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

The result was a wintry delete. krimpet✽ 10:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Lyrics[edit]

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

other than the obvious 'it's about jesus' nature of christian lyrics I don't see any need for a seperate article; surely that is fairly obvious for a phrase with 'christian' and 'lyrics' in the title. The references seem more 'look, christians make music, it is true!' than 'here is evidence of the noticeable differences between christian lyrics and everything else, and here are some reliable academic sources which have identified and examined such things'. Ironholds (talk) 05:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr big I - Holds, some of us still believe in life here after ! Christian devotionals have been written down for centuries past. Christian worship can be dated back to even as far as Adam. and some of us are assured he was worshiping the GoD of Creation. Music although left in the hands of the former lucifer now the d evil is running out of time, what ever few minutes we might have left here on this ever changing planet leaves me no choice but to voice the lyrical content of a hopeful heart. You see sir I am 45 yrs in the making and time is running short. This site (Wikipedia) I believe was designed for the many as an inspiration of both Wisdom & knowledge, why do some of the many divide the two Christian lyrics are the very first words to come out of what many might believe we were created for. The Supremacy of Love 1 If I speak in the languages of humans and angels but have no love, I have become a reverberating gong or a clashing cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can understand all secrets and every form of knowledge, and if I have absolute faith so as to move mountains but have no love, I am nothing. 3 Even if I give away everything that I have and sacrifice myself,[a] but have no love, I gain nothing.1 Corinthians 13 >> International Standard Version ... There's some Christian Lyrics... Dear wiki's I don't mean to be brash... Its just every time a Christian site goes up Its targeted and thrown to the lions ! what ever happened to God Bless America. Isn't anyone just a little scared !!!! or are some just waiting for the long cold sleep ................................................................ This is a beautiful site... (User talk:intelligentlove) 06:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Praiseandworship (talk • contribs) [reply]

Notice: You are re-creating a page that was deleted.

You should consider whether it is appropriate to continue editing this page. Information is available on what to do if a page you created is deleted. The deletion log for this page is provided here for convenience (view all logs for this page):

• 07:04, 27 January 2009 :User talk:Krimpet (Talk | contribs) deleted "Christian Lyrics" ‎ (Incomprehensible essay(?)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Praiseandworship (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure). —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bartholomew Allerton[edit]

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

Article on a person which does not assert notability. While it has a few sources, the claims made are not notable. He wasn't a pilgrim leader or anything notable. TM 19:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with List of passengers on the MayflowerEsasus (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Esasus. Bearian (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriella Fox[edit]

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

No reliable sources. No assertion of notability. Fails WP:PORNBIO, a bit part in Pirates II doesn't hack it. David in DC (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC) Although the article needs cleaning up, it now has the reliable sources and verifiable assertions of notability it once lacked. Unless anyone disagrees, I would be happy to see this AfD closed with the notation Article Rescued by Epbr123 and Hoang.pham19. David in DC (talk) 01:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —David in DC (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. David in DC (talk) 00:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. twirligig^{Leave one! ⋄ Check me out!} 03:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Dismas|^(talk) 20:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Epbr123. Dismas|^(talk) 02:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a stub for this up and coming actressEsasus (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Just a note that the "up and coming actress" is already retired. Heh. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:PORNBIO per award nom. Has also had coverage here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Epbr123 (talk) 01:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Already retired, never notable.Valrith (talk) 02:00, 1 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 14:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Beast (Bloodlust Comics)[edit]

The Beast (Bloodlust Comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability, no sources. Google searching for "the beast" + "bloodlust comics" does not yield any reliable sources. See also The Dark Wielder, which I have also nominated for deletion (the AFD discussion is right below this one). This article was created by the same editor. Amazinglarry (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as hoax. Most of the dates that this comic was supposed to be relaeased haven't happened yet. Edward321 (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as likely hoax per above. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 00:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as either a hoax or as inappropriate self-promotional advertising Esasus (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per others. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Dark Wielder[edit]

The Dark Wielder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable comic book character, recreation of a previously deleted article. No new sources have been added since the last AFD (the article still has no sources at all) and there is no assertion of notability. Amazinglarry (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Salt While this version doesn't list fictional release dates like the previous version, there's no evidence it exists. Considering the numerous other hoax articles (deleted in the last AfD) and the recreation of this one, I also think salting is neccessary. Edward321 (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as either nont notable or as a hoax - it failed my "google search" test Esasus (talk) 21:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Any reason speedy G4 doesn't apply? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Matrix Philosophy[edit]

The Matrix Philosophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An original work about The Matrix. - 7-bubёn >t 23:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No references provided. I am eating Ramen (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - OR, unreferenced. andy (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:N. Schuym1 (talk) 23:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete perr nom. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 00:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:N, and WP:NEO. Tiptoety ^talk 04:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's ironic that an article about the matrix would fail WP:NEO. Spinach Monster (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess you deserve at least LOL for that :) The JPS^{talk to me} 20:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Influences and interpretations of The Matrix#Philosophy_and_psychoanalysis. JulesH (talk) 09:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto Spinach Monster (talk) 18:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Tiptoey (well spotted!) AlexTiefling (talk) 13:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not notable or as a hoax or as no context or for lack of content or for ....... Esasus (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per others. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

S.T.O.R.M.[edit]

The result was Speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

S.T.O.R.M. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

• No context as to what this article is about no sources, not even sure if it is a hoax article BigDunc^Talk 23:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Purely shit, and no references provided. I am eating Ramen (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete I consider that to be an attack page ArcAngel (talk) 23:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus to delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Coffey[edit]

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

Delete: Author of a few Beanie Baby coloring books. Has been tagged with "notable", and appears to fail WP:BIO with few to no reliable sources. Almost (or all) content appears to be contributed by AJC. Plastikspork (talk) 23:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete fails WP:N and WP:BIO in every way. No Ghits found. ArcAngel (talk) 23:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no reliables sources writing about this artist. References provided do not establish notability. And based on the username of the editor who created the article, this is likely an autobiography. -- Whpq (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - New References were added. Contributions for this article were provided by different users. -- Tanton2008 (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: At the moment, 6 of the 8 references are ISBN's for the Beanie Baby coloring books. One reference is for the "National Watercolor Society-Associate Members", and the last is too AJC's own website, which is not quite a WP:RS. As for "different users", I count two WP:SPAs: Tanton2008 and Ajc2008. Plastikspork (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it is a stub and will (hopefully) be expanded. Esasus (talk) 21:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• But it's a stub about a person with no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The stub was modified, added new information and new references.Tanton2008 (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It still doesn't satisfy notability requirements. There are still no independant third-party sources (such as news sites) that can confirm why this person is famous. Plus there are POV issues with the wording, AND an unsourced claim about the person donating some portraits to a museum. ArcAngel (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The museum confirmed about the artworks and donation. Artine Artinian was a one of the founders of the museum. The article is a stub and it is going to be expanded. the stub contains 8 references: five - printed ISBN, three - online sources. Local newspaper Mountain Times (Boone, NC)published two articles about the artist between 1995-2000. Looking for those references. Tanton2008 (talk)20:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Reliable sources were added. Now the stub contains 10 references.Tanton2008 (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mega planning[edit]

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

Essay by one of the chief researchers in this academic area. Clearly needs heavy work to become an encyclopedia article but is it notable. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete essay ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a combination of a personal essay and synthesis of referenced material. MuZemike 02:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Lacks inline refefences - "Mega Planning" sounds like a self-coined phrase. Self-promotion? Esasus (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong retain. Mega planning is gaining significant influence in the national security planning community for its ability to contextualize whole-of-government approaches to intervention in terms of measurable, culturally-generalizable objectives by which such intervention is expected to improve the lives of the people and societies it will touch. It is also related to the double- and triple-bottom-line approaches that have gained currency in global business. In my judgment, the article is strong--although I will need to propose an edit due to an error in its use of "operational" vs. strategic or tactical planning, which often occurs in the related scholarship 198.7.238.40 (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Dr. Jim Ellsworth, Professor, U.S. Naval War College (copied from talk page by Stifle)[reply]
  • There are lots of buzzwords there, but little reference to Wikipedia policy and guidelines. This AFD discussion deals in the applicability of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, in particular our Wikipedia:deletion policy. It's been asserted above that this article isn't supported by sources, but synthesises sources on other subjects to put forward a novel thesis, in violation of our Wikipedia:No original research policy. That is what you need to address, not how groundbreaking, or significant, or important you personally think this subject to be. Your personal, subjective, opinion is irrelevant. This is an encyclopaedia, with objective standards for inclusion and exclusion based upon existing in-depth coverage in published materials by independent people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy. Show, with sources, that someone has already documented all of this, and come to the conclusions that the article does, outside of Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 07:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Torah periodicals[edit]

List of Torah periodicals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Confusing article. Purports to be a list of periodicals of some sort, but none of these periodicals have received significant coverage in reliable sources. According to the general notability guidelines and the essay on media notability, this appears to be a clear Delete. Enigma^msg 22:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Un-notable hoax. I am eating Ramen (talk) 23:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's written by a longtime editor, so hoax accusations are unwarranted. Generally, the main sign of a hoax is the single-purpose contributor who expects to be banned, and this person has been here awhile. Still, what's a Torah periodical? I know what the Torah is, and I know what a periodical is, but what's that mean? Mandsford (talk) 02:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article currently lacks content. I would change my position if someone added proper data and referencing. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As author has indicated they are okay with deletion in edit summary. Might have potential, but unless someone wants to work on it it's not suitable for inclusion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• comment apparently means, as I suspect it tends to mean in this context, periodicals about religion written from the standpoint of Orthodox Judaism, but a clear definition of scope is needed--and an attempt to write articles on the titles listed. DGG (talk) 05:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. May not be a hoax, but it looks like it's been started and abandoned. Stifle (talk) 09:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no context or content Esasus (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - At 1st glance this seems to be a start of an article under construction, in which case I would hold off to allow time for context to be provided. But the history indicates that the article has been languishing for quite a while with no content, so unless some suitable content is added quickly, deletion seems appropriate. Rlendog (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ava Santana[edit]

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

Bit actress, no evidence of meeting WP:BIO, not much in google, prod removed without reasoning Delete Secret ^account 22:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Playing Girl #2 does not meet guidelines for inclusion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question about this woman of many names. Has anyone checked into all her other AKAs for notability? She is also Kathryn Elizabeth Knighten, Kathryn E. Knighten, Katie Knighten, and Ava Knight Santana. Just asking. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete Has anyone actually looked at her IMDB page and seen that she has many other credits other than girl # 2. Does every Actor start off getting starring roles? She seems to be a good actress and has actually been in many credited films with pretty good performances. Why delete her page because she has played girl #2 in her past? She has been in many films having bigger roles since then. I believe this to be an unfair assumption and judgement of a person who has a career that is not yet notable according to your standards. Lots of people actually enjoy Ava Santana's performances. I vote to keep her page up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flowerlily (talk • contribs) 06:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails to meet WP:ENTERTAINER, and as for coverage about her, the there is only the UGO article for top 50 under 25. -- Whpq (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - this young actress already has 15 film credits (according to IMDB.com), and that is in just 4 years of acting. Keep as stub article - it will grow. Esasus (talk) 21:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• But those roles are not what one would call significant. She may become notable in the future, but it doesn't appear to be so right now. -- Whpq (talk) 22:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • That's not a reason for keeping an article, read on our notability guidelines, and verification guidelines before mass commenting on AFDs. It will give you advice on participating in AFDs in the future. Secret ^account 14:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep as per esasus. I find it interesting that the NYT has a page on her,[1] but wikipedians think we shouldn't have a page on her. Ikip (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the page form the NY Times is a directory entry for their online site. It is content fed from All Movie Guide, and the inclusion criteria is similar to IMDB which is every person who ever has had a credit in a film gets listed. If you actually read the entry, you will find that it is almost content-free.-- Whpq (talk) 05:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Here is her biography page: [2]. After the article is deleted we will have the same content as they do... ie. nada. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, technically speaking, not so, as the full biography there says "Gender: Female". -- Whpq (talk) 10:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well, it's meant to be a link to her bio at All Movie Guide, and the reason it's blank is because there isn't one, as I confirmed by searching there directly. DGG (talk) 20:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: no independent 3rd party notability WP:BIO. JamesBurns (talk) 06:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Tentative Delete pending the answer of the above question by Schmidt,. —Subverted (talk • contribs) 12:56, 1 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 Ace Combat 5: The Unsung War; merge at editorial discretion. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Circum-Pacific War[edit]

Circum-Pacific War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A piece from the Ace Combat Universe. A huge number of pages related to the game was deleted/merged/redirected due to lack of independent real-life sources. This article deserves the same fate for the same reasons. - 7-bubёn >t 22:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable, game universe event Gary King (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete as this isn't in the real world. ArcAngel (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  An article about a fictional world can still exist if there is enough reliable sources to determine its notability, like Tatooine. Gary King (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Ace Combat 5: The Unsung War, the game which said event takes place. I swear, this series is plagued with article writers who don't know the meaning of the word "context". Nifboy (talk) 04:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Ace Combat Esasus (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (preferably) or Redirect to one of the Ace Combat articles. SharkD (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 01:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival[edit]

2009 Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We do not accept articles for events that have not yet occurred. This is a notable music event (of course), but as it hasn't happened yet it's inappropriate. Wikipedia is not a place to promote an upcoming music festival months in advance. Steven Walling (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now, however allow recreation without requiring a deletion review once the event is in progress/has happened. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 22:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge to Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival. It's short sourced and accurate. Clearly a notable festival. There's nothing speculative in the article, it just says when it's scheduled to happen and can be expanded as things firm up there is more coverage. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Nominator is using a piece of policy as an argumentation for delete, when the policy itself explicitly argues that such an article should be retained! Per WP:CRYSTAL's requirements, preparation for this event has started, it is a notable event, and is almost certainly going to occur. Warren -talk- 17:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I strongly disagree that the policy supports keeping a single sentence article for a music festival that is months away. While evolving articles are of course expected, the encyclopedia isn't a place where one-liner placeholder articles are rational or beneficial. If it's so far ahead of the event that not even a firm musical line up can be added, then it's too early. At best, it should be merged with the main Coachella article. Steven Walling (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• And then the article will be recreated within weeks. Why even waste our time deleting it when we know the article is going to exist and its notability will not be in question? Please READ WHAT THE POLICY ACTUALLY SAYS, as you are misinterpreting it. WP:CRYSTAL is absolutely clear about the fact that articles like this may exist. It says, A) "The subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." -- which, considering that we have NINE OTHER ARTICLES in exactly the same form, suggests that a tenth one is going to also pass our notability requirements. and, B) "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." -- the 2009 Coachella festival certainly meets both these criteria. and, C) "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation." ... is it unverifiable speculation that the 2009 Coachella festival is going to happen? No -- there is a reliable secondary source in the article (a popular music magazine) that backs up the statements made by the article.

Trying to claim that this article doesn't merit inclusion because of WP:CRYSTAL is a specious, invalid argument that misrepresents both the letter and intent of the policy. Either withdraw the nomination, or find another reason for deleting the article. Warren -talk- 00:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Calm down with the capslock there, cowboy. It's a deletion discussion, not a shouting match. It's not a specious argument to say that an article for an event written so far in advance that it cannot be expanded more than single sentence is premature. I'm not saying we should never have an article for Coachella 2009. I'm saying that it's too early, so early in fact, that it's not possible to verify basic details that should be in the article. If it can't be verified, then it's time to hold off until it can be. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a repository for single-sentence placeholder adverts for music festivals. Steven Walling (talk) 04:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not a cowboy, but I do get annoyed with having to tell experienced administrators to fully read policy documents. It shouldn't be necessary, but from time to time, it is. And yes, I'm well familiar what the encyclopedia is -- I've been telling people "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" for longer than you've had an account. Chances are pretty excellent that if I can walk you through a proper reading of WP:CRYSTAL, I don't need you to respond by telling that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It's a bit offensive.

Anyways, given that you haven't actually refuted any of the points I've made regarding what WP:CRYSTAL actually says; given that you haven't actually demonstrated that the information cannot be verified (there is a reliable secondary source right in the article, and more are readily available... USA Today had an article on Coachella 2009 just a few days ago); and given that you haven't actually demonstrated that the topic isn't notable... what's left? If it's down to "delete it because it reads like advertising"... well, how exactly? It's a one-sentence article that says where and when the event will take place -- that's information, not advertising. More can and should be written, but nobody's gotten around to it yet. That's why we have ((music-festival-stub)) (which is used on hundreds of articles). This encourages the writing of articles that we ought to have. There have already been about 125 edits to the article, from a variety of IPs, so clearly it's a topic people are coming to the encyclopedia to see. Warren -talk- 08:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to think that WP:CRYSTAL is the only thing that I and others have mentioned here. It's not. You and I clearly disagree about what the policy means, so I'm not going to argue about that other than to restate that I think it clearly supports not having a premature article. But other than CRYSTAL, you might try using a little basic common sense. Our most basic requirement is that an article be verifiable, as you know. Just because we can safely assume that it's going to happen someday doesn't mean it's a good idea to have an article on it. We can also safely assume that Coachella 2010 is going to happen too, but it's in the exact same position as this article: too early to verify anything other than mere existence. That's not just an inappropriate article. It's totally and completely obvious if you just look at the subject and the content we have - no policy argumentation needed. Steven Walling (talk) 08:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete - the article is nothing more than a one line advertisement for an upcoming event. Esasus (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - Lineup information is out. This festival is a go. -- Chupon (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - As above. Goyston talk, contribs, play 02:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - The festival lineup is released and confirmed. This AfD should be closed and the article should be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Izakage (talk • contribs) 03:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – As per above. —Subverted (talk • contribs) 12:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - From the WP:NOT page:

Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the 2010 U.S. Senate elections and 2016 Summer Olympics. There is a line up and the event is notable. --Kimberly M. (talk) 21:37, 1 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. A7. kurykh 03:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nanna Fondo[edit]

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

Seems to be a non-notable actress. IMDB page does not list anything that would be considered notable. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 22:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - no assertion of notability, no evidence of it. I've tagged the page per CSD A7 andy (talk) 23:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cromer Street[edit]

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

Non-notable London street. jenuk1985 (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable and no references either. Ijanderson (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete See WP:STREET, if it can be justified that this article is within the 150 most notable streets in London, then by all means keep it. There is no need to have WP articles for every street. jenuk1985 (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note Above user is the nominator. --Oakshade (talk) 02:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Regarding that WP:STREET essay (not even a proposed guideline) first of all, the London metropolitan area has over 13 million people, so that means 260. London is the capitol of the UK and historically the British Empire and still the British Commonwealth. Double that. Add the international financial and cultural importance of this city and you can triple that. Besides, if a street passes WP:NOTABILITY as this one does, an arbitrary "formula" as stipulated in WP:STREET is irrelevant.--Oakshade (talk) 02:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The relative importance of the city is irrelevant as far as WP:STREET is concerned. However, a highly notable city is likely to have streets and roads which have their own intrinsic notability, something specifically mentioned in WP:STREET as being a separate criterion (and as such exactly as you say in your last sentence - it passes notability, and therefore is not subject to the stipulations of one street per 50,000 people). Cromer Street appears to be one such street, and thus - even though I'm the primary writer of WP:STREET - I agree that this should be kept. BTW, as far as not being even a proposed guideline, that is true, though it is used as a rule of thumb by many editors (the whatlinkshere will show how widely used it is). Many essays are used thus; Geogre's Law is not a guideline either, but it is widely cited at AFD, for example. Grutness...wha? 07:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Is the in-depth subject of secondary sources, thus easily passing the core criteria of WP:NOTABILITY. [3][4][5]. Even a novel was named "The Cromer Street Chronicles"[6]--Oakshade (talk) 02:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable road. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly notable street, with multiple good references in the articles, and additional ones supplied here. The actual books found by Oakshade are particularly telling. Very careless indeed to delete without making even a preliminary search. That numerical guideline is quite clearly ridiculous.-- not to mention the impossibility of finding a way to use it on a particular article. DGG (talk) 05:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• lolwhat....er...keep. Trivially easily sourced. WP:STREET is a rule of thumb talking about middling-sized cities and towns. London isn't most places, and most places aren't London. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - what does Jenuk1985 have against Cromer Street? Esasus (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 02:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B2177 road[edit]

B2177 road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable B road. While some B roads can be notable, I am failing to see any notability in this one! jenuk1985 (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Major road. Can be merged to appropriate road system if that's appropriate ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete In the UK, M roads are the major ones. Also, this article is nothing more than a prosified map. It tells nothing that can't be gleaned from a map. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Evidently notable. Nomination fails policies WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am failing to see how this article is "Evidently notable", prior to nomination I did some scouting around the internet and cannot find any information to suggest that it is notable. The only "source" the article links to is a map. Please also say how this nomination fails WP:BEFORE? WP:PRESERVE doesn't apply, (as mentioned above) there is nothing in this article that can't be worked out by looking at a map. jenuk1985 (talk) 13:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Most A and B class roads originated as turnpikes and many will have a medieval origin. We have articles on many (even most) A-class roads. Whether we should also have them for B roads requires a rather fuller discussion than can conveniently be had on a single AFD. I would not want to take this further to havce articles on every county's C-class roads. This article may indeed be a poor one, but that implies it should be improved, not deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While no consensus has been reached on Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/B roads in the United Kingdom, a quick read of that page is suggested, giving arguments for and against B roads. This one appears to have no notability beyond that it appears on a map. If anyone can give new sources to prove notability I can't see why it should be kept. jenuk1985 (talk) 13:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I'm sure there are notable B-roads, but there's no assertion that this is one. As an aside, the cited sources are nearly 40 years out of date; if a map should be cited, it should be the current 1:50 000 Landranger series - not the One inch edition, which is more appropriate for things like vanished streets and railway lines. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge into Hampshire, England#Transport. If it isn't notable enough to fit there, then it's not notable enough to have its own article. Fails notability and unless you can get some of that, I say delete now. --Triadian (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep An artery that connects several municipalities is notable. Roughly equivalent an American state route. --Oakshade (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A UK B road cannot be compared to a US state route, the UK equivalent is likely to be a non primary A road if any at all jenuk1985 (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many, if not most, American state routes are secondary (ie New Jersey Route 124), but they are considered notable. --Oakshade (talk) 00:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2008 civil unrest in Greece. MBisanz ^talk 02:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Konstantina Kouneva[edit]

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

Even if there are some sources talking about this person, she is not notable to have an article. Now, it was once nominated for speedy deletion but the sources referring to her prevented this. This article should be deleted because it lacks notability. Michael X the White (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per what I say above.--Michael X the White (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep/ merge with 2008 civil unrest in Greece. Ijanderson (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge No reason to delete this notable information. Fine to merge it to a suitable target. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect This is a clear case of WP:ONEEVENT. The event is noteworthy, but there's not enough material to sustain a biography of her. (Note to author: never mention an age without accompanying date of determination. It will be outdated in a year.) - Mgm|^(talk) 10:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Merge. Seems like just a random incident that happened during the Greek riots, doesn't seem very important. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 13:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: interesting stories do not necessarily make for appropriate articles and can burden when merged with other articles.Politis (talk) 14:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLP1E. No need for a redirect. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge as an important flashpoint for the unrest, although the article should be renamed to focus on the attack if kept per WP:ONEEVENT. Merge would probably be best, with a section about 'attack on...' or something similar, with this title redirected. In particular, there is the matter of major support for her amongst protestors (as opposed to her being one of many victims they collectively support she is singled out) and the description of this as the worst attack of its kind in a half-century. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into appropriate article as a "flash point" event Esasus (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The event is not noteworthy, per WP:Notability--Sadbuttrue92 (talk) 13:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As Fut.Perf. has said above it's a case of WP:BLP1E. Der Blaue Reiter (talk) 14:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of prison deaths[edit]

List of prison deaths (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:NOT#INFO. The list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable, every person who was sentenced to life in prison can be listed here, better serves as a category, if needed. Prod removed a while back, Delete Secret ^account 20:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Keep references must be added, otherwise delete Ijanderson (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources could easily be found, but that isn't why I proposed this article for deletion. Secret ^account 22:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A list like this would be preferable to a category called "People who have died in prison". As with a category, it's limited to people who are notable enough to have articles on them kept on Wikipedia; the difference is that, unlike a category, it (a) has some further explanation and (b) can be sourced. Within those limitations, I don't think it's unmaintainable. I can't imagine any circumstance where a name would be removed from the list of dead persons. The truth is, a lot of people who get sentenced to life in prison don't die there, simply because nursing home care isn't part of the system. Mandsford (talk) 02:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on the basis of mandsford's argument--with the additional pointy that a great many people with less than life sentences die there. DGG (talk) 05:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Delete - delete deaths that are not referenced (currently all). Esasus (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Keep - with the conditions noted by Mandsford and Esasus. Rlendog (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep WP:INTROTODELETE "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. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved." most of the editors above state that this article needs to be improved. Articles for deletion are not supposed to be used to improve articles, nor as threats to delete the article if the article is not cleaned up. Ikip (talk) 02:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - argument that lifers die in prison is US-centric. Civilised societies attempt reform and release or parole "lifers" at some point. The into to the list could stipulate that the list should include only those who died whilst incarcerated from unnatural causes (other than judicial murder). Albatross2147 (talk) 02:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What are the inclusion criteria for this list? The lede makes it seem that it should only include people who already were famous for other stuff and happened to have died in prison. So would it exclude individuals who are famous for having died in prison? (I'm thinking of people like Zhang Bin and Sun Zhigang, whose deaths in re-education through labor and custody and repatriation facilities, respectively, brought a lot of international attention to the Chinese prison system.) Just curious. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 02:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Regardless of the answer to my question above, I think this article has a lot of potential...if the inclusion criteria are straightened out, it has the potential to become a featured list, since it's the sort of list that probably hasn't been compiled in one place ever before. It needs to be defined a bit better, it needs some major formatting cleanup (it would probably be better in a table than a bullet list), and it needs refs for every item in the list (hopefully most of these refs can be gotten from the individuals' articles)...as far as I can tell, that's about all it needs. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 02:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep,This article has a bit of room to grow as politizer said. Perhaps a description of each death could be added. This article should cite its sources...but otherwise its good. It certainly meets WP:N.Smallman12q (talk) 19:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. But consider rewording to "notable" people as fame is subjective and insist every entry has an article. Lists and categories serve different purposes and this is an acceptable list. A more meaty intro lede would also be nice. -- Banjeboi 03:42, 1 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.

Ashida Kim[edit]

The result was keep. The actual discussion has been hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page..

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Joseph (writer/producer)[edit]

Mark Joseph (writer/producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Bio created by a recent account. External links don't help much. Is he notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Also most of the references are not from third party reliable sources Ijanderson (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong KeepThis is a legitimate bio. Please refer to links provided in external links provided on his page(recently updated). Mark Joseph has worked on the sound track for the movie "Passion of the Christ." He has also written 2 books (Rock & Roll Rebellion; Faith, God & Rock-N-Roll). You can check those titles on Amazon for confirmation. What I have mentioned above are just a few notable things he has done. — prpride (Talk | contribs) 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Spammy piece that promotes someone credited for "marketing" on some projects. Doesn't meet inclusion criteria. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - This is an article of an individual with an impressive bio and resume of work in the entertainment business. IMDB confirms the legitimacy of this article (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0912882/) Esasus (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - Does not meet WP:Entertainer. Needs a bit more on the resume to reach notability.ttonyb1 (talk) 01:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pavalareru Perunchitthiranaar[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic Arun athmanathan (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unsourced, reads like a hoax, doesn't establish notable, written like an essay, and its orphaned. --Pstanton (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• cleanup? Looks like a copyvio. Reads like a copyvio. Would need massive clean up. I would delete almost all of it and leave a few sentences if they can be sourced on his being chief minister and what not. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - It reads like a copyvio because it is a copyvio. Now tagged. -- Whpq (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 sufficient content and unlikely to expand. Mgm|^(talk) 10:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4rlz[edit]

4rlz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A dictionary entry of a neologism with hardly any content--not an article. Jchthys (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for the reasons given in my prod. ("Neologism with no claim in article of meeting WP:Notability. Unlikely to expand beyond a dictionary definition."). But since the prod tag is still in place, I'm wondering why this was brought to AfD?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not an a dictionary for slang Ijanderson (talk) 22:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, speedily if possible No asssertion of notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. twirligig^{Leave one! ⋄ Check me out!} 04:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above: definition of a slang term. Cliff smith ^talk 06:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lucie Lebaz[edit]

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

Notability in Question. Appears to fail WP:Notability (people).

• Of the links provided, 3 are to Lebaz's business site, one is to a Facebook-type networking page, one doesn't mention Lebaz, and one is to an unsourced section of another Wikipedia article (that also doesn't mention Lebaz. Or graphic design.)
• The article really seems like a press release or an ad. ttonyb1 (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As noted, none of the sources provided qualify as reliable, and it reads like a press release. Also note that it was already speedily deleted once today for not demonstrating notability. There is really barely a claim of notability here - Labaz seems to have a successful career, but that alone isn't enough to meet WP:BIO (specifically WP:CREATIVE). Google hits are all social and professional networking sites, and are therefore not reliable sources. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete None of the references demonstrate any notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - a quick google search demonstrates that Lucie Lebaz is a significant player in the fashion industry. Esasus (talk) 23:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have done the Google search and I find little to support the prior comment. There are only 36 hits including a number related to the WP entry, her website, and Linkedin/facebook type entries. Only a couple of the rest are related to design and do not provide/support Notability. ttonyb1 (talk) 00:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Only graduated in 2005 and not notable yet. Johnbod (talk) 04:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not that strong....Modernist (talk) 00:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7. kurykh 03:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paulius kulikauskas[edit]

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

This reads like a personal CV not like an encyclopedic article. DFS454 (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete although I would think it would be a candidate for speedy deletion, no?--kelapstick (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete promotional resume with no assertion of notability to meet guidelines. I hope he has a great career. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy redirect. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Lido, Bristol[edit]

The Lido, Bristol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Sounds like an advertisement. Perhaps it could be reworded, but it would require deleting about 90% of the content. =O Elm-39 - T/C 18:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Rub it outand start again. Remember to include this link.

*Keep and improve - Is the in-depth subject of secondary sources like BBC News and The Guardian. [7][8][9][10]. It's also a listed building. This was nominated for AfD within 2 minutes of its creation without any opportunity for community improvement.[11] --Oakshade (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment? It was nominated for CsD, actually; there's a reason why CsD is there. This article is a serious copyright violation and a giant advertisement. Better to delete it and start fresh. Elm-39 - T/C 19:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like an AfD to me. User JulesH just nominated it for Speedy after this AfD started. Copy-vio is a valid point, but even as the wording in the nom says, it could be reworded, which it was. I do not subscribe to the "We must kill this article in order to save it" mentality. --Oakshade (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete copyvio [12] JulesH (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Clifton Pool and The Victoria Public House. It's the same topic that's already a well-developed article. --Oakshade (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ADÄMS (author)[edit]

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

I've tried to clean this up (removed a bunch of unreliable sources or sources that didn't have anything to do with Adams (and the defamatory statements connected to them) and removed weasel words, exaggerated claims, and non-notable material), but what I'm left with is notability being claimed solely on a few articles published on a couple of websites, a couple of walk-on rolls, a song to a local, independent movie, a song for a film that doesn't appear to exist, and law issues. I'm afraid if I keep cleaning it up, I'm going to be left with almost nothing. Also, it appears that his "manager" created and wrote the page as the user name who has done the majority of work here (and has only done work on this page; nowhere else on Wikipedia) is an identical match to the contact name listed on Adams' MySpace. In a nutshell: I do not believe this passes WP:BIO and I feel there may be an issue with WP:COI. Thanks. 13² 18:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there are two redirects that should be included in this AfD: Mike Adams (writer) and ADÄMS (writer). --13² 19:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the page has been deleted twice before under another article name: MIKE ADAMS (Indiana Author). Found through User_talk:Mikeadams73. It suspiciously looks like the user used another name (his "manager") after he was accused of WP:COI once before. This new article was created less than a day after the old one was deleted. --13² 19:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is little evidence of notability in the links provided, and it definitely seems like an ad. A news article about being arrested is irrelevant. Interviews and press releases don't carry much weight either, or simple proof that he has released some music. It needs more than one independent review. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Insufficient notability. Has not received substantial coverage for any of the pursuits mentioned in the intro. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as either a hoax or as an unverifiable article or as not notable. Esasus (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No notability suggested by article material Mrathel (talk) 06:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go DJ![edit]

Go DJ! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable unreleased album with little media coverage of substance. Two singles have been released but it's been so long, it's likely that one or both songs won't even appear on the album when and if it is actually released. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 18:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 18:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC, per nom. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No sources, WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per WP:CRYSTAL. Schuym1 (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: - WP:CRYSTAL jenuk1985 (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per all the reasons above. ArcAngel (talk) 23:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs & WP:CRYSTAL.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 23:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and lack of proper sources. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 00:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this is an article on an, as of yet, non-existing album. Esasus (talk) 23:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Pickett[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable. Article makes claims of notability, however a google search on her name and the name of her band returns just 8 hits, only one of which is about this subject. role^player 18:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE: The album One Life To Live(album) was created earlier today, at about the same time the afd tag was removed from this article by the same anon IP. -- role^player 22:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Can't find any one criterion in WP:MUSICBIO that she satisfies. Phrases such as "Hopefully you will hear more of them in the future" and "Heather's career in music is having a difficult time to start" are a good indication that she may not, as yet, be notable in a Wiki sense. Karenjc 18:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As above, no evidence of notability. Dawn Bard (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable and doesn't include any references either Ijanderson (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for failing WP:N ArcAngel (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not Notable. Billboard.com shows nothing for her or her album. Esasus (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The French Democracy[edit]

The French Democracy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination to fix the process started by an anonymous user. I happen to disagree with the nomination, however, and am recommending a keep based on non-trivial coverage of this machinima film by The Washington Post, MTV.com, Wired, and a book published by MIT Press (PDF). — TKD::Talk 18:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• More sources: BusinessWeek, USA Today. — TKD::Talk 18:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for gods sake, there are many notable machinima, such as War Of The Servers (http://litfusefilms.com/movies/waroftheservers/) that dont have an article. They have appeared on many websites. 80.44.254.152 (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • • That other notable machinima do not YET have their own articles is no reason to deny access to this one. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you know of multiple third-party independent reliable sources that non-trivially cover these productions, then they might be notable enough for their own articles. There are certainly gaps in the coverage currently. (Keep in mind, though, that many sites accept video uploads rather freely, so mere presence or listing is not an indicator of independent coverage per se.) But, as JulesH mentioned, we don't judge the merits of an article on the basis of other articles, because Wikipedia is a work in progress, and uneven progress at that. — TKD::Talk 20:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per nom (!?). Clearly a notable machinima; if others are notable and don't have articles, we should create those articles, rather than using it as a reason to delete this one. JulesH (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP because it is notable, just needs more sources cited? Wilkos (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I'll see what I can do sometime soon about getting the article to a respectable non-stub state. — TKD::Talk 20:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable Ijanderson (talk) 22:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, you actually think that it's non-notable when there is 6 reliable sources with significant coverage posted above. Schuym1 (talk) 02:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Passes WP:N. Schuym1 (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Sources are reliable, and substantial. -- Whpq (talk) 18:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I do not understand how this short-film is notable. It is not found in IMDB. It has won no awards (not even nominated). Perhaps the article could be saved if merged into The Movies article. Esasus (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMDB is not how we measure notability. The machinama meets the general notability guidelines through coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The lack of an entry on IMDB is irrelevant. -- Whpq (talk) 23:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep IMDB does not confer notability. Plenty of Reliable Sources have. No need to delete as it is now a matter of WP:CLEANUP. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of machinima deletions. — TKD::Talk 07:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The sources provided by the nominator established the notability of the film. --J.Mundo (talk) 02:15, 2 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 Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan. MBisanz ^talk 02:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baadshah Khan[edit]

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

Fails WP:V and WP:BIO. JaGa^talk 17:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For reasons given by nominator. I tried to find sources on Google (not very hard) and only found one item that mentioned in passing that he is a well known fashion choreographer. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable, fails WP:BIO, lack of references and not written in wikipedia style. Ijanderson (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. ArcAngel (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. I don't know about this guy but "the" Badshah Khan is Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan. So this page should be redirected to him, and if this choreographer article is retained, it should be moved and linked to from a disambig page. Tintin 00:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• But this one has two a's in his first name. Badshah Khan already redirects there. --JaGa^talk 03:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete article and then redirect per Tintin. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - either as a hoax or as not notable or as an unverifiable article Esasus (talk) 23:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hans Multhopp. MBisanz ^talk 02:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checkers chess[edit]

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

Chess variant with no real notability. Mentioned in a book but does that really make it notable. Notability tagged since Oct 07. Spiesr (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete

Unfortunately, there are Wikipedia editors who think literally, who think anything even mentioned in any encyclopedia of chess variants by Pritchard must be a solid gold reference. Notably, this was all due to the arbitrary judgment of one very old man (recently, deceased) who did not know how to use a computer. Some old games that are non-notable by modern standards and rarely played by anyone were known of by the few chess variant enthusiasts who existed in the era predating the explosion in the number of games invented, the internet, fast computers and multi-variant programs. I hope this non-notable game will be deleted but brace for the same mindless objections you see to other non-notable chess variants being deleted. By the way, said section is chock full of junk- some of it likely placed anonymously by the game inventors. -DavidWatersHC —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• Speedy merge No reason to lose article history or contents (brief as they are). There is already an article on the author of this game variant and it can be included there. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, oh wow, I created this? I really wish I knew where I got the original content from since I was cleaning up from somewhere. I'd merge unless more content can be found. gren グレン 03:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an unnotable chess variant, and being confused with a newer also unnotable chess variant that uses the same name. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 04:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy merge I agree with the proposal to merge into the article on the author of this variant. In fact the article mentions two authors (apparently of unrelated variants), both of them have their own page so the contents of this one could be split between them - adding details about what is distinctive to each author's variant. (And maybe on eahc author's page say "see also (other author)" in the appropriate place.) Lessthanideal (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into chess variant Esasus (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Hans Multhopp SyG (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of comic book superpowers#Cold and ice manipulation. MBisanz ^talk 02:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cryokinesis[edit]

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

As I said in my Prod rationale, it's a subject with limited coverage (if any) in reliable sources. It doesn't warrant an entry just for its fictional uses. Frankly, I can't even tell if it's about a para-/pseduo-science subject in the real world or about its fictional usage in Charmed, so it's also lacking in context. —C.Fred (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• comment - might List of comic book superpowers#Cold and ice manipulation be a good place to redirect to? That's where the Cryokinesis link from Iceman (comics) goes, anyway. Artw (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Artw (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect- per Artw's logic. The subject matter can be handled there without much fuss. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• redir, per Artw. We're talking about a superpower dealing with ice manipulation, why not put it there? Valley2city^‽ 20:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Artw's suggestion. --Pstanton (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It appears to be a useful article, needs expanding though. Ijanderson (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per Artw. ArcAngel (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge into Psychokinesis - useful and informative article that needs additional work. Do not redirect to to List of comic book superpowers#Cold and ice manipulation as this ability is not, theoretically, limited to the fictional world of comic book superheroes. Esasus (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a fair point, perhaps the list article should be renamed? Artw (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki the dicdef to Wiktionary. Agree with a redirect to List of comic book superpowers. Hiding T 13:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G3, vandalism Mgm|^(talk) 10:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Casimir cones[edit]

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

Probably a hoax. A Google search turns 0 (zero) results for "Casimir cone" in the singular, showing the results of the search for Casimir cone without quotes; these are pages which just happen to mention "Casimir" and "cone" in the same sentence. A search for "Casimir cones" in the plural turns out only copies of this article and of Thought experiment#Physics. Using Google Scholar, I can't find any result for either the singular or the plural. Also, take a look at the author's user page. Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 17:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 17:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Very strong delete. Given the original editor's user page I'm just shy of speedy deleting it as vandalism. Assuming good faith, the article is still unreferenced. —C.Fred (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's a hoax. Dauto (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Probable hoax, with no supporting evidence, or even any meaningful content. Anaxial (talk) 19:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unlikely hoax, but almost certainly original research. JulesH (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It'd be "research" if it said the least bit of what the hell that thought-experiment should be based on. That one sentence is no "research" at all in my opinion, either original or not. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 22:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. One sentence with no sources does not make an article. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Article seems to be a copy of a particular statement made here. Seems nonsense to me. Delete. JocK (talk) 01:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Torres[edit]

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

This article is written as an autobiography and possibly an advert, but it may have the potential to be notable. I've looked for sources, and the only real ones I can find are at the subject's website, www.jkdmartialarts.com, which suggests this does not pass WP:N. However I'm not a martial art expert, and would like the opinion of the community. FlyingToaster 17:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable. Not finding substantial RS coverage, and the article makes no assertions of notability beyond the subject's associations with Bruce Lee (and notability is not inherited). Also, I'll admit I'm not a martial arts expert either, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night! (j/k) ... Baileypalblue (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Spammy advertisement with no independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn, vanity. JJL (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - he is just an instructor, no assertion of notability Esasus (talk) 23:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - if reliable sources about his travels around the world can be verified, then keep; but this looks otherwise to be a candidate for deletion per nom. Bearian (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by DGG, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Hart[edit]

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

The article fails to establish notability of the topic. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 16:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - obvious nn bio. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This article doesn't need an AFD. FlyingToaster 16:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete under category A7. No claim of notability and nothing obvious from a web search. Jll (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - brenneman 00:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Cohen (ufologist, psychic)[edit]

Michael Cohen (ufologist, psychic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Michael Cohen is a Psychic and UFOlogist with no apparent notability. The references given are hardly considered reliable sources except for perhaps the National Newspaper from the Barbados, which briefly mentions him at the end. kelapstick (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Indeed has no reliable sources.--EmperorofPeopleEverywhere (talk) 17:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yeah, no reliable sources and doesn't seem notable. --Pstanton (talk) 20:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per failing WP:N ArcAngel (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no reliable sources. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 00:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep a Google search does infact bring up numerous articles and references to this person and some are arguably reliable, such as coast to coast, unkown country, not possible to list all references: numerous newspapers, he did break a signifant UFO event recently, Is regarded widely as one of Australias leading UFO researchers Starrion1 13:30 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment If reliable sources are integrated into the article as references, there will be no problem passing the AfD, but simply saying that a Google search produces arguably reliable sources is not a valid argument in favour of keeping.--kelapstick (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Is notable by all standards Ozipeter
• Comment The two supporters above have only contributed here or on the article in question. This does not invalidate their right to participate here. Peridon (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have just looked at some of Michael Cohen's predictions for 2009. They remind me a bit of "it'll either rain or go dark before morning". No reliable sources cited in the article. In fact, the 'References' are a little hard to identify. Zoo Magazine? I hardly think interviewing (as I read it) Steve Irwin constitutes notability. (Pre- or post-decease?) A distinct hint of apparent puffery is believed to be present. Peridon (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There seems to be some wrong-headedness on this entry, the issue isnt whether Ufology is notable but whether Michael Cohen is a notable Ufologist-if one looks at the list of Ufologists, most have references no better-As far as Ufologists go Cohen is as notable as most of those with entries and undoubtedly notable with a substantial net presence-he has articles in the Fortean Timesetc: perhaps not regarded as reliable to some here but mainstream as far as Ufology goes. Ozipeter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozipeter (talk • contribs) 22:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seems like spam.--Peephole (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not saying ufology isn't notable or is rubbish - I've seen a flying object that didn't conform to the possible flight patterns of any 'earthly' craft. I'm not decrying psychic phenomena. I've done psychic research with both positive and negative results. This article says Mr Cohen is a ufologist, and no more about it. As to psychics (and mediums), I find most 'professional' ones to be quacks. Peridon (talk) 22:22, 1 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 withdrawn. NAC. JulesH (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

King of Clubs (Whig club)[edit]

King of Clubs (Whig club) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I actually don't think this is necessary. However, the article is completely unsourced. This article would either need very good sources or a complete rewrite to justify its content. Elm-39 - T/C 16:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Clearly notable club. Sources are readily available (e.g. James Population Malthus: His Life and Times ISBN 0415381134 pp83-84, Penny cyclopaedia 1837 -- which calls it one of "the most successful literary clubs of modern times", Virgin Sydney Smith: A Biography ISBN 0002158906 -- containing information about this club on 7 different pages, although I can't see all the references because it's on limited preview in google books). Article should be fixed by editing in preference to deletion, per WP:DELETION. JulesH (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, there are references, but there wasn't a ((reflist)) added so they were invisible. I've added one now. JulesH (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, I didn't see the numbers, which was probably why I was so quick to click. I hoped this article wouldn't go down so quick. Even so, the sources still need to include the information given in this article, or they're useless; I assume they do (the article creator DID say this was a 5 year research project). Anyway, Keep this article now, close discussion. Elm-39 - T/C 18:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Hello. My information on the King of Clubs is based on a 5-year research project and unlikely to be available elsewhere. I am in the process of inputting references etc and it seems a shame to delete it without giving me, as a relative novice, a chance to make amends! Tell me what you require. Thankyou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariakinnaird (talk • contribs) 17:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm assuming all the information you're working with is available in sources that are published (or at least available for public inspection)? See WP:V and WP:OR, two very important policies for wikipedia for an explanation of why this is critical. JulesH (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Thanks for your help (above). I have added some references - I fully intended doing this and had no idea my article would be pounced upon so quickly ! All the information is taken from the sources given, available either at the Brit. Lib. or the Bodleian. Mariakinnaird (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article is sourced and notability has been established for this notable historic club. --J.Mundo (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Needs to be speedily withdrawn from this AfD process. Article is criticised for being unnotable - see Jules H above; unsourced - see recent changes and JulesH notes; and needing a "complete rewrite" - obviously not true. There are some well written paragraphs. Please withdraw this proposal its wasting wiki editting time. We could be assisting this author instead of defending an article that is clearly worthy. Victuallers (talk) 18:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Ecourier[edit]

Request an admin close as Withdrawn by nominator. Springnuts (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable company: sources given are not reliable and substantial. Essentially this is an advertising page by the company founder. Has been speedied; then re-written - but without significant improvement. Springnuts (talk) 16:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, reliable sources include Economist, Financial Times, The Times & Evening Standard which have all written substantial articles on the Company and are cited/listed. I cannot find any parts which is not NPOV. Previous discussion determined the company to be notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.5.19 (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note this IP address has edited almost exclusively on this article and that on the company's founder: see [[13]]. Springnuts (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep The press material may be significant enough. I improved the article by removing some of the more outrageous promotional material, such as portraits of the founders. After the article is dealt with, we need to consider the articles for Tom Allason and Jay Bregman. This is a typical example of how COI can lead to a very poor article, when possibly a less promotional one would not have been nominated for deletion. DGG (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by Nominator - On reflection I was over harsh with this nomination: in my defence I was blinded by the overt peacockery in the article. I will try tidying and de-puffing it. Springnuts (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G3 by Orangemike. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon ball nsd[edit]

Dragon ball nsd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Complete hoax. If this series was legitimate, it would have been reported by reputable anime news websites such as Anime News Network. Prod disputed by IP editor. Farix (Talk) 16:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per CSD G1. -- Goodraise (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If it was real, we would have heard more of it --KrebMarkt 17:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pipe Wrench (cocktail)[edit]

Pipe Wrench (cocktail) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced article about an unremarkable cocktail. Distinct smell of spam in unnecessary multiple mentions of "Triumph Brewing Company" and someone named Adam Fitting (who seems to have been excised from the Triumph article, but not without some difficulty). Prod contested by IP editor. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - My mistake - Adam Fitting is back in Triumph Brewing Company again as of earlier today. First edit of User:Jerseybrewjunkie. I'm not sure what his involvement in that establishment is, but it's beginning to smell like socks around there. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I once made a pint of Gin-ness by putting some Gin in my pint of Guinness. I am Tom Cruise and I demand my box to stand on. Richard Hock (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:N. What few references I could find are either (a) circular (e.g. back to this article) or (b) dated within the past six to nine months or (c) both. Not every possible mixture of beer and spirits needs its own article, does it? Geoff ^{T C} 23:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I've never encountered this drink any serious cocktail literature, including works by experts in the field written long after the alleged invention of this drink. If I get a chance, I'll see if there's a more general class of gin/beer cocktails that this could be merged with. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Here we are; I knew I'd seen something like this before. According to Larousse Cocktails (English edition, Octopus, 2005), p 106, a Tamanaco Dry consists of light beer and gin, and was invented in Venezuela in the 1950s. Any idea if we have notability guidelines for cocktails? AlexTiefling (talk) 19:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Beer cocktail, which appears to be a free-for-all of beer + anything else. Articles on cocktails should meet the general notability guidelines if nothing else. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Clarification - I'm a regular patron of the Princeton location of Triumph Brewing Company, and have been since the opening. Adam "Pipe" Fitting was one of the founders of Triumph Brewing Company, and the Chief Executive officer of the company until 2004, when he sold his interest in the company to his brother Brian Fitting and his partner Adam Rechnitz. This is a cocktail that he introduced during a staff/focus group beer tasting seminar that I attended many years ago at the pub in Princeton.Jerseybrewjunkie (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - I'm sure your presence at this AfD is entirely innocent, but I'm curious how you found it, since your only other contribution was readding Adam Fitting to Triumph Brewing Company a couple of days ago. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - I think this all started when I added the Pipe Wrench to the Beer Cocktails page. A bartender at Rogue Ales Public House in San Francisco told me that the Pipe Wrench had a Wikipedia page when I ordered one. That lead me to the error on the Triumph page. From the looks of things the history of all these articles goes back some time. Why is there so much weirdness about these articles? Are we actually using terms like innocence? My vote as a long time enjoyer of this drink is not to delete, and I'll be spreading the word. For lack of a better Wikipedia rule on this matter I cite WP:IAR.Jerseybrewjunkie (talk) 04:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fitting! - Das klingt wie eine gute Fokusgruppe! Adam Fitting Liebes gin und -politik! Er hat viele loyalen Verfechter! Und er wird nach einem Rohr genannt! Und das Cocktail wird nach ihm genannt! JA bin ich der Meister! Dieses ist ein Triumph! Adam Fitting! HenriPlam (talk) 11:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • (And the crowd cheers wildly...) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually I'm curious how you, as a new Wikipedia user, came to see that the article was up for deletion. It seems odd to me that someone who hadn't had anything to do with the article and wasn't a regular (frequent) editor would be aware that it was. I used the adjective "innocent" to make it clear that I wasn't accusing you of being a sockpuppet of Adam Fitting, because of my comments earlier about sockpuppets. Sorry if you took it the wrong way. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pucci Dellanno[edit]

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

This BLP has no sources that support the individual's notability. This person does not appear to be the subject of any published secondary source material. Original author and primary editor has COI with the subject. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 16:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Hello there, I represent the artist Bridget Grace from the Polydor (Germany) label. I was asked to create a Wikipedia entry two years ago, since this artist's work is constantly remixed and included in compilations, and there was no entry.

This article is about the person as well as the artist, since it seemed to us inane to create an entry for a non-physical person.

This article is no more nor less relevant than ANY article in Wikipedia about musical artists and their career.

Citations are impossible, numerous references and external reference links are provided and can be checked - therefore I do not see how the individual's notability is in doubt - please enter "Bridget Grace" or "Aurora Dellanno" on google to see a large number of references and hits coming up (if the lady prefers to be called Pucci instead of Aurora outside her professional circle, this is entirely her business, of course we will understand if you wish us to change to entry to Aurora Dellanno, aka Pucci from the current name).

Thanks.

Thomaslear (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching pulls up no reliable, third-party, sources. Ghits only show online stores, myspace and facebook sites. The only reference to releases on Polydor, Atlantic or Network records is this wikipedia particle. Willing to change me vote if someone can find some thing that would pass any of the 12 criteria.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 23:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable artist. Myspace links are not considered reliable sources. ArcAngel (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

these are links to external websites that detail Bridget Grace's releases:

http://www.discogs.com/Bridget-Grace-Take-Me-Away/release/65458
http://top80.pl/disc/artist/Bridget+Grace
http://www.kollecta.com/Collector_Item/Vinyl_Record_(music)/Vinyl_Record/Take+Me+Away/757540.htm
http://www.webdjs.ch/sale.htm
http://%3cbr%3ewww.rolldabeats.com/artist/bridget_grace
http://www.amazon.com/Just-Memory-inch-VINYL-Single/dp/B000UD7Q22/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1233150176&sr=1-1
http://www.rave.com.ua/blog/2008/11/28/various-the-ultimate-rave-album/
http://hmv.com/hmvweb/displayProductDetails.do?ctx=12;1;306;-1;202&sku=643278
http://top80.pl/disc/artist/Bridget+Grace
http://www.trugroovez.com/forums/clarence-g-hyperspacesound-lab-e-p-da-bay-sale-t4985.html
http://www.djdownload.com/mp3-detail/Haji++Emanuel/Take+Me+Away/Big+Love/88134
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Original-Rave-Anthems-Various-Artists/dp/tracks/B000JJ5G1K/ref=dp_tracks_all_3#disc_3
http://www.biglovemusic.co.uk/

the links above include Amazon, and HMV.

Polydor Music, as you are probably aware, is now part of the Universal Music Group and our websites only have the current roster of artists. We decided that this artist was worth bringing again to the fore because of the recent remix contest on "Take Me Away" (please cfr reference in the wikipedia page - it is not a myspace link), as well as the song being included in the "Original Rave Anthems" CD published by Warner Music (under license from us for our artists), in December 2006.

This all came after DJs Haji & Emmanuel published a series of mixes of the same song in January 2006. Details of the several releases under the Big Love music label are also available from the biglovemusic link.

Saying that an artist is no longer important because they no longer have a record contract would mean taking Radiohead out of Wikipedia, and the same is saying that Amazon and HMV.com are not reliable resellers because they are online - and before you ask, yes many many people all over the world still buy the Take Me Away mixes and dance to the music - and is an encyclopedia's function not that of reference, to find out where things come from?

Thomaslear (talk) 14:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing the point here. The issue isn't whether she exists, but whether she is notable. Providing a bunch of sites where you can buy her songs hasn't established that. And your last statement about encyclopaedia's function maybe true for a paper encyclopaedia, but not wikipedia. The burden of evidence lies with you, the editor. But then again, going by your talk page, a lot of editors have been trying to help you see this since June 2007, and here we are still going around in circles.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 16:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A musician whose work is constantly reviewed by peers, re-licensed and (in this case) remixed is what is normally considered notable. The evidence I can provide is that this is happening (covers, re-issues and compilations) - and that is the point.

As for my talk page, a lot of editors have indeed helped me, when I created the page, since I had never used Wikipedia to insert data before - and I am grateful to them for that. Going by my talk page, the only time the notability of the subject was put into question, was right when I created the page and I was asked to provide cross-references.

92.234.146.102 (talk) 11:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As her producer, I can understand you fighting to keep the article, but unfortunately none of your arguments hold up against anything. Four out of the six external links that are currently in the article are MySpace links, which WP doesn't see as being a reliable source - see paragraph number ten in this section for more details. On another point, the article as currently written is so far left of neutral it's not even in the ballpark for fulfilling the NPOV guidelines. ArcAngel (talk) 14:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enigmism[edit]

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

A not notable philosophy for which I find no reliable sources with non trivial coverage and providing verifiable information. The creator notes on the article talk page, "It is prevalent in the village I was raised in, unfortunately they do not have much Internet access, that is why I am creating references to it on the web. At one point every belief system was being logged onto the web for the first time." Thus this asserts only local or regional prevalence at best. The source is a myspace page. I was astounded to see initial Ghits of 13,400, but this only yields 15 which are unique. None of them are relevant to this usage. This was originally tagged for speedy deletion as nonsense, but that does not really apply. There is an enigmism.com, apparently available "to let." The article cites a book,(Morality through Enigmism: The Inevitable war of Identity by Aiden Gentia Uncertain Press. Sri Lanka, 1995.) but I find no hits on Worldcat for author or subject at Worldcat. Dlohcierekim 15:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Original research, promoting a fringe theory, without demonