive that the scheme has been kept internally consistent over a 40-year run. As far as references, it already cites Star Trek Star Charts and lists without inline cites The Star Trek Encyclopedia. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Such assumptions need to be substantiated by citations to third-party sources to establish notability. Where are they? Star Charts and Encyclopedia are in-universe that regurgitate plot; even they don't assert notability. --EEMIV (talk) 03:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - A search on Google Books for "Star Trek" and "Class M" ( seems the most common one ) returns more sources,[40] such as The Physics of Star Trek, which appears to be independent. The Making of Star Trek even explains the concept of "Class M" planets as "a compromise with production costs". Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - That doesn't really cover the subject directly in detail, as outlined by Wikipedia:Notability. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Explodicle, instead of spending so much time rejecting other editors contributions, why not help us find references for this article? thus far, Squidfryerchef and DHowell have found several, and you have found none. We are here to build an encyclopedia, right? Ikip (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Pocket Books and Michael Okuda, publisher and writer of The Star Trek Encyclopedia, while not strictly independent of the Star Trek franchise, were not directly involved in the creation of this classification system, which was created by Gene Roddenberry. Thus they are, for Wikipedia purposes, sufficiently "independent of the subject". Another source which documents planetary classes is Star Trek Voyager Companion, by Paul Ruditis, who is similarly independent of the classification scheme's creator. Thus the subject has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", satisfying the general notability criteria. DHowell (talk) 05:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aside from the passing reference in The Makign of Star Trek, there's no evidence that any out-of-universe information exists to estabish notability. Totally does not merit its own article. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Star Trek - There don't seem to be any out-of-universe sources that address the subject directly in detail, as required by Wikipedia:Notability. Still, it's a plausible search term... Class M planet should get redirected too. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per DHowell, Squidfryerchef, DGG, Smallman12q, Colonel Warden. I encourage the editors who vote to delete to spend more time finding article sources, then deleting other editors contributions. Ikip (talk) 15:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing administrator This page has been updated extensively since the AfD tag was added, with 10 new footnotes, and more references.[41] Ikip (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to closing administrator: new footnotes and references do an impressive job of substantiating in-universe plot minutiae and details; many thanks to Ikip for illustrating that although there's plenty of in-universe material on this point of trivia, real-world sources and coverage or negligible/non-existent for this non-notable topic. --EEMIV (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Star Trek is incredibly prevalent and well-written, discussed, etc. here's a few books that may help. In a less monumental fictional empire this would be cause for merge - rather than delete - but Star Trek is one of the largest fictional empires that exists and documenting this subject in reliable sources is perfectly feasible. -- Banjeboi 16:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've made a case for not deleting Star Trek -- what about Star Trek planet classifications? --EEMIV (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you're not thinking I was calling for Star Trek not to be deleted? Regardless the largest fanclub, as much as fanclubs are generally not notable, in this case does seem notable and we even have some sourcing to bolster it. I'm sure more sources can be found but the goal is to see if it meets GNG which I think this does. -- Banjeboi 18:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fan club? I think you're confused this AfD discussion with the one for STARFLEET International. --EEMIV (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : If there's an article for Class M planet, then there should be a summary of alternatives to that classification, though I feel that merging is also reasonable. Also note that notability for fiction has slightly different rules for independent sources than does general notability. – wfaulk (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FICT is not an adopted guideline or policy; WP:GNG, however, is -- and that calls for significant, third-party coverage, which no one -- even after Ikip's expansion -- offers. --EEMIV (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Where would I come to learn about the Star Trek planet classifications if not on Wikipedia? What ultimate use would we be doing if we delete this article? This article is a valid article pertaining to the dissemination of Star Trek knowledge to the world and should therefore not be deleted. WinterSpw (talk) 07:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 01:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Devious[edit]

AfDs for this article:

no sources and very little, if any, claim to notability per WP:BIO and WP:BAND. Per amazon tracklisting, no mention of artist on the Shekinah album listed, I google'd a tracklisting of the Cyberfest 2000 and could not find a trace of subject.

I am alSo nominating the following related Pages because it's the sAMe content:

--Omarcheeseboro (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both: no significant independent 3rd party notability. JamesBurns (talk) 03:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mayalld ([[User

talk:Mayalld|talk]]) 16:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete - no evidence of any trace of notability; could have been speedied, IMHO. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no notability has been established. Fails WP:MUSIC. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 01:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thrive (website)[edit]

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I previously deleted this page per CSD:A7 (non-notable website), but the author contacted me with some sources which give an assertion of notability, so it no longer qualifies. All the same, I don't think it meets WP:WEB. Stifle (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The four sources ([42], [43], [44], [45]) in the article establish notability per WP:WEB in my opinion. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 04:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it was discussed by enough notable third party media sources to be notable Dream Focus (talk) 18:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the company that just merged with Lending Tree. Kind of big news. LillyPeters (User talk:LillyPeters) 20:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kur ykh 01:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Money As Debt (film)[edit]

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete non notable film, fails WP:NOTFILM Mayalld (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no 3rd party notability. JamesBurns (talk) 01:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There's a list of reviews here http://paulgrignon.netfirms.com/MoneyasDebt/reviews.htm, If you think the film is useless or filled with lies and falsehoods, just say so in its page, it would be a good way to "expose" these lies if they exist, and to let other people know about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasenj (talk • contribs) 03:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC) — Hasenj (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Every one of those reviews is self-published by the reviewer so far as I can tell. As for the accuracy of the film, it is not relevant. WillOakland (talk) 08:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: huge number of google hits on film title + grignon, I'm sure there are some reliable sources in there somewhere but haven't time to go through the many pages of blogs and minor sites right now. It certainly looks notable (small "n") and I feel the sources must exist to make it "Notable". (I have no axe to grind here, just dropped by to Stub-sort it.) PamD (talk) 09:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The current article is just not informative, too short and badly written. However, I would say, the topics of the movie and its opinions deserve a Wiki page. Keep but improve. Wilfried Elmenreich (talk) 13:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The subjective importance of the movie's content to Wikipedia editors is not relevant. WillOakland (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. I found a few sources but they are of dubious reliability or do not focus on the video itself. [46] [47] [48]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SkyRam[edit]

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete non notable research project that even the company alleged to be running it hasn't publicised. Mayalld (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks notability and verifiability. -Atmoz (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 01:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marielle Oyama[edit]

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Biography with no sources. (WP:BLP, WP:V) Possibly written by the subject herself and use for self promotion. (WP:COI, WP:PROMOTION). Subject appears to have absolutely no notability. (WP:N, WP:BIO) Farix (Talk) 15:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy A7 Autobio written by a 14 year old girl. Ray (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You can not make an article about yourself. Sorry girl, wait until you get famous for something, and someone will do that for you. Dream Focus (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 01:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jharkhand People's Party[edit]

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jharkhand People's Party

Unreferenced for over two and a half years; seems to fail WP:ORG. Stifle (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, 534 direct Ghits and one news story they are mentioned in the last month lead me to suspect sources exist; it simply may be a matter of no one coming forward to clean up the article. Maybe Wikiproject India can help? Redfarmer (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. Frontline writes "Barring the All Jharkhand Students Union (AJSU) and the Jharkhand People's Party (JPP), all the other major Jharkhand groups", thus indicating that JPP is one of the 'major Jharkhand groups'. News mentions in major publications at [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], etc. --Soman (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A prominent political party in the Indian state of Jharkhand, which has a population of 30 million. Extensive coverage even in mainstream English press [62] (Note: English is not the state language; newspapers like Dainik Jagran will likely have much greater coverage). Article needs to be expanded and referenced; but the notability of the subject is not doubtful. Abecedare (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I wish that when people say that a subject "seems to fail" a notability guideline that they would say what research that statement is based on. In this case one of the most obvious pieces of research that only takes a few seconds to do shows that this subject does not seem to fail notability guidelines. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 01:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J. J. Haverty[edit]

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced for nearly two and a half years; doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 15:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable. Including [63] Villa Clare: The Purposeful Life and Timeless Art Collection of J.J. Haverty, By William Rawson Smith, Edition: illustrated, Published by Mercer University Press, 2006 , ISBN 0865549923, 9780865549920, 131 pages. Art from his collection sold by Christies is noted as having his provenance, thus notable in art world, Atlanta, and furniture. [64] and a lot more cites readily available. Collect (talk) 15:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Collect. Edward321 (talk) 06:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as an invalid nomination - the nominator has obviously failed to follow the correct procedure documented at WP:BEFORE. The book about the subject referenced above is the very first of the 225 hits from a Google Books search. Phil Bridger (talk) 01:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sparks (charity)[edit]

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

fails WP:N and cites only primary references. There may also be WP:COPYVIO issues. Article seemingly created by someone connected with the charity, so is probably also WP:COI. Has been nominated for speedy a couple of times, but user always reverts nomination. TheRetroGuy (talk) 14:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as copyvio [65] pablo_hablo. 15:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite - There's a few sources online of varying merit [66], [67], [68], [69], but this version is a copyvio and needs a rewrite. If the end decision here is keep, I volunteer for the job. Also a point of clarification - this is not The Spark Center, formerly the Children's AIDS Program. FlyingToaster 15:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but write, this is one of the biggest charities in the UK. - fchd (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite - charity is well known and very notable. Readro (talk) 14:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Must confess I hadn't heard of this charity until I saw the article. Taking a closer look at the subject, however, I see that it does enjoy the support of some fairly high profile people, and I'm informed that it is, indeed, well known, so WP:N is probably not appropriate here. I really nominated it because it had been speedied a few times with the creator removing the tag, and I thought we needed a wider consensus on the matter. It needs some serious work doing to it as there are copyvio issues, but I'm sure it can be sorted out. TheRetroGuy (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (NAC) RMHED (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sidney Prescott[edit]

Article about a character written entirely in-universe, with no independent references to assert notability. The JPS ^{talk to me} 14:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The main character of multiple notable works. Summary of the plot relating to the character cannot adequately be covered in the articles on the individual films, because it should be dealt with in a single article not spread across three separate ones. Character is clearly notable as any discussion of the films will inevitably include some discussion of this character, which seems enough to justify notability to me. JulesH (talk) 13:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Some discussion of the character, yes, but this much detail contravenes WP:PLOT, crucially when there are no real-world references. The articles for the three films adequately cover the topic. They cover the topic much better.
  This article is nearly three years old and shows no sign of development to meet Wikipedia's standards in writing about fiction. "Current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not simply: ... plot summaries", which is solely what this article is, and, if the last three years are anything to go by, will stay, unless exterminated by this process. The JPS ^{talk to me} 20:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —The JPS ^{talk to me} 20:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ah... pity that it has not been markedly improved in three years, but that does not matter since wiki has no WP:DEADLINE for such to happen and does not demand such. However, and in just doing a very cursory search per WP:BEFORE in Google and Google NEws, I came accross an article at Bloody Disgusting specifically speaking toward her, her part in the series, and bemoaning her not being in Scream 4. The Movie Boy speaks toward her first appearance in the series, Matchflick goes into detail about her return in Scream 2, and Media Circus speaks toward her appearance in #3. There is much, much more. And yes... all these sources speak of her in relationship to the series itself... but that is to be expected, as that is where she was "born". The character does indeed have a notability, and since the additional informations would overly burden the parent article(s), and more inportantly as these informations are spread out over 3 seperate but related articles, she is allowed a seperate article. Per guideline. Tag for sources and expansion so as to continue to improve the paperless encyclopedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And the result is we are keeping a crap article that will stay crap. I appreciate that we have no deadline, but when the work has no intention of being done... The JPS^{talk to me} 09:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since I saw no evidence that it had been tagged, I did so... for rescue, expansion, cleanup, and sourcing. Maybe someone will look into it now. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mayalld (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, AfD is not cleanup. These are cleanup issues you describe, not deletion issues. Since there are users who have expressed the desire in this discussion to save this article, they should be given the chance. Being a crap article, fortunately, is not grounds for deletion. I would suggest that merge and redirect would be a better option if they are not able to fix the in universe issues. Redfarmer (talk) 14:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I will redirect after about a week of this closure. I don't think it's a clean up issue -- it's that encyclopedic content is non-existent. The JPS ^{talk to me} 15:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She is a highly visible, lead character, in a major triology of motion pictures. Of course, it needs clean-up, and that can be a by-product of the AfD process. Rescue it and fix it. Bearian (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per JulesH et al. here's 40+ searchable books that may help as well. -- Banjeboi 14:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Adam Bagni, merge secondary articles into it. (non-admin closure) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Bagni[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Lack of Notability. His sources are his own television station, and minor blips on local new sites. Only notable characteristic is holding the Guinness World Record for Longest Radio Quiz. The source notes that they were attempting getting the record, but there is no record of him actually officially getting it (according to a source at the university, they followed all the procedures, but never submitted the paperwork). Numerous people have removed this "fact", and had their change reverted as vandalism. I previously proposed deletion, which was also reverted as vandalism. Joe CoT (talk) 03:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are for minor TV shows that this person is involved in, which are also not notable:

~~Speedy Delete~~ and possibly salt, CSD G4 as recreation of article previously deleted in an AFD discussion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Bagni (second nomination). Redfarmer (talk) 03:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Adam Bagni, as my speedy was declined. Only regional recognition. Award won was a regional award, not a major award. Being a minor crew member on some national sports programs does not constitute notability. This guy has never had an on-air spot with any national broadcaster. I can't believe we're actually thinking of keeping this article. One person below actually admitted the article was originally created as a joke while he was still in college and he hasn't done anything since that would suggest he's any the more notable. Nothing has changed in his world since the last AfD that would make him notable. No opinion on other articles as this was the only article I was commenting on when I first came here. Redfarmer (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A group AfD is always difficult because each article must now be judged on its indivual merits. I will trust the closing admin to sort it all out. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is clearly not in violation of any wikipedia policy. It contains information regarding an on-air, television personality. Do I have to list the vast amount of local and national sportcasters that are on Wikipedia? It is not a copy of a previous page 66.0.131.50 (talk) 04:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not remove the AfD header from these nominated pages until the discussion is finished Joe CoT (talk) 04:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Those sportscasters would presumably be notable. If there are sportscasters with articles that are of equal or less notability as that of this person, please provide me links to those articles, so that I can also propose them for deletion. Joe CoT (talk) 05:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I have declined the speedy, as while this version of the article is clearly based on the previously deleted version (some paragraphs are word for word), this version is much longer and contains additional cites. Therefore, I believe G4 is not applicable here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep As the creator of this article, I think it's definitely worthy of Wikipedia. Local newscasters are filled all throughout Wikipedia and they are notable folks, particularly in the communities for which they are recognizable. With all of the print journalists listed too, it just seems appropriate. To me, if you're on TV everyday, that makes you at least notable enough for Wikipedia. Revzzz (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please explain how this person has become more notable than the last time the article was deleted? He's still a regional sportscaster, and he's gained no further recognition. Joe CoT (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was deleted in 2005 and then again in 2006. A lot has hapened in the intevening 3 years. Awards and records. Its minor and regional, but he now passes. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well when we made Adam's page a couple years ago, it was kind of a joke - we were still in college and he really hadn't done anything notable yet. But now, he's been working for this ABC station as a sportscaster in Alabama's capital for over a year. With the massive amount of local news people listed on this site, I don't see why he's any differnt. Listing him certainly isn't a DETRIMENT to Wikipedia, that's for sure. Revzzz (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:NOHARM. Redfarmer (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adam Bagni. Since the first appearance of this article in 2005, Adam has been a busy fellow... getting press, winning awards, and setting records. A nice set of accomplishments in the intervening 4 years that have made him now worthy of inclusion. Salt? Deletion? Naw. I did a bit of copyedit on the article. It passes. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As I've said numerous times, the article cited does not say that he won the world record. It says that he attempted it. There is no mention anywhere of him actually getting the record. No matter how you shuffle the information around, he's still not notable. Joe CoT (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Found the source and added it. Or is The Collegian now unreliable? Added it and other sources. This fellow has not sat still over the interveneing 4 years. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I see no reference that includes him getting the world record for longest radio quiz, which is the only "notable" aspect claimed. If I am missing any reference besides this FOX philly article (which says he attempted it), please let me know. Let's go through all the references, shall we?
      - Bio for Bagni, on the website of the TV Channel he works for
      - Blip on Bagni in the local paper of his home town. Take a look at the other articles that make it to the front page of their local paper.
      - four sentences in an aggregate article about new hires. His name isn't even mentioned in the title of the article.
      - WEXP award article. The awards went to lots of people. If this makes someone notable, please also add articles for Mike Petty and Andrew Neumann.
      - Article on record attempt. a) his name isn't even mentioned, b) again, no mention anywhere of them actually receiving the award.
      - Another aggregate article of new hires. It's a talent recruiting company, and bagni was a client.
    - Based on any of this criteria, please tell me how this person is notable, using any of the notability guidelines for people. If this is what passes as notable, then, since I have a blip here and here, it's a travesty that I have yet to have an article, and I'll pay a friend 20 bucks tomorrow to put one up. Joe CoT (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Inside the Tide and the Tigers and AUM Sports Show atubs to Adam Bagni#Career where they have utility and set redirect to the the article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Why is "second nomination" listed above twice? The first was way back in 2005. The second in 2006. This one, 3 years later should be 3rd. Yes? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP As the Adam Bagni, I've been rightfully avoiding this discussion. It'll be interesting to see if I'm "worthy" enough for Wikipedia - I certainly hope so. But as a Wikipedia semi-buff, speaking in general about local news folks, I think it's fairly clear that we are notable. How many people do you know that appear on television nightly in front of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people? I certainly think my sources pass as well. To claim our station website isn't legit is really misplaced. Thank you. 66.0.131.50 (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not claim that your station website isn't legitimate. What I claim is that the articles of your station website and a recruiting agency you are a client of are not sufficiently independent of you to be considered evidence of notability. I have articles written about me by other members of the Ubuntu community, and other members of my team. I also believe my mother may have said nice things about me once, and I have reference letters from teachers, if you'd like to see them. While I appreciate those things, I do not consider them independent enough to make me notable.
  
  You're correct in that I do not know many people that appear on television to thousands or millions of people. Can you provide any links to ratings of your news cast, or your television program? That may also be useful for determining your notability. Joe CoT (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redfarmer (talk) 14:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've changed the article so that instead of saying Bagni was awarded the Guinness World record, it says that he participated in an attempt on the Guinness world record. The reason I have changed this is that the reference given only mentions the attempt, and I've been unable to find any source stating the Guinness actually awarded them a new record. If you are going to change the article back, please also provide a source for the actual award. I note this here, as I believe the difference between attempting and receiving the record means a great deal towards notability. Joe CoT (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fair enough tweak. I fixed the ref format some, did a deeper search, added a few more sources, and tagged it for additional WP:RESCUE. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing Admin If the Bagni article is kept, and since I have seen no comments about the two others proposed for deletion in this multiple listing, I ask that you consider userfying Inside the Tide and the Tigers and AUM Sports Show to me at User:MichaelQSchmidt/Inside the Tide and the Tigers and User:MichaelQSchmidt/AUM Sports Show and I will be glad to do the merge. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The "deletion discussion" link in the rescue box re-directs to the first nomination, instead of this discussion. How do we fix that? Revzzz (talk) 06:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We can keep it, but I wouldn't note that he heads internships. That doesn't seem especially notable (at least at the top of the article). Don't you agree? Although it is another source... 24.214.53.191 (talk) 06:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In agreement that his intern stuff can/should be moved lower. Just haven't figured out where to best fit in in yet. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 01:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Madison[edit]

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable magician, unsuccessful in minor club award nomination. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. WWGB (talk) 14:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note Moved to correct caps. Dlohcierekim 14:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not much to be found in terms of outside references. Also, I didn't know that "fire eating, knife juggling, stilt walking, uni cycling" came under the category magic. Not much opportunity for sleight of hand or illusion in those activities. Skill, yes. (I do know someone who plays the saxophone while riding a unicycle - but he's a professional clown.) Nomination is notable in international awards like Oscars and so on, but nomination as a Club Act isn't quite in the same top hat. Magic is a difficult field to get notable in, and while I wish Tommy success and an article in the future, the time is not yet right in my opinion. Peridon (talk) 14:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even close to meeting WP:ENTERTAINER. §FreeRangeFrog 19:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per author request as noted below. AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Author, iforget2020: PLEASE DELETE THIS when a mod is available to do so. Agree with you guys below, sorry for creation. Hopefully you can delete without blemishing my record / account. Thanks. Iforget2020 (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop n swap[edit]

Delete non notable video game feature that is already adequately covered in the article about the game. Mayalld (talk) 14:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with relevant article. --Peephole (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect Dlohcierekim 16:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the extensive discussion of this at Banjo-Kazooie (series)#Stop 'N' Swop as a reasonable search term, nothing worth merging that I can see. Note that there was an AfD in 2007 for this under the name Stop 'N' Swop, which closed as no consensus but resulted in a merge after further discussion. BryanG (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentTagged per speedy deletion per author request. Content already exists at article to which this was to be redirected. Dlohcierekim 21:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 01:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eubiotics[edit]

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete because Wikipedia is not a dictionary WWGB (talk) 12:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article at present may only be a dictionary definition, but there is clear scope for it to grow beyond this, so per WP:DELETION we should allow the article to be fixed by editing rather than deleting it. JulesH (talk) 13:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, weakly. While reads like a non-notable neologism of a rather vague and promotional sounding word, Google Scholar retrieves more than 90 hits. The article has potential for expansion. I added the missing references tag. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a weak start but subject experts could certainly expand on the concept. Google shows up a number of valid references.- Ipigott (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree on the potential, although I think it might end up being a spam magnet. §FreeRangeFrog 19:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If it is a separate type of thing than Probiotic and seems significant enough to merit its own article for near-future expansion. Valley2city^‽ 20:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David MacDonald (photographer)[edit]

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Wedding and portrait photographer. Asserts notability as winner of "Kodak U.K. Portrait Photographer Of The Year" award, which itself does not seem particularly notable. pablo_hablo. 12:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The award seems pretty notable to me. It's run by the Master Photographers Association, which is a notable professional body, and sponsored by one of the leading companies providing photographic equipment and consumables. But I'm not convinced the article is accurate in saying this photographer won it; it seems from this page that it was won by Lisa Visser, and MacDonald was simply a finalist in the competition. JulesH (talk) 12:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment http://www.landlautomotive.co.uk/Partners/David-MacDonald-Photography/ refers to his firm as 'past winners'. I'm finding it hard to get the info straight. The Kodak link with the article doesn't appear to mention him, and is 2007. I can't find a Kodak 2008 page. Against the notability of the award is that you have to use Kodak product (not surprising) as I read their terms and conditions. That is going to cut out users of Agfa or other such. Perhaps the originator would clarify these issues. Peridon (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as only notability is based on a non-notable award.Yobmod (talk) 11:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only notability is based on an award that we can't verify, and which doesn't appear to be all that notable itself, either. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. meets GNG and WP:CREATIVE; currently reads like an advert and needs massaging for tone and integration of sources. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Oiticica[edit]

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Does not appear to meet WP:N and WP:CREATIVE. Interesting, but I don't see notability. Frank | talk 12:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Artist whose work has been exhibited in major museums throughout the world. 12 media stories in 4 different countries are linked (although one or two of them seem to be syndicated stories appearing in multiple papers). 95 hits in google news. [70] I see no way in which this artist could possibly be considered not notable. JulesH (talk) 12:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think it meets WP:NOTABILITY for an artist. §FreeRangeFrog 19:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Keep My vote was cast in haste and with little forethought, apologies. Sources do clearly establish notability. §FreeRangeFrog 19:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why not redirect to the article on her husband instead. Not sure you can wrest an entire standalone page for her. §FreeRangeFrog 19:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because she isn't her husband? Because discussing her or her work in more than the briefest fashion in the page about her husband would be somewhat peculiar? Besides, I still don't see how you think she doesn't meet WP:N. There are 12 stories linked from the article, most of which appear to be distinct from each other, all of which are in reliable sources, and all of which offer substantial coverage of her and her work. OK, this only establishes a "presumption" of notability, but in the face of such a presumption, I'd suggest it's up to those who think she isn't notable to explain exactly why they think she doesn't meet the guidelines. JulesH (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're not distinct, they are different stories about the same two works at the same places. The Galician article talks about the same thing as the Spanish one, as the Brazilian one, as the Italian one. I can read Spanish, Italian and Portuguese well enough. So you have two different "events" around two different works reported on different non-national media. Does that establish notability? I don't think it does. In fact the only reason I think she's notable is because of who she's married to, which is why I suggested merging the information into the other article if it doesn't meet notability and/or not enough of the material can be sourced. §FreeRangeFrog 09:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't matter. By "distinct" I mean "not the same text"... i.e. "intellectually independent" as required by WP:N. Yes, I'm aware that they're discussing the same two works, but I don't see why this is an issue. If an artist has only 2 notable works, that doesn't mean the artist is not notable. I'd go so far as to say an artist with a single notable work is usually notable; and WP:CREATIVE agrees with me. I don't think her husband has anything to do with this, as he gets at best a passing mention (and in many cases no mention at all) in the linked articles.

Again, WP:N states that if there are multiple significant independent reliable sources about a subject, the subject is presumed to be notable. We have here multiple significant independent reliable sources, so there is a presumption of notability. Why is that presumption wrong? JulesH (talk) 09:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the websites linked, I agree that they are indeed reviewing the same artwork in different languages, however they are sufficently different and independent of each other. I myself, have come to the conclusion that the artist does indeed qualify as notable and that she should retain a place in wikipedia independent of her husbands page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samerandomhero (talk • contribs) 19:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment JulesH - You are indeed right. I must apologize, especially since I posted twice trying to make the same incorrect point. The relationship to a well-known figure and the linked articles and the fact that they seem to refer to the same two "thing" caused my brain to skid on WP:ONEEVENT, or at least I think that was it. Cold medications sure don't help either. §FreeRangeFrog 19:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and salt - patent nonsense. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snow rape[edit]

Delete non encyclopedic hoax MrShamrock (talk) 11:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:MADEUP. Article has repeatedly been speedy deleted and promptly recreated with the same material; hopefully it will be speedied and salted so the completion of this AfD will be unnecessary. Baileypalblue (talk) 12:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was - Moot - this is a move request which I've done. You can use ((db-move)) for this in the future - Peripitus (Talk) 11:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adelaide United season 2005-06[edit]

This page is a redirect to Adelaide United season F.C. 2005–06. That page should be moved to the title of THIS page in accordance with other Adelaide United season articles. It cannot be moved as this page contains a redirect, and will not allow a page move over redirect. timsdad ^(talk) 11:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 01:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CheeseTracker[edit]

Article is not referenced from independent sources (WP:V), and does not show how this software might be notable (WP:N, for example does not appear to have received significant coverage from reliable, independent published sources.) Marasmusine (talk) 10:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable software. Maybe later. §FreeRangeFrog 20:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails WP:N and as original prodder. Tavix (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: failed software project, no source other than its own announcement of cancellation. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 01:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Enrique Del Campo[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. JaGa^talk 05:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mayalld (talk) 10:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Biographical article about a normally sucessful person of insufficient note in the wider world. No awards, third party biography, news articles or anything else that would let us write a verifiable article. - Peripitus (Talk) 10:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability not asserted. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 11:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claims of notability in the article that would justify inclusion in an encyclopedia -- CEO of a non-notable company, unpublished author, non-notable martial arts instructor. Ghits come up with no reliable, independent sources on this subject. Baileypalblue (talk) 11:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Being a non-notable Carlos isn't the worst thing either. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 10:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drift: The Sideways Craze[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:NF. Schuym1 (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 01:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources writing about this documentary. - Whpq (talk) 18:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as niche field Discovery Channel high definition documentary film[71] covered in niche articles about racing techniques.[72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79]. Article should be tagged for expansion and sourcing, not deletion. We need us some NASCAR Wikipedians to work on this 'un. (or is that an contradiction in terms?) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- None of those sources show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 20:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its a niche documentary and needs niche experts from the world of auto racing. I will WP:AGF that considering the fact that Discovery Channel put it out, that they likely exist. I do not have to find them. I do not have to show them. I do not have to repeatedly WP:RESCUE articles when other editors are not inclined to do so. Not being an expert in that field of auto racing, I only need assume that they likely exist. You need not WP:AGF, as that is your perogative. Which do you find easier to do... nominating an article for deletion even when it might be improved, or actually improving it yourself per WP:BEFORE or WP:ATD? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't think that I could improve it because none of the results that I found would make it pass WP:NF. Schuym1 (talk) 02:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - But if others could have improved it? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - With most articles that get deleted, no one will know. Schuym1 (talk) 04:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Most articles that go to AFD might have been improved in the future. If people didn't nominate articles that might be improved in the future, then there would not be much of a need for WP:AFD. You are not assuming good faith towards me. Schuym1 (talk) 02:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If they get deleted, they will never be improved. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I know. Schuym1 (talk) 04:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To my perhaps incorrect understanding, AfD is the last resort for articles for which there is absolutely no hope, and not to be used to force improvement or force a merge even when wiki has no deadline for improvememnts. It is my perhaps incorrect understanding that if there was even the merest possibility that an article might be improved, then it should be tagged for cleanup or expansion or sourcing or rescue... as per WP:ATD. But maybe I am wrong... and maybe its time to disband the Rescue Squad and we can all stop trying to rescue this stuff. So I asked you the question... which is easier for you, writing an article that someone sends to AFD, fixing an article at AfD, or nominating one for deletion? If your answer is you nominate because you cannot yourself improve an article, fine. But do you then nominate only because you don't think it can be improved... or only because you are unable to yourself? No bad faith in my question, as I want you to better understand what AfD is really all about. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your response doesn't make sense. First you say that it is fine if I nominate it because I can't improve it myself then after that you say "But do you then nominate only because you don't think it can be improved... or only because you are unable to yourself?". It is impossible for anyone to determine what you specifically mean. I know that articles can possibilly be improved in the future. But I don't think that it is right to !vote keep when no one knows for sure. The articles might not get improved and sit around forever without any significant improvements. I nominate articles for deletion because I can't improve them myself. Schuym1 (talk) 03:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is no deadline. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I know and I repeatedly ignore that. If people always went by that, there wouldn't be much of a need for AFD. Schuym1 (talk) 04:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your question "writing an article that someone sends to AFD, fixing an article at AfD, or nominating one for deletion" is bull. It's the same way for everyone: 1st: Writing an article that gets to AFD, 2nd: Nominating an article, and 3rd: fixing an article. Schuym1 (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - No bull, as I myself have halped rescue at least three of your own articles that got sent to AfD. Fixing is supposed to be BEFORE AfD, not as a result of AfD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I replied literally for fun because I didn't know what you meant. (as I said below). Maybe I should have added the beginning which is "which is easier for you". Schuym1 (talk) 04:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That above was me being literal. I don't know what you mean by that. Schuym1 (talk) 03:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - What actually is bull is that you want to teach me what AFD is all about. Many users have different opinions about that. Schuym1 (talk) 04:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - And I was seeking your reasonings. Now I have them. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which depends on if you are an inclusionist, a deletionist, or something in between. Schuym1 (talk) 04:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The improvement of wikipedia is the goal. Not inclusionism or deletionism. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - My point is that many editors have different opinions about what that is. "The Sum Of All Human Knowledge" my butt. Schuym1 (talk)
        Yes, "The Sum" is pretty much an impossible task. But just because you could not find sources does not mean they are do not exist. AfD's do weed out some utter crap... and rightly so. I am not a NASCAR afficienado, so I opined a "weak keep" because there might be one editing wiki who knows just where to look. If its gone in 4 days no one will ever be looking. If its tagged for cleanup and expansion, someone might actually do so. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I know. They might exist. Mostly every article might have significant coverage in reliable sources. Someone might improve it. You should discuss this with most other AFD particpators and not just me. Schuym1 (talk) 05:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        ?? I am. My comments and thoughts on the matter are here now for everyone and anyone who reads this page. But as of yet, no one else has opined. I had made my initial comment above with my "weak keep" and have been underfire ever since. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        You do not understand my point at all. Schuym1 (talk) 05:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Which of the many points? That you sent it to be deleted because you could not yourself find sources? Or that if an article is not improved within some set timeframe it should get booted? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - The AFD discussion if for the merits of the article. Let's keep things focused on the topic. If you want to discuss philosophy of inclusionism or deletionism, take it to your talk pages. Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 11:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: agree with nominator WP:NF. JamesBurns (talk) 03:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge No reason to lose this content all together from the encyclopedia. This isn't some myspace homemade movie. If it doesn't have enough notability for an independent article then let's merge/ mention it in the appropriate article on the subject. Certainly it's worth including in some fashion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mayalld (talk) 10:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. In light of the consensus that subject is notable, the article is retained. MBisanz ^talk 21:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Massey[edit]

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Subject is not sufficiently notable. He does not hold a tenured position, has not done genuinely groundbreaking research, nor is he a leader in his field. Many people have published on the journal Nature or been interviewed on the BBC. Neither makes them notable. Puffino (talk) 10:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, academic is not notable. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 11:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quoted on dark matter [80] in "State of the Universe 2008." List of papers at [ http://www.astro.caltech.edu/~rjm/papers.php] Guest at ACKS seminar [81] and a multitude of other cites readily available. This is not just a person who was interviewed by the BBC and written for Nature at all. "Senior postdoctoral scholar" is a fairly high title, by the way. Cerncourier is not a blog ... [82] says "The international collaboration led by Richard Massey, also from Caltech, analysed the Cosmic Evolution Survey (COSMOS) ... " which rather implies that he was the head of that project, hence notable there as well. Collect (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- A senior postdoctoral fellow is, if you like, a temporary "training" job before one applies for a university lectureship in the UK, or an assistant professorship in the US. There are many many people who hold temporary jobs of this nature, and many of them do not go on to become faculty members at the same or some other university at all. So he has forty papers. Most cosmologists/astrophysicists/physicists of his experience have about forty papers. His citation count is also not amazing (http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+A+MASSEY%2C+R&FORMAT=wwwcitesummary&SEQUENCE=). That's like the minimum you need to survive in academia. Likewise, many people make it to the CERN courier; I'd say 90% of them are not on WP. The COSMOS survey is led by Nicolas Scoville and Bill Green (http://cosmos.astro.caltech.edu/overview/members.html). Anyone interested to write WP articles for these two? The ACKS seminar series are just an internal seminar series at Stanford. Most physicists of similar experience are invited to give seminars of this kind on a routine basis. That's how we sell our works! Look, I'm not saying Massey is no good, and he may well become notable enough in the future to be worth a WP article. But at the moment he is not. Puffino (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless someone can come up with more information than what's on the page right now, which hardly establishes notability. §FreeRangeFrog 20:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep At the moment, he is no longer Senior Postdoctoral Scholar at Caltech, but "Advanced Fellow" at the Royal Observatory, Edinburgh. Such designations can mean quite a variety of things, depending on the university; it can be part of a nonprofessorial research line that can in some cases be tenured and very senior. In this case, he went to SPDS immediately after an ordinary postdoc, so it's essentially not really a high level position; in American terms, I'd put his present position as something like Research Assistant Professor which is not enough by itself for notability. As a check, he is currently supervising his first PhD student, as an Assistant Professor would do. In any case, he needs to be judged by the work, whether he meets the PROF criterion of being an authority in his subject. It sometimes happens that for one reason or another non-academic press gets itself interested in a relatively junior scientist; if it does to a sufficiently great extent, it's notability, but the one BBC reference is not enough for that here. Scopus shows 47 published papers, with citation counts 64, 52, 49, 44. The highest one with him as principal author is, not surprisingly, the Nature paper in 2007, with 41 citations by now. If half the citations come the first 2 or 3 years, as in a very fast moving corner of things, it will reach over 100,along with some of his other papers. I think that he's borderline, just about to become notable. If we don't put it in now, we probably will a year from now. DGG (talk) 04:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

an interesting illustration of the insecurity of judgment by title, is Michael Kurtz from Harvard-Smithsonian, (80 or so papers, citation counts 175, 147, 112), though without a WP article so far; his title is "Astronomer" -- nothing more. DGG (talk) 04:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 04:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Along with the usual arguments about how his work is well-cited enough to pass WP:PROF #1 (probably only good enough for a weak keep in his case), he seems to have attracted a reasonable amount of mainstream media attention. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with DGG that he is borderline as a scientist for the moment, but that he'll certainly pass our criteria very soon (even if he would stop working right now...) I agree with David Eppstein that the mainstream attention sways the case to a keep. --Crusio (talk) 09:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Citation counts should always be interpreted with the citation practices of the field in mind. In this case, 40 citations in two years may seem like a lot in some fields. But when compared with well-known papers published in the past few years in the same field, it falls way way short. An example is "Detection of the baryon acoustic peak in the large-scale correlation function of SDSS luminous red galaxies." from January 2005: cited 735 times all time, 90 times in the first year after publication (http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?eprint=astro-ph/0501171). And of course, the ultimate show-stopper, "Five-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Cosmological Interpretation" from March 2008: 747 citations in less than a year (http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?eprint=arXiv:0803.0547). Incidentally, neither of the first authors of these works has a WP article. What these citation stats tells us is that the cosmology community deems the Massey paper interesting, but far from influential. It is a good paper however, and will certainly help to land him on the shortlist for a university lectureship (an STFC/PPARC advanced fellowship, by the way, is a non-tenurable 5-year fellowship), but not on the shortlist for a major award. Another point is that every large scale survey like the COSMOS survey will pick up a few hundred citations over its lifetime; otherwise it wouldn't be worth the taxpayers' money spent on them. But is every observation bound to yield a significant/influential result? The answer is clearly no. As for the mainstream media picking up on this paper, maybe it's simply correlated with the fact that the paper was published in Nature, which every respectable science journalist knows (and scours for publishable material), not a specialised journal? Puffino (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to ISI's Essential Science Indicators, a 2007 paper in Physics that has 43 citations, falls in the top 0.1% most cited papers of 2007. To be in the top 1%, 17 citations is enough. Given that the paer we are talking about here has 40 citations, this has ot be in the top 0.2% or something like that. Apparently, 41 citations for a paper published in 2007 is a lot.... --Crusio (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am honestly intrigued by these numbers. Can you tell me exactly where you found them? They are decidedly low; accordingly, of the five papers I (a physicist) published in 2007, one is in the top 0.1%, another in probably the top 0.5%, and two others in the top 1%. And I assure you, I am not notable.Puffino (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good for you, I'm envious (didn't get higher than the top 10% in my own field.... :-). The Essential Science Indicators are part of the Web of Knowledge/Web of Science. Click on the "select database" tab and you'll find them there. It's the baselines that you will want to see after that. As you are a publishing physicist, I assume that your institution has access to these databases. Our access goes through a special gateway, so the URLs I use would not be of any use to you. --Crusio (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per David Eppstein and Crusio. I believe he meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Also probably meets WP:BIO based on independent media coverage.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To me the numbers from the Essential Science Indicators for physics provided by Crusio are very strange. The only explanation I can think of is that there are some significant differences in the citation trends within different subdiscplines of physics. In this case, the subdiscipline is cosmology, and speaking as a cosmologist working at a major research insitution, 40 citations in two years do not qualify the paper as having made a significant impact in the field. (For the record, I don't work on exactly the same topic as Massey so we are not competitors. But our topics are so closely related that I have in fact, on one or two occasions, contributed to his citation count.) Notes and Examples 1 in WP:PROF says "... Differences in typical citation and publication rates and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account". Many young cosmologists of similar experience have this kind of citation counts or better. Example, go to UC Berkeley TAC (http://astro.berkeley.edu/tac/) or Cambridge IoA (http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/), and do a citation search for the postdoctoral fellows. Now there are some seriously impressive looking numbers... Footnote 4 of WP:PROF says "... The meaning of "substantial number of publications" and "high citation rates" is to be interpreted in line with the interpretations used by major research institutions in the awarding of tenure." The fact that he does not yet have tenure shows that the paper did not create such an impact that everyone is rushing out to give him a job. I am sorry if I seem a little pushy here. But this is such a gross misrepresentation of who is important and who is not in my field that I feel I have to defend it. Puffino (talk) 12:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think your expert comments here are very useful, and should be taken into consideration by the deciding admin. In my view, sometimes a combination of choice of topic (e.g., dark matter mapping) and media coverage will push someone into the scope of criterion #1, although that is not always the case. Also, as far as academics are concerned, Wikipedia is not only about excellence, although more often than not it is. Someone may be notable because he or she is lucky in the choice of topic, or in the choice of how to address a topic. I can also see the possibility of notability as a academic by making a major blunder, or committing academic fraud.--Eric Yurken (talk) 16:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually went to the Berkeley site that you gave and looked up some of the postdocs listed there on WoS. I limited myself to those who had names that were more likely to be unique, to minimize the amount of time this would cost me. This is what I found: Niccolo Bucciantini, highest cited article (2003) 58 cites; Joe Hennawi (2004) 138 cites (2nd author), another one with 127 cites (9th out of very many authors). Highest cited article as first author (2003) 34 cites. Rowin Meijerink (2005) 41 cites; Ian Parrish (2005) 23 cites. Given that I would expect Berkeley to amass some of the best postdocs, I don't really see your point that this is so much better than Massey, in fact, most of it is lower. Concerning citations rates, I also looked at the impact factors of journals in the ISI category "ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS". The five highest ranked journals have IFs of 20.3 - 7.9 - 7.7 - 6.4 - 6.1. This does not really suggest to me that the percentile data from "Essential Science Indicators" are wrong, these IFs indeed suggest that 40 citations for a paper published in 2007 is exceptional. Where do you get your citation counts? --Crusio (talk) 17:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Crusio: I was trying to avoid naming names here, but it looks like I have to name a few. Try Lewis and Peiris at Cambridge IoA. These actually give a fairer comparison, since both hold exactly the same position as Massey ("STFC advanced fellow") and so can be considered as having similar experience. For Lewis, highest first author cite is about 400 (two papers). Peiris's best first author cite is 600. This was written with a famous collaboration. But even after discounting this, Peiris's next best first author cites are easily above 40 (two papers from the late 2006). Or Percival at Portsmouth (not your usual top bracket university, http://www.icg.port.ac.uk/~percivalw/) who is also an advanced fellow: best first author cite is 370 (paper from May 2001), and more recently a paper from May 2007 (newer than Massey's) with 73 refereed cites. (I'm only quoting refereed cites by the way.) Even Zahn at Berkeley, a younger guy and a theorist not attached to a large collaboration (and therefore less likely to pick up citations than an observer; see footnote 4 of WP:PROF), has an April 2006 first author paper with 60 cites. I can go on naming individuals... Another thing you need to take into account is that some cosmologists also publish in more particle physics related areas, in which alphabetical listings of authors are the norm. In these cases principal authorship is difficult to establish. I get my citations from two sources: SPIRES at http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires and NASA ADS http://www.adsabs.harvard.edu/. SPIRES is more focused on high energy physics, while ADS is more on astrophysics. Neither is terribly complete, but ADS has a function which allows you to filter out only citations in refereed journals. Puffino (talk) 19:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More names (I'm actually having a bit of fun with this). These are all STFC advanced fellows (I'm not even going outside of the UK): Christian Wolf of Oxford, best first author cite 173. (By the way, I am only quoting the best first author cite; naturally these people all have other papers, first author or otherwise, with 100+ or 50+ citations. And I'm restricting myself to galaxies and larger; stellar and planetary physics are a different game again. All cite info comes from ADS http://www.adsabs.harvard.edu/, citations from refereed articles only.} David Bacon of Portsmouth (actually a collaborator of Massey): 200 for a paper from 2000 which picked up 80 citations in the first two years (actually that was a very interesting result: they first showed that weak gravitational lensing by large scale structures of the universe can be detected, a technique later used by Massey et al. to make the Dark Matter Map). Michele Cappellari of Oxford, 138. D Farrah of Uni Sussex, 71 cites. M. T. Murphy, Cambridge, 155 cites. Uttley, Southampton, 82. My internet connection is not very good so I'll stop here. Maybe tomorrow I'll continue with the Emmy Noether fellows in Germany (another non-tenured 5-year glorified postdoc job). Puffino (talk) 23:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Eric Yurken: Yes, there is certainly an element of luck here. "Dark matter mapping" is admittedly more palatable to the general public than "A Mini-landscape of exact MSSM spectra in heterotic orbifolds" (a paper, not mine, of similar vintage and citation), and therefore more readily attracts media attention. If mere media coverage is a sufficient criterion to make a scientist doing his regular job notable, then so be it. Puffino (talk) 19:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These SPIRES/arXiv counts being given are like counts from Google Scholar or arXiv, giving references made not just from published papers, but from lectures, preprints, notes, theses, and unpublished working material of all sorts. When using GS, there's a rough rule of thumb to convert to actual peer-reviewed citations: divide by 2. From arXiv in physics, dividing by 3 is usually closer. For astronomy, with its incredibly well developed system for non-article posted communications, I'm not sure how to do the comparison. Certainly looking at a sample I think maybe the factor should be 4 or 5. I haven't tried the ADS filter yet--and I want to consult a specialist. DGG (talk) 00:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am however not happy with negative arguments such as "only doing his job". That's the same as the frequent deletion reason "Just another ...". Scientists becomes notable from doing their job, just as do football players. Some are more notable than others--this can arise from having done their job better, or happening to appeal to the public, or just luck. If I were reviewing people for tenure, I'd certainly try to separate the ones who are making an actual permanent contribution from the others--particularly the ones who are likely to continue making fundamental permanent contributions. (these can be very long arguments, when a group of strong-minded people try to predict the future, especially when there are a fixed number of openings, and many people to choose from. But fortunately we don't have to decide that. We're just looking for notability, however achieved. We are not the arbiters of scientific merit. we have no quota of astronomers. We don't have to fund the people whose articles get here, or work in the next room to them for the rest of our career. If people are at all likely to look up someone in an encyclopedia, the article should be here. This reminds me of the commercial spammers saying "but you have articles on our (usually much larger & better-known) competitors. We're not here to do Justice any more than to find the Truth. DGG (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that SPIRES will, generally for high energy physicits, overestimate their citations (but factor of 4 or 5 is way high; factor of 1.5 to 2 per refereed paper is more realistic). It's usually less of a problem for astrophysics because SPIRES does not focus on this area. But to avoid this problem, I made the point of quoting numbers only from ADS with the refereed filter switched on. For a quick comparison, if you do a search for the Massey paper under consideration on ADS, you get 61 cites without the filter, and 43 with filter. The second number is essentially what you quoted from your Scopus search earlier. (SPIRES gives it 45 by the way.) Scientific merit constitutes the crux of Criterion #1 of WP:PROF (otherwise why all the discussions here about what is a high citation rate?). But if the consensus is that media coverage overrides that, then there is really nothing more I can say. Puffino (talk) 10:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

just as a side point, I think the factor is affected by the years examined--about half the most recent unpublished work tends to get published after a few years. DGG (talk) 01:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 01:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ron-Robert Zieler[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Player is not notable according to WP:ATHLETE as he has not competed in a fully professional football league/cup competition. Under-19 internationals do not confer notability according to consensus at WP:FOOTY – Pee Jay 10:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. – Pee Jay 10:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Recreate when/if he becomes notable. Giant Snowman 11:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, possibly speedy delete G4. I haven't seen the original article, but it sounds as though it was re-created in substantially the same form without addressing the rationale for deletion in the first AfD. Baileypalblue (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The original was deleted in 2007, so it cannot be the same form because things that happened in 2008 were not accounted for. Hence I declined G4 this time. Regards So Why 12:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and recreate if he does make a first team app. Govvy (talk) 13:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lots of potential, but when and if he accomplishes something I'm sure he'll deserve a page. §FreeRangeFrog 20:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN in that has not played yet in anything notable, recreate if and when--ClubOranje^T 10:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 00:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Republic of Offtask[edit]

I tagged this for speedy deletion under G3 but it has been sitting there for several hours now, so I guess there was enough uncertainty in people's minds for them to neither reject the proposal nor delete the article.

My proposal was that the article was blatant misinformation, and the doubt might be "but in fact it could be a micronation". Indeed I was probably wrong since I have found, for example, that there is a street in London which claims to be a micronation (and the article easily survived an AfD).

So I have withdrawn my speedy delete proposal and brought the article here instead. "The Republic of Offtask" has a website [83] and that is the only reference I can find. I will propose the article here on the grounds of lack of notability and verifiability. Jll (talk) 09:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an idle fancy thought up by a schoolboy/girl a few weeks ago: The Republic of Offtask (also known as just Offtask) is a micronation with a republic government established by Kai Tamkun at 5:55 PM, Sunday, January 11 (12317070689). It comprises of approximately Kai's house, and the life lab in Gateway school. Well done, Kai; now get it into the Santa Cruz Sentinel. Morenoodles (talk) 10:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no reliable source coverage, unlike notable micronations. This is indeed MADEUP. Baileypalblue (talk) 12:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable micronation. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nice try. §FreeRangeFrog 20:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oxygen plant[edit]

Semi-blatant spam. Article creator, and primary editor, is User:Grasys - Grasys is a company also mentioned in the article as conveniently producing aforementioned "oxygen plants." Gsearches for text in the article turn up links such as [84] which are promotional materials for Grasys products. Mr. Vernon (talk) 08:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google has never heard of an "oxygen adsorbtion plant" as described by the article, and even if it's a typo for "absorbtion" as google suggests, none of the 6 results are for the same thing. JulesH (talk) 08:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, it is a typo, but for a different word. Should have been "oxygen adsorption plant", which turns up a few ghits, some of which seem to be reliable sources: [85][86][87]. Unsure as to whether this constitutes enough for an article on such plants. JulesH (talk) 09:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Particularly seeing as all three are apparently talking about the same plant, which GRASYS is contracted to supply. If only one of these has ever been built, is the concept that notable? JulesH (talk) 09:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually found some other manufactures [88][89] [90]. They just call them oxygen plants or nitrogen plants, but it seems to be same concept as in article, something about purifing air. I think the article is a keeper, although the stuff about Grasys should probably be removed. TheFreeloader (talk) 09:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK I try to correct the article based on your remarks. GRASYS —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep I've corrected the typo. These are fairly common oxygen sources, similar to the nitrogen generators in idea. Should be in Wikipedia. More references needed - easy to find, but I'm off to dentist now... Peridon (talk) 11:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Should be cleaned up, but quite an important thing for which to have an article. Valley2city^‽ 20:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Author might have a conflict of interest, but as long as the article itself passes the blatant advert test, it's worthy of inclusion. Subject matter experts and all that. §FreeRangeFrog 20:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the blatant advertisement test is merely what's necessary to avoid immediate deletion by speedy, not for keeping a a WP article.DGG (talk) 04:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 01:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nitrogen generator[edit]

Semi-blatant spam. Notice the article creator was Grasys, which is also mentioned in the link at the end of the article. Also notice that much of the copy and pictures comes from Grasys promotional materials - see [91]. Mr. Vernon (talk) 08:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and tag for cleanup. In contrast to the oxygen plants above, nitrogen generators are common equipment produced by a wide variety of companies, including many that use the adsorption technique described here. If Grasys have licensed us their pictures and text to use under GFDL, as it appears, that gives us a good head start on producing a useful article about this common industrial equipment. JulesH (talk) 09:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup per JulesH. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 09:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grasys Hi. Of course, i can licensed all pictures and text. I have the same license in Russia because i need more time for translations. Where i can send text of license? GRASYS
Keep. Besides giving grasys.com as the sole reference, there are no other problems with the article. Xasodfuih (talk) 10:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A piece of equipment that should be here. I've added another commercial link, and a non-commercial one. There are loads more suppliers if anyone wants to add a few... Peridon (talk) 10:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nononono we should diversify the references, but remove all suppliers from the external links because they end up spam magnets. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 11:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, then... Peridon (talk) 14:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to me that whatever commercial conflicts of interest might exist, machines for making nitrogen are nevertheless a worthy topic, and any problems that come from spam insertion or excessive featuring of the machines of any one supplier can be dealt with by editing. And if the people at Grasys wish to dedicate their own photos under the GFDL, there's no reason to reject them. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per AfD of Oxygen plant. We should not be punishing SMEs if they produce valid non-POV and non-SPAM content. §FreeRangeFrog 20:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 00:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Viwawa[edit]

An online game written up by user:Viwawanomics. Is it notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spamality. JuJube (talk) 08:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advertising. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 11:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Independent coverage here and here. Epbr123 (talk) 13:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have a direct link to the article for the pressdisplay coverage? Your link goes to a viewer with about 40 articles, and Firefox isn't finding "viwawa" on the page. Pagra shtak 15:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - [92] Epbr123 (talk) 15:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment WP:NOTE requires "significant coverage", which means it has to be more than trivial. The provided source is only a trivial mention. --Peephole (talk) 15:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Calling Viwawa "Asia’s fastest growing social gaming network" isn't trivial. Besides, the other source I linked to is a nine paragraph article on the subject. Epbr123 (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Here's a link to the full article and not just the preview. Pagra shtak 21:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        We need independent articles, not press releases. --Peephole (talk) 03:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        This isn't a press release. Epbr123 (talk) 12:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Delete. "Viwawa (...), announced on Tuesday..." - It's a press release. So far, the only source calling this company "Asia’s fastest growing social gaming network" is Viwawa themselves. Sources/links provided in the article are not satisfactory; for example, the Infocomm123 "Special Article" is a glorified advert. Marasmusine (talk) 13:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wasn't able to read the linked-to articles. All I was able to find were press releases, and they all say "Asia’s fastest growing social gaming network". That said, you might have better luck on Chinese-language sites since the company is from Singapore and caters to the rest of Asia. SharkD (talk) 07:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam, no reliable sources. --Peephole (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability big time. §FreeRangeFrog 20:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 00:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket 09 (video game)[edit]

Fails Notability. Nothing but pure speculation. SkyWalker (talk) 07:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. SkyWalker (talk) 07:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Not enough information available to support an article. Too speculative to even mention in the article on the predecessors. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Noj r (talk) 07:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 00:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Denise Chong[edit]

Fails WP:Bio Oo7565 (talk) 06:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." This criterion is true in regards to both of the books mentioned in the author's article. JulesH (talk) 07:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to Jules' comment. The author won multiple awards. Not big ones, but important because they're long-running and given out by notable organizations with literary knowledge -- Mgm|^(talk) 11:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per User:JulesH; an author of widely-noted/best-selling/multiple-award-winning books satisfies the notability requirements of WP:CREATIVE. Reliable sources in the article meet the general notability guideline. Baileypalblue (talk) 11:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm a big sucker for wide inclusion of book writers, as long as it's not spam. §FreeRangeFrog 20:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A3 lack of substantial content. Mgm|^(talk) 11:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snack tooth[edit]

Non-notable neologism. A few ghits. Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, neologisms and memes must go. §FreeRangeFrog 06:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete no notability asserted. JuJube (talk) 08:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 21:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Putinjugend[edit]

AfDs for this article:

These articles have previously closed as either keep or no consensus, and all are the matter of great contention in this area of editing on WP. So I think it is worth bringing them to AfD as a joint nomination, and allow us all to thrash them out for once and for all. All articles are built on terms which are only marginally notable, and do not really have a widespread usage, as I think can clearly be shown from previous AfDs on these very articles. Whilst previous AfDs may have set precedents and the like, we have to get back to basics and start raising the bar on what we should and shouldn't be allowing to creep into this encyclopaedia. Other articles may have been kept on the premise of other articles existing, so why not discuss them all together as a group and perhaps this will help to cut out the utter bullshit in this area of editing on WP. It is my firm hope, and belief, that others will see it the same way that I do, and agree that we are here to help build an encyclopaedia, not to engage in advocacy, and if one looks at how people opine in this AfD compared to the other AfDs we may just see who is here for the good of the project and who is here to advocate. Russavia ^Dialogue 05:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are only marginally notable as per above:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 06:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 06:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phone Call to Putin (2nd nomination) where one of the nominated articles was kept only 1 week ago, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ESStonia where another failed to reach consensus two weeks ago. JulesH (talk) 07:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bundling together such widely separated topics of disparate levels of notability and encyclopædic value for a single AFD seems to be a case of disruptive WP:POINT-making. It's especially obvious considering that all of these articles *were* on AFD very recently. I figure the nominator is trying to wrangle at least some of them going his way through a false equivalence after he was unhappy about the consensus developed in the original discussions. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 08:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per JulesH. JuJube (talk) 08:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as well as Phone call to Putin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), ESStonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Putinland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 09:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All The single article "Putinjugend" originally nominated has sources that seem fully adequate. ESStonia has sources that are harder for me to judge but seem also adequate. "Phone Call" is too early to renominate--I think that another 4 or 5 months should be required before the third nomination--at which I expect an even greater consensus to keep.. NOT CENSORED applies: we are not the Encyclopedia of nice things only, and the political implications of things are not our concern. DGG (talk) 10:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not (only) about 'political implications'. It's about general notability and WP:NOT. As I've already said, why then not start the long overdue Ansipism, Putin-Dobby, IlveSS,Obamajugend, Dorogoy Leonid Ilyich, Näksip, Nikita Kukuruznik, all of which also have quite a number of google hits. (Obamism has even 9,600!) I've already proposed finding a consensual solution to those creations, be it re-directing or merging.--Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 10:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Dubious nom; all three articles have been up for deletion within the last two months and not deleted. There's little point in simply repeatedly putting stuff up for AfD in the hope of obtaining the result you want. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might wish to consult Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE. Wikipedia is not a news report. Most, if not all, of those sources the articles have, belong to this category. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 14:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per WP:NOTAGAIN.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before engaging in WP:ALPHABETSOUP you might want to check the previous discussions and see, that there was no consensus in those cases, yet. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog^{M. se fâche}(woof!) 14:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's relevant, I'm afraid. A "no consensus" closure is still a closure. There's no point closing debates if people are going to perenially re-open them because they're unhappy with the outcome.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I thought WP:NOT, WP:V etc are more important than procedural rules, which hopefully will not prevent the users concerned from finding a solution, by evenignoring some rules ;-). --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog^{M. se fâche}(woof!) 15:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all- for my reasoning re: Phone Call, see the previous AFD. Nothing has changed in the two weeks or so since then (plus a related DRV, IIRC). For the others, they have multiple independent sources, indicating notability. If nom has problems with neutrality, they are free to edit it to correct the POV so that its more neutral. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A web-page or two using a term do not render the term relevant for an encyclopedia. Common sense tells us that encyclopedia has as articles only terms and subjects that have some relevance and notability. Encyclopedias are definitely not collections of derogatory neologisms. Would you expect to find an article entitled [eSStonia]] in Britannica? or Putinjugend in Encarta? No, you don't. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog^{M. se fâche}(woof!) 15:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but we're not talking web pages, we're talking about news stories. If they were just blogs run by people with an axe to grind against Putin, you'd have a case. But they're not, so you don't. As for the not finding it in Britannica or Encarta... So what? I wouldn't expect a discussion of do not want in there either. Doesn't make it not worthy of inclusion here. We cover things they don't. That's what makes us different from them. Nothing you're presenting here strikes me as a valid argument for deletion.Umbralcorax (talk) 16:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say in that case, we have two different opinions what an encyclopedia should include and what not. The stubs we treat here deserve some mention in more general and valid articles, e.g. Nashi/Anti-Estonian sentiment etc. It's amusing that surfacing here as strong supporters of inclusion are many people with no intimate relation with the Eastern European topic; and I find it as a step forward that 'insiders' have made reasonable suggestions, too. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog^{M. se fâche}(woof!) 16:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep all, treat differently:
- Putinjugend: rename to Pro-Putin youth organizations in Russia (or more general and more common, Pro-Kremlin youth organizations: "pro-kremlin youth" is 12,600 google hits, "Pro-Putin youth" is 2,700 hits), a neutral term for notable subject
- eSStonia: merge into Anti-Estonian sentiment - huge overlap, neutral title; and there are more Russian hate coinages in the same style: AnSSip, etc. We are not going to write all these articles, are we?
- Phone call to Putin: redirect to Mikheyev v. Russia, since it is a single-context term with no evidence of wide usage in Russia

- 7-bubёn >t 16:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per DGG. Debate merging only after closing this AfD discussion.Biophys (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per DGG. And stop the nominarions, please. We are not the Encyclopedia of nice things only, I like Miacek a lot, and the dogs too, but Russia has great things and not all so great thing also...

Warrington (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep all. Isn't the nominator being a bit disruptive here? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a discussion at Talk:Phone call to Putin to establish consensus on which title/version of the article is more appropriate for WP. (Igny (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Merge and redirect as already proposed. Standalone neologisms must go. §FreeRangeFrog 20:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I am concerned that creating articles such as these on marginal political subjects - often, it seems, using a neologism as a title - is being used for advocacy and POV pushing in Wikipedia. The bar must be set higher. Neutrality and reliability is more important than having an article on everything, especially when it comes to controversial political subjects such as these. Offliner (talk) 00:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and slap the nominator with a WP:TROUT. These were just debated a few weeks ago and re-hashing hoping that consensus has changed in the 2 to 3 weeks or that perhaps a different crowd shows up is gaming the system. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
End this disruptive process and deal with the articles individually. I went to merge eSStonia into Anti-Estonian sentiment as overwhelmingly recommended in the merge nomination. Merging the first into the second, it became apparent that there was only one paragraph that wasn't already there. When I went to do the redirect, I saw this page and thought I better check it out. I think the only purpose of this nomination must have been to bollox everything up. Idlewild101 (talk) 14:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All reviewing each of the articles, there are ample reliable and verifiable sources to support the claim of notability in all three articles. Alansohn (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The disscussion to merge eSStonia into Anti-Estonian sentiment has been closed as merge (see AfM). I took the liberty to perform a blind merge (no edit) and placed a deletion tag with a request not to delete until this discussion is completed. Is this all right? Dc76\^talk 14:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To be on the safe side, I replaced the deletion tag with redirect. I assume, the issue with eSStonia is now solved. Am I right/wrong? Dc76\^talk 15:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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|G12, copyright violation) Mgm|^(talk) 11:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Cavania Sanders[edit]

Not notable per WP:BIO. Also, the content seems to come straight from this website. JaGa^talk 05:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does indeed. Speedy delete as copyvio. "COPYRIGHT / 2008 cavania / All Copyright and reproduction rights are retained by the artist." Incidentally, the web page comes with BGM in part from the excellent Madeleine Peyroux; I wonder what she says to the notion that her "Copyright and reproduction rights are retained by" the webmaster. Morenoodles (talk) 09:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted. Tan | 39 05:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Living Voice Of Life" The Apostolic Church Of Moratuwa[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/"Living Voice Of Life" The Apostolic Church Of Moratuwa

Church which doesn't appear to meet WP:CHURCH; I can't find any secondary coverage of the church via ghits, or news coverage in gnews at least. (I'd make this a PROD, but the article creator had a nasty habit of removing DB tags when there was copyrighted material in this article; that isn't the reason for the AfD, however.) Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Twilight Heroes[edit]

I contested the prod; the nominator's opinion was "not enough reliable sources establising notability". I think it is sourced enough to not qualify for prod, but not sure if it qualifies for an article per WP:N. Firestorm (talk) 05:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Firestorm (talk) 05:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep - Reasonably popular Kingdom of Loathing type game. Appears to have sufficient coverage to be notbale [93] - in fact throw ref tags around some of the External links and sprinkle them in the body and you;d have your WP:N right there. Artw (talk) 05:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nom I know that the prod was unnecessary, but I was on the fence about its having multiple, non-trivial mentions in WP:RS. If it can be cleaned up and a few better sources found than what currently exists, I would have absolutely no problem with keeping it. Firestorm (talk) 06:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I went through the google link you provided and found no better sources than what was already present. --Peephole (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources present. Only a "reader-submitted review" ([94]), a link to a blog ([95]) and a link to a games directory ([96]). There's a link to this site ([97]), but that seems like a "reader-submitted review" as well. --Peephole (talk) 15:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I went for SD, then PROD, and I still think this is just the author trying to promote something that's non-notable at best. §FreeRangeFrog 20:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - IndieGames is part of the Gamasutra network, which is generally considered reliable. GamesRadar is not a games database: the article in question is a reprint of a PC Gamer article (though the coverage is minor). ImpulseGamer looks fairly legit to me, though it probably won't pass muster with the rest of the people here. There's also a review at RockPaperShotgun, which is considered reliable per our project. SharkD (talk) 07:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ In its favour are the Rock Paper Shotgun article (it's both reliable and a review) and this from Eurogamer, though it's just a portion of a larger article it at least offers an opinion of the game. The others don't do anything at all. Jay is Games is a site I'm very happy to consider reliable except with the occasional user-review which this one happens to be. Play This Thing is another site which is good to use, but instead of their review being posted by site manager Greg Costikyan or 2nd in command Patrick Dugan, it's from a poster who has no background in journalism according to his bio, has only posted a couple of things on the site ever, and states that he is a moderator of the game. Top marks for disclosure, but it well and truly pisses on our matches. That leaves indiegames.com which is reliable but the page in question is just a description/signpost, it's not a review and it's of no real benefit to this discussion. The Games Radar listing is literally a trivial mention of no use at all. ImpulseGamer doesn't look very reliable to me. So we've got 1.25 reliable reviews.. a very poor foundation for an article. Can't decide either way so I'm happy to accept everyone elses' judgement. Someoneanother 04:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The IndieGames link is not just a signpost. It's part of a larger article titled "Best freeware rpgs, roguelikes 2007." The word "best" in the title means it's an award and reflects analysis on the part, not just simply a statement that the game exists. SharkD (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a grab-bag article of foo games from foo year which goes does nothing but give an overview of the game. Yes they've highlighted it, but asides from putting it in a group-article with that title they've provided no analysis at all. Being featured in an article like that is hardly like winning an IGF award and I'd be in two minds whether to even bother including it if I was writing an article on a game featured in it. For the purposes of being non-trivial coverage it's not on the scale. Someone another 19:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the available more-then-trivial sources and send to WP:CLEANUP. If an article can be improved per wiki standards, it should be. Even the nom agrees that if the article can be improved, it might be worth keeping. We need a gamer wikipedian to work on it. No sense tossing it out because it ain't been done right yet. Wiki has no deadline. Let's see if it gets better. Be a pity to toss out something that could improve wiki. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I'm not ecstatic about the volume of sourcing, but having knocked together a reception section with what we've got it looks close enough to what I'd expect to see as a minimum. Someone another 00:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MichaelQSchmidt, SharkD, and Artw. Cleanup, not delete. Ikip (talk) 18:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Sinclair[edit]

There are a few reasons for my decision to propose deletion:

1) The notability of the person in question. Bryan Sinclair is not well known, and he has been described as "a guy who was employed by Don to make sure that the halls are open at public meetings to put out the chairs, to make sure the microphone works and to give them a cuppa tea when the meeting's over" by former National Party Deputy Leader Gerry Brownlee.

2) Even if people who put out chairs and make cups of tea were relevant for inclusion in Wikipedia, the article is so hagiographical it would need to be fundamentally re-written. The article overstates Sinclair's seniority as a political advisor, includes pointless information ("An ever colourful character, Sinclair once topped the George FM breakfast show “Hot list” (August 2002), after successfully persuading overseas artists to make their music videos in New Zealand and Australia").

3) This article was put up by someone who posted no articles, other than the one about Bryan Sinclair. This proves nothing, but the original poster was able to post obscure information (that Bryan Sinclair topped the "hot list" of a small radio station seven years ago. I suspect this article was written by Mr Sinclair as a piece of self promotion.--Bobtheretrospoodledor (talk) 06:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Fails to be notable. - Roy Boy 04:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there are no better references for something notable than are in the article, I don';t think it can stand.DGG (talk) 10:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any references to support notability either.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 00:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Shabber S. Zaveri[edit]

Delete not notable; has a few publications and is a surgeon, but that's little different than most MD's and being an MD or JD or PhD isn't inherently notable, despite some grumbling to the contrary... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteSeems to me as a personal blog page like this.[98].Should use some kind of web hosting instead of using Wikipedia for this.User talk:Yousaf465
Delete not notable; no major positions or significant publications. Essentially prommotional. DGG (talk) 10:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination closed -- no actual nomination for deletion. If someone else believes this list is a content fork not appropriate to be a separate article, they can nominate it for deletion if they choose. But this is really a nomination for keeping which does not need to be taken to AfD. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of FIFA World Cup finals[edit]

This page has existed for just over two years. I have been working on this page for a couple of weeks and got it up to what I feel are WP:Featured list standards, according to the WP:Featured list criteria. In the FLC review it has been said that page is an unnecessary Content fork of FIFA World Cup#Results. That is a Featured article, and the reviewers at the FAC and FAR did not had a problem with what is presented there. This page has eighteen entries in the first table and eleven in the second. I believe that to be well above the threshold for a subarticle according to WP:Lists, WP:SAL, WP:LISTV, and the minimum-of-10 requirement at WP:FL. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my nomination statement. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Soccer is a game that is popular in most of the world excluding the US and Canada. FIFA World Cup Finals certainly merit notability. --Artene50 (talk) 04:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Genealogy of the British Royal Family. MBisanz ^talk 21:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Descent of Elizabeth II from the Franks[edit]

See extensive discussion already underway at Talk:Descent of Elizabeth II from the Franks. Srnec (talk) 03:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see what the point of this article is. Yes, Queen Elizabeth II is descended from Charlemagne. But so is substantially everybody of European ancestry. [99] It's just that her ancestry is traceable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Genealogy of the British Royal Family. Now that this no longer holds any claims to 'longest family tree in the world' it probably deserves to be kept with all the other information about Elizabeth II's descent, including Descent of Elizabeth II from Cerdic. If the extension back to the Romans could be proved then it would probably deserve a stand-alone page but I'm not saying it can. Mark J (talk) 12:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a completely indiscriminate collection of information; although the Queen is very famous, there are hundreds if not thousands of famous people - dozens of heads of state including President Obama, no less - who can trace their ancestry back to medieval European royalty and thus to the Carolingians. Conversely, the Franks in general, or even the Carolingians in particular, are no more relevant to such discussions generally than the tribes and ruling dynasties of the Magyars, Cumans, Svear, Iberian Moors, Norsemen, Welsh, Irish, etc. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally nominate on the same grounds: Descent of Elizabeth II from Cerdic and Descent of Elizabeth II from William I. (Can someone sort out template for me, please?). all the relevant information belongs in Genealogy of the British Royal Family, which frankly needs a complete overhaul. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Metropolitan90 and Alex Tiefling. We all descend from mitochondrial Eve and mitochondrial Adam, so descending from some Frankish war chieftain is totally non-notable compared to that.¨¨ victor falk 14:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Agricolae (talk) 16:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This page was originally entitle Descent . . . from the Romans, following a discredited set of connections and claiming to represent the longest pedigree on record, which while completely false at least gave a reason the descent was supposedly notable. When the problematic connection was removed and it was scaled back to Descent from Franks, it lost its original raison d'etre. What remains is simply an arbitrarily selected European descending from some other arbitrarily selected European, through an arbitrarily selected line. There are (literally) a million different possible descents connecting the two, and no rationale is given for the selection of this particular line out of all the possibilities. Additional connections are given for some of the spouses in the original line, but again, both the individuals to be included and the particular lines from those individuals seem to be chosen based on whim alone. There are (tens or hundreds of) thousands of people in WP who descend from the Franks (the entire French nation, for starters) and likewise Elizabeth II descends from people of every nationality in Europe and many beyond, so why this one page? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and everything about this page is indiscriminate. Regarding the suggestion of a similar deletion of Descent from Cerdic and Descent from William the Conqueror, those pages also need cleaning up, but at least an argument could be made for their retention because they have what this article lacks - relevance. It is frequently stated (not entirely correctly, but that is not our problem) that Elizabeth II owes her rule to direct descent from William the Conqueror, and more generally that the rulers of England (and hence Britain) are representatives of the nascent state of Wessex, the rulers of which traced their right to rule to descent from Cerdic. Thus in both cases, the descents are actually invoked in defending royal right. In the case of descending from the Franks in general and Arnulf in particular, there is no such claim to relevance. Agricolae (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Genealogy of the British Royal Family. Viewfinder (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Descent of Elizabeth II from Cerdic and Descent of Elizabeth II from William I should be considered seperately per Agricolae since they have a different (and much stronger) raison d'être. Don't feel strongly about Descent of Elizabeth II from the Franks though a (potentially selective) merge might be a good solution. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 arguments based on WP:SYNTH and WP:INDISCRIMINATE were more convincing in rendering a consensus to delete this article. MBisanz ^talk 21:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of incidents famously considered great blunders[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Indiscrinimate collection of information. Why not List of great successes? Why not List of dubious successes? Also, it is quite opinionated and the word "blunder" is highly non-neutral. The first AfD vote was in 2005, when our policies were not crystallized. - 7-bubёn >t 02:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Having just read through most of the list, I really can't see that many of the incidents described are blunders as described in the lead paragraphs. It is indeed an indiscriminate list - and very biased towards North America. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This list needs a lot of work to bring it up to scratch, because it has serious sourcing issues. If the unsourced items on it were removed, we'd be left with just four of them. I don't think the subjectivitity and neutrality issues are a serious problem, because as long as the opinion that an entry was a blunder can be attributed to reliable sources (and for items "famously" considered blunders, I'd be expecting multiple sources) then I'd say the opinion is verifiable. WP:DELETION states that we should prefer to fix articles by editing rather than deletion where this is possible. My feeling is that it is possible to fix this one, although it'll be a lot of work. JulesH (talk) 07:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful delete, because there will be plenty of arguably reliable sources for such claims as that the election of George W. Bush was a great blunder, and then you'll have other people making similar claims about Clinton, and pretty soon a sizable percentage of newsworthy events will be eligible, because (whether or not they were indeed blunders) those who think they are wrong or laughable will be able to dig up newspaper columns and the like to support their POV. Morenoodles (talk) 09:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy/cleanup somewhere, to a project if no person wants it personally. While the naming of the article is less than stellar and the political section is filled with POV, the military and naval sections are viable when sources are pulled from the relevant articles. We could also send the sections to different projects and rename this List of blunders listing all the resulting (referenced) pages. Deletion would result in the removal of several cited pieces of information. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - The content is useful, but the page as it stands is indiscriminate and should be removed. Each section could subsequently be recreated with more rigorous criteria and better sourcing. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When Barbara Tuchman, among others, has written a book on the subject (see The March of Folly), and there's a History Channel program about them, it seems to me that a workable article could be written on the subject. There is no deadline, and AfD is not for issuing ultimatums. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And if anyone says it is too biased to America, then add the European business and sports blunders (of which a number spring to mind - such as thinking hydrogen was "safe enough" for filling a Zaeppelin). This could end up being a quite popular article indeed. Collect (talk) 16:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What's next? "List of mistakes in history?" "List of people in history?" This is indiscriminate. Ray (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- This list is more like a humorous "odd-spot" newspaper column than an encyclopedia article- it's full of editorialising and synthesis. And I don't believe that it can be fixed because of the subjective nature of it. Reyk _YO! 19:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as per above, pages like this is what makes wikipedia great and so interesting. Ikip (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - highly POV list, even if lists POVs of various writers. From someone's point of view any major man-made (and some God-made ones, too) disaster may be termed "blunder", like, Titanic. (BTW, "titanic" is a slang synonym for a gross blunder, and it is even not listed here :-) Therefore it is not only POV, it is even pointless, since it says nothing discriminating or useful, i.e., nonencyclopedic. Mukadderat (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per JulesH (07:48, 3 February 2009) and Smerdis of Tlön (15:53, 3 February 2009). As Ikip alluded to (20:06, 3 February 2009), the ethos of WP:ODD seems to counterbalance WP:INDISCRIMINATE in this context, to the extent the latter applies in the first place. The concern raised by Morenoodles (09:22, 3 February 2009) is very strong, but just doesn't quite get there, I think; that an article will predictably be vandalized and weaponized by political partisans, and that the topic is hard to treat in an NPOV-compliant manner, doesn't presently seem to me to warrant the strong medicine of deletion. If it did, George W. Bush would be first on the chopping block (so to speak). - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it is already hard to define what a blunder is and what not, even harder to find an inclusion criterion. What is the threshold for inclusion, that some people call something a blunder? That the majority of people call something a blunder? Hence delete. Afroghost (talk) 23:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was prepared to like this list, what with the level of detail that's been adapted from the various books of blunders that are listed in the bibliography, but there's almost no sourcing, and it's not very well maintained -- nor do I think that one can maintain a list like this without hurting people's feelings. I think that a list of poor decisions in wartime would be sustainable, "military blunders", since there have been plenty of lists that included the Charge of the Light Brigade, Pickett's charge, etc. Other than the classic example of one person's bad choice that can be measured in multiple casualites -- regardless of which side won the battle-- most of the rest of these aren't "famously" known. A politician's gaffe, a business passing up on an opportunity, or a bad trade in sports-- mistakes, yes; famous, no. Even books of blunders have to scrape the barrel to fill up the pages. Where these come from, of course, is an editor pasting on a mistake that comes up in the news. Coming soon to this list-- Michael Phelps, a bong, and a 500 word explanation. Mandsford (talk) 02:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Delete" voters have come up with a long list of reasons to improve the article, not valid reasons for deletion. The article topic is not WP:INDISCRIMINATE, even if some entries are, and the article offers specific criteria for inclusion of list items -- so remove/fix items that don't meet those criteria. Ditto for inadequate sourcing, concerns about present/future POV in some list entries, and systemic bias. It's not subjective, OR or synthesis to report the published judgment of reliable sources. Baileypalblue (talk) 04:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So yes, let's look at those "specific criteria", shall we? Question/invitation to those voting "keep". The article now says To be objectively considered famous, [an item here] must appear in a list of blunders compiled by a respectable authority or be noted as a blunder by multiple, unbiased sources. Is this satisfactory? To me, it isn't. Even "a respectable authority" sounds bizarre. I think "a respected authority" is what's meant, but "authority" surely renders "respected" pleonastic. And who would be a (respected/respectable) authority -- a tenured professor of Blunderology, perhaps? Or just some author of any old "bestseller", no matter how scantily sourced or whimsical? If you agree with me that it's not satisfactory, try rewording it. (Hardly an unreasonable request; after all, this is only one sentence.) Morenoodles (talk) 06:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ...whereas keep voters haven't come up with anything other than WP:ILIKEIT. Reyk _YO! 07:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You might wanna "un-bold" your "keep", I thought you were a keep !voter at first. Ryan4314 (talk) 11:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good point. Reyk _YO! 23:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Ouch a list like this is gonna cause trouble. It will always be vulnerable to people adding their own opinions, the mere submission of an entry backed up by some crazy biased source, would be too much. That might be worth it if it had some real educational value but I don't think it does, if anyone wants to read about the Attack on Pearl Harbour, then we have an extensive article on it they can read, this is essentially a "List of fuck ups according to Wikipedia editors" Ryan4314 (talk) 11:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable. AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I agree with Ryan4314, to a point here. We're setting the article up to be comparing oranges and apples and doing so subjectively. Can we really compare business blunders to naval ones without causing more problems in the process? Find appropriate parent articles for each of the main subsections. Historical blunders are certainly notable but bundling historical blunders across categories is more likely to cause more problems than it solves. As a suggestion, this would make an interesting template connecting the genre across disciplines. -- Banjeboi 13:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to whoever voted to keep this page, regardless the vote outcome, pages similar to this one do exist, such as List of disasters, I invite you to start discussion for a similar series List of blunders. In particular,
- to fix the blunder article, which has bad definition that poorly matches the major dictionaries
- To structure it into several lists, similarly to (but not necessarily in the same way as) the List of disasters
- to set criteria of inclusion, which muse include at least
  1. Existence of a wikipedia article on the incident
  2. Reliable references that it was a blunder, i.e., "A gross error or mistake, resulting from carelessness, stupidity, or culpable ignorance." In particular, if the White Hall was burned to ashes because the cook forgot to set the timer for thanksgiving turkey is hardly a blunder.

Please let us continue the discussion in Talk:List of blunders. - 7-bubёn >t 17:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete - a highly opinionated list (even if opinions come from sources) with terribly POV title. "Blunder" is not a definitive criterion for an incident, since it is often a guesswork why an incident happen, unless it was proven in a court of law or in historical research beyond doubt. Laudak (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (a) this can be moved, just because the title is POV doesn't mean the content has to be deleted. (b) This subject is not inherently POV. The dictionary entry, as provided by SemBubenny, is a relatively NPOV way of determining what a "blunder" is (e.g. the aforementioned White Hall incident). (c) There is no reason that there could not be a decision that something has to be from at least such-and-such number of years ago to count (P.S. Don't accuse me of instruction creep, that last idea was for the purpose of example). (d) Any other "non-encyclopedic" content can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, and is not a valid argument for deletion.Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 23:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Splitting this into several articles would probably be the best idea. Most of the garbage was put in in the first couple of years of the article, in 2005, when people started adding their favorite "political blunders", and then in 2006 when the sports blunders started coming in. It's hard to put Bill Buckner losing a baseball during Game 6 of the World Series in the same category as soldiers being killed in battle. Since so much of this is three or more years old, I don't think it will matter if someone edits out the sillier entries, and edits the verbage down to something manageable. Mandsford (talk) 00:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep,while the topic may be slightly WP:POV, it is perfect for WP:N. There should be a list of generally accepted blunders...iraq war...vietnam war...hitler's decision to invade russia...etc. Smallman12q (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They were BIG mistakes in opinions of some. And the discussion may be endless whether it was stupidity or not. Of course it is in great American traditions for 50% of population to call their president stupid. But is it really so? This is the worst thing to come: to declare every war lost as starting from someone's blunder. All of us a verry smart in a hindsight. - 7-bubёn >t 00:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete purely subjective. "George W. Bush" and blunders gets 1,260,000 ghits - might as well add him to the list as well. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list seems to be, and ought to be limited to those where the blunder is uncontroversial based on reliable sources. Thus, there should be reliable sources describing the incident as a blunder, and no reliable sources (or very few compared to a consensus of reliable sources) saying that the incident is not a blunder. Thus the Bush's presidency, the Iraq war, and possibly the Vietnam war do not qualify for this list, but I doubt you'd find reliable sources that don't think things like the Edsel and Universal's rejection of Star Wars were clear blunders. This list, based on reliable sources, is objective enough for Wikipedia. DHowell (talk) 05:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Those voting "keep" may wish to remember that (i) a sizable proportion of the few source links are to very dubious sources (e.g. the thing about Edsel goes to some private person's etymological dictionary and a defunct page within a site for fans of old cars; nothing about the Edsel range or its sales is solidly sourced), and (ii) some of the "information" is obviously wrong, e.g. 1980 – United Artists releases Michael Cimino's movie Heaven's Gate, a legendary box-office disaster that lead to the collapse of the studio and effectively ended Cimino's career, or perhaps it was Cimino's namesake who later directed Year of the Dragon. Morenoodles (talk) 09:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but this can be fixed by editing, and that being the case WP:DELETION requires us to prefer that option. Sources for the Edsel being a blunder are two-a-penny; it is commonly included in books on this topic. I have one here on my desk (Stephen Pile, The Book of Heroic Failures) that includes it. JulesH (talk) 10:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah. Two observations. First, neither you nor anybody else has put the slightest effort into editing the article since I posted the message to which you respond. No more sourcing of the sourceable, no more deletion of the unsourceable (or even flagging of the so-far unsourceable), nothing. Of course I don't expect that anybody will transform the article into something much better within a couple of days, but I do expect that those who airily say that it can be fixed by editing will subject at least part of it to such editing. (Here's me at work on a ghastly article on a restaurant chain of no particular interest to me that was undergoing AfD at the time.) Secondly, I wonder if you're conflating (a) sourcing for blunders, and (b) sourcing for having been considered blunders. I'm not familiar with the book that you mention, but its title suggests some humorous book that's mostly an uncritical recycling of what other humorous books have said.To believe that the Edsel was a failure, I'd want to see the matter explained in an academic book about the history of marketing; though inclusion in a book with a title such as The Book of Heroic Failures would evidence having been described as a failure. Or do I have it wrong: Does Pile actually argue each of his "Heroic Failures"? (Or does mere repetition make an assertion true, or indeed [see Duuude007 shortly below] does it give rise to at the very least an educational reference list?) Morenoodles (talk) 11:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Whether it is something we agree with or not, it is definitely not designed as an OR, and is at the very least an educational reference list. Yes, I agree that citations should be included, and if the claim is dubious, the citations should be thorough and accurate. This by no means a reason to delete it, it is a strong reason to add clarity by clarifying the edit. I would also suggest strongly that we do not split this into multiple subtopics as others have suggested. 1, this would just garner merge tags to regroup them (as it should be), and 2, it adds risk that entire sections could be unnecessarily deleted, as shortened stubs. Duuude007 (talk) 15:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even stronger Delete stomping with all feet, pounding on the table, and then rolling on the floor and kicking per WP:LIST and wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of whats not. As I see it, Lists in wikipedia are tools for navigation among articles that fit a certain reasonable classification, akin to categories, with an added advantage of brief summaries. The discussed page clearly is not: I fail to see any articles listed. It is more akin to trivia sections, which are discouraged per WP:TRIVIA. In fact it is even worse: trivias are usually collected per subject. Twri (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete poorly sourced and largely unsourceable. All sorts of things can be considered blunders by some and not others. Large issues with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH as few if any sources address this topic as a whole rather than a specific subset. Scrupulously sourced articles based on specific section of this list (military disasters, political faux pas) might be possible though I don't really recommend them. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 10:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Browser Media[edit]

This article is about a nonnotable web development firm. A google search shows that it fails the notability guidelines as no in-depth analysis has been written on it by independant, reliable, third-party sources. Very little can be found to verify that the firm exists except a few scant press reports. Fails WP:N and WP:WEB. Themfromspace (talk) 10:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources. --Peephole (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing I can see that passes the bare WP:CORP requirements. Just another company that we can't write a neutral verifiable article about - Peripitus (Talk) 10:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 10:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elisabeth Hughes[edit]

Article lacks Attribution to Verify, WP:BIO or WP:BLP notability criteria. Not to mention that this was a contested PROD proposal back in June and I do agree with this reasoning for deletion as nothing have been done since then to rectify that. Jay Pegg (talk) 04:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--I don't see any notability in the article, and have been unable to establish notability via a search of the news. Drmies (talk) 05:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Substantial number of hits on Autism support sites, also with variant "Elizabeth." Appears "notable in field." Collect (talk) 14:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment: Of the 290 ghits, most of these are of a promotional nature and some are unrelated to the subject. Jay Pegg (talk) 08:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 08:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can unfortunately find neither library holdings nor reviews of her books. DGG (talk) 09:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 00:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WizFolio[edit]

No secondary sources to demonstrate notability. Looks like an advert. TrulyBlue (talk) 18:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like an advert; no evidence of notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find this article useful. It highlights the similarities and differences with other software. I suggest keeping this article. Chromide (talk) 01:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've still seen no evidence that this article is anything more than spam directly from the makers of the software. Since the software is known to be advertised through e-mail spam, I think the article needs to have more reputable sources and more objectivity to remain in Wikipedia. Rostovpack (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEPTo be fair, I looked at the entry carefully and it does not look like an ad to me. This version includes information not found in the software’s website. I did a further search and found that it is being used by a university in Singapore. (http://libpweb1.nus.edu.sg/web/appmanager/lib/desk?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=page_LION) ValerieAustin (talk) 02:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - just another software package...and a very new one at that. I cannot find any independant reviews, awards or non-PR press writing on it. Fails to be adequately verifiable - Peripitus (Talk) 10:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable software and promotion of company. Spam at best. §FreeRangeFrog 20:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 10:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wavenis[edit]

A wireless connectivity technology. Not even any assertion of notability. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:N. I notified the article creator of the discussion. Schuym1 (talk) 03:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Help: I understand that I made an error in submission, what I don't understand is what I did wrong and what I need to do to correct it. Thank you in advance for help. Geoffreyriggs1234
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability. Creator can request userfication if they want to work on it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep actually has plenty of references from third parties, so is notable. THis includes articles in accademic journals, and applications in medicine and home appliances. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Azmar Airlines[edit]

100% fails wp:COMPANY. flaming lawyer^c 16:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep. Most airlines do get entries, although this is very much a stub and has been for a year. Various mentions in Google Books "Azmar+Airlines"&btnG=Search+Books - although probably just in lists - and a lot more in a general Google search. I will add a few to the article. But it does need a lot of work. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 07:48, 26 January 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) 01:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is thin, but I think the relative paucity of internet sources has more to do with the company being Iraqi (i.e. not a country with a highly developed web presence) than being small. From this article it appears that Fly Air is a daughter company or similar to Azmar, and their opening of a route got some real independent coverage. In addition, the fleet movements are tracked by aviation websites (e.g. [100]). Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 10:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Thinking and American Government (book)[edit]

Non-notable book, fails WP:BK Pyrrhus16 13:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per this. Passes WP:BK criteria 4. Schuym1 (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A single brief review of this sort is not enough to establish notability, and indeed, establishes only that it is an elementary college & high-school level textbook. Multiple substantial reviews are needed. given that only 40 copies of all editions of the book are present in USs libraries, and that mostly in community college libraries ,according to WorldCat it can not be considered notable. The leading textbooks in a field are notable, there isn't the least evidence that this is one of them. DGG (talk) 01:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 08:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 28 January 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) 00:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 01:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Putah Creek Time Trial[edit]

A non-notable bicycling event. A Google news search turns up nothing on the subject: [101] and [102]. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:N. Schuym1 (talk) 01:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:31, 24 January 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) 00:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I get the same result as the nominator. Noone independant seems to care to write about this and the subject is basically unverifiable for our purposes - Peripitus (Talk) 10:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Peripitus (Talk) 10:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Beebee[edit]

Self-promotion fails WP:CREATIVE. I thought it would be OK when I saw the "in 2004 Carl was awarded Flicker Magazine's 'Photographic Artist of the Year' Award" line, but I couldn't verify it - and there was very little about "Flicker Magazine" itself, so I doubt its value regardless. JaGa^talk 00:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is that a typo for Flickr Magazine? If so it's a blog that doesn't meet our standards for inclusion. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Beebee's website (which, ahem, does have various spelling mistakes) does say "Flicker Magazine". That might be this. That page of Beebee's also quotes a review talking of "an exceptional artist at the very peak of his career", which alas implies that from now it's going to be downhill for Beebee. Hmm, this review, from the LA Independent -- in Beebee's "Critics" page (soon here too) -- is most interesting: Whilst I was wandering around this busy gallery it starts: I'd never before realized that "whilst" was part of El-Lay English. -- Hoary (talk) 01:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC) ...... PS the LA Independent does exist and has a website with a (buggy) search function: I'm told "Type either Keywords, Date or both" but on typing "beebee" am told that I need to specify a date range. Asking for anything since their example of "5/30/02" brings a timeout message, asking for anything earlier or later than 1/1/07 brings a grand total of zero (0) hits. -- Hoary (talk) 10:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking a reliable source for any claim of notability. -- Hoary (talk) 10:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Hoary. --Crusio (talk) 08:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 01:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard K. Strehle[edit]

Unable to produce any references. Possibly a hoax. shirulashem (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete--that high-school kid weighs 400 pounds? Maybe his week and a half on Wikipedia will get him a date, but that's it. Hoax. Drmies (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete if possible, or delete as a second choice. This article has eight "references" and only one of them mentions the subject. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3 (obvious vandalism/misinformation) - Mgm|^(talk) 11:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as complete bollocks. Why didn't the nominator just PROD it?--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I asked myself the same question not long after I did it. I guess it's too late now. shirulashem (talk) 01:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3. 'Nuff said. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 22:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Per Inferno, but on a side note wow 4 bills as a teenager?--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 21:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added a reliable source. This person IS notable.Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sources I saw either were not reliable, or did not mention him at all. I could be wrong, but just saying. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 03:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Inferno, you are correct on both points. shirulashem (talk) 14:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commenthello? Inferno? What did I just add if not a reliable source?Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 23:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You listed a website with sports statistics as a reliable source. According to policy, "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative..." Even if that website WAS reliable, it does nothing except to show some of the subject's statistics. All other parts of the article are unsourced completely. shirulashem (talk) 01:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentMy point was not that the article is now a masterpiece, and should be featured, but that the subject DOES exist, and is at least marginally notable, so the article should not be deleted. All it needs is some rewriting and sourcing. A lack of sources does not qualify an article about an existent, notable person, to be deleted.Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 16:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there is such a person by this name doesn't prove there should be an article about him if his claims to notability are unverifiable. For example, the article currently claims, in the first sentence, that he is the "Heavyweight Champion in the Northeastern Martial Arts Association". However, "Northeastern Martial Arts Association" garners no Google hits other than Wikipedia and its mirrors. Thus, I'm not even convinced that the association exists, much less that he is the champion. If the verifiability of the article starts falling apart in the first sentence, there isn't much point in waiting for sourcing. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While he might exist, I've seen nothing to suggest he's notable. Pretty much all the claims in the article are obviously BS. --aktsu ^(t / c) 10:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Valerie Gray[edit]

Article consists almost entirely of plot and character summary and contains no real world coverage or secondary sources. A redirect to List of villains and ghosts in Danny Phantom was reverted. Jfire (talk) 01:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect--what an amazing amount of words for something with no real-world notability at all. Troutslap for the reverter. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Although the DVD releases of the show make the references valid, the content includes a lot of assumptions rather than facts and it doesn't clarify what makes the character important in-universe either. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then protected redirect as no sources and no real world notability. I note that no attempt was made at the talk page to discus redirecting, so i'm not suprised it was reverted. AfD is not a substitute for discusion. However, this article comes nowhere near to showing notability, and from online searched i don'tthink it ever could. List article entry is enough for anon-notable fictional characterYobmod (talk) 12:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 12:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect No apparent notability or real-world information. The list of characters already has sufficient info, so no merger is necessary. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then create protected redirect: No secondary sourcing, no independent sourcing, so article is in clear violation of WP:V and WP:RS, which indicate that Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Isn't in accordance with WP:N. Nothing seems to be available. Current article violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Nothing particularly salvageable in the current version, so merge is inappropriate.—Kww(talk) 16:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This discussion concerning an article that currently meets the general notability guideline is apparently being used as a test case for the proposed fictional notability guideline and thus seems to be more of an experimental discussion rather than reflective of normal consensus. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't speak for anyone else, but my reasoning was wholly based on WP:NOT#PLOT,WP:V and WP:N, not any experimental guideline.—Kww(talk) 21:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While it does indeed pass all three of those and should therefore not be deleted, regardless, a closing admin should be aware that this AfD is being "advertised" elsewhere and at least a few who have commented in it are taking part in both discussions. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated this article because it came up the the notability backlog, not to serve as a test case. That was someone else's idea. I believe many of the above comments were made before the discussion concerning the AFD began at WP:FICT. And finally, this article currently cites only the show itself as a source, so is currently a mile from meeting the general notability guideline. I've looked for sources, other's have looked for sources -- nada. If you've got 'em, let's see them. Jfire (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The calls to redirect were indeed made before the test case discussion, but not the deletes, which were made after it was listed there. I know that you did not list it there, but regardless it has been, which means that there is a reasonable chance that that discussion will influence this discussion and vice versa. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and then consider whether to Merge into a suitable combination article. Such should be the default way to deal with these, and it does not take AfD. I suppose I am one of those at both discussions. From trying there, I see that WP:FICT is not showing much signs of consensus, and therefore at this point I believe there is no clear guideline for fictional elements at all, since there is also no consensus that the so-called GNG applies. We therefore have to go back to what makes sense, and what makes sense to me is the merge, including all content though copyediting for conciseness, as most such articles need. Apologies for the bold, but that's really the key point here--the content, not the separation into articles. The only reason I would actually want to keep this separate is because so many of the merges have been destructive.DGG (talk) 22:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Yobmod, Sgeureka, and Kww, who've nail the reasons why. nb: loved the 'In-story information' section of the infobox; amounts to breadcrumbs to follow to find more cruft. Jack Merridew 08:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSCRUFT is never a valid or legitimate reason for deletion and all of them actually argue to redirect... Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per DGG. No policy mentioned at all, except too dubious rules. WP:FICT is a proposal, which will soon be tagged as failed. WP:PLOT is a contentious policy. Ikip (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG, we need to err on not deleting articles here. The disgreement, currently, rests on if this should stand alone or be in a list - neither of which is deletion. We've been here many many times before when, ta da, sources show that indeed the subject is plenty notable on its own. Let the AfD proceed and then engage ina sensible merge process if it seems appropriate. -- Banjeboi 16:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to sourcing available in Google News and Google Books, i.e. improveable. No reason to delete the edit history per WP:PRESERVE as it is not a hoax, libels, etc. Meets WP:FICT by being coverable in reliable secondary sources and being an element of a notable franchise. As nomination supports redirect, this should be an editorial discussion for the talk page as no reason has been presented for deletion. Pretty much everything is somehow salvageable and the article is in any event consistent with what Wikipedia is. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Entirely plot summary and in-universe detail without real-world development, context, analysis, or critical commentary for a non-notable fictional topic which has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Non-notable" is not a valid or legitimate reason for deletion, especially when not true. For example, you say "Entirely plot summary and in-universe development..." when "She is voiced by Cree Summer starting in "Shades of Grey". Previously her voice had been provided by Grey DeLisle." is neither plot summary nor in-universe. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Valerie Gray" is also the name of an author and so Valerie Gray could perhaps serve as a disamiguation page or perhaps this page should concern the author and we should move the current contents to Valerie Gray (character). In fact, looking at the first three hits at here, "Valeria Gray" appears to be the name of a few fictional character. Here is a possible disambiguation start point we can consider. Please note as well that there may be a GFDL consideration here as the article was redirected previously. What I note about that is that Valerie Gray has existed since 2005 and it appears that information at the redirect location and at this article have been merged back in forth over the course of the past three years. Thus, while a case can be made for merging further or redirecting and keeping the edit history intact, deletion does not seem an option here. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Disambiguation Page. in its new form, I think the page works quite well. It's no longer a random page for a nothing character; instead, it's a nice disambiguation page. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 20:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Disambiguation Page. I agree with Alinnisawest - keeping the article as disambiguation page makes sense. --Masterius (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per G8 by MacGyverMagic. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 13:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Urban bible[edit]

Non-notable book Blowdart | ^talk 07:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by non-notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shepshep85851 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD was previously unlisted; listing it now. JulesH (talk) 01:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't see any reliable sources about this. Nothing in gnews; first five pages of google contain nothing relevant. JulesH (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A Google search turns up nothing. Does not meet WP:BOOK standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as the most blatant spam I've seen in a long long time. Who cares about notability in this case? There is none, but that's beside the point--this is an attempt to turn WP into a billboard. Delete and troutslap. Drmies (talk) 02:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We forgot to note that this 'book' isn't a book since it's not published. Aww, the website doesn't seem to be working either. In fact, it provides irritant pop-ups. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, since when was the Bible urbanized? Tavix (talk) 03:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tavix, dawg, wassup--you trippin'? Drmies (talk) 04:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11) — You've heard of spam, right? now this is the deletion of spam! Thou shalt not spam the hallowed pages of Wikipedia. MuZemike 06:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had originally speedied it under db-web, but it was removed because someone assumed it as a book and they're not speedy candidates. --Blowdart | ^talk 07:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-encyclopaedic drivel. Is it snowing? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article was moved to Urban Bible and speedied there listing a (faulty) G7 and G11 as the reason. I agree with the G11 assessment, so I won't change it. -Mgm|^(talk) 10:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Minor characters in CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. Stifle (talk) 10:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Millander[edit]

Non-notable character in CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. Was a corrupt judge who only made three appearances on the show--not enough to make him a minor or recurring character in my opinion. No third party sources, no reason to believe he's any more notable than any other murderer from any other episode. Redfarmer (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and then consider whether to Merge or Redirect into a suitable article or list of minor characters. Such should be the default way to deal with these, and it does not take AfD. DGG (talk) 04:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would agree were this a minor character but three appearances total on a show, two of which were simply minor appearances as a judge, that has been on the air for nine years hardly constitutes including on such a list. As you can see from my edit history, I've been redirecting and tagging such articles tonight and I simply do not feel that this character even warrants being included in a minor characters list in the grand scheme of things. He's not one of the notable arc-long murderers so there is nothing to distinguish him from any other murderer in any other episode of CSI. Redfarmer (talk) 05:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redfarmer (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect Not enough for an article. Lacks real world significance, but might help flesh out a minor character list. Dlohcierekim 04:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Minor characters in CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. Let that article discuss the level of detail. Probably won't be more than a sentence or two but that's all the in-world information that's necessary. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Minor characters in CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. This particular character was one of the few criminals to appear in multiple episodes and his appearance in the first one was significant to the development of the show. Calling him a minor character really isn't accurate. Also, the idea that a character needs real world significance to be included at all (whether separate article or in a list) would leave significant holes in coverage on fiction. It is verifiability that should be key. If there's a lack of sources describing the character, then he can be merged in the list (actor information and number of appearances with a shortened plot summary). That solution would be in line with policy and not require deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tora Tora. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revolution Day (album)[edit]

While WP:MUSIC would consider officially released albums of generally notable artists notable enough, I'm not sure that this never released album is notable enough to be its own article. Would suggest redirect back to Tora Tora. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Tora Tora. JJL (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, that way the reference from this article will improve the other one by citing a so-far unreferenced statement. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any referenced info in to the parent article and delete this one as a non-plausible search term. Stand alone notability not established per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete: non plausible search term. JamesBurns (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. seresin ( ¡? ) 05:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bryon Leslie[edit]

Fails WP:V and WP:CREATIVE. JaGa^talk 19:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:BLP, WP:N, and WP:RS. He hasn't done anything that says he's notable. Bearian (talk) 15:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources in article or available through a quick google search. Claims to have published novels but they're not for sale anywhere that I can find. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 00:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per. Google doesn't give me too much; I'm gonna have to say nix this one. K50 Dude ROCKS! 01:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--nothing on Google or, worse, the Library of Congress. I don't believe anything here is notable. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ink On Paper[edit]

AfDs for this article:

CSD A7 removed by IP editor. Prod removed by (another) IP editor. Non-notable blog. Peasantwarrior (talk) 07:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not even the remotest claim of notability, suspicious speedy delete removal by anon IP (which is why I think CSDs should not be declinable by IPs, but that's another matter). Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 08:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No notability at all, removal of prod/CSD likely removed by sock or meatpuppets... --Mr. Vernon (talk) 08:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claim to notability. ¨¨ victor falk 08:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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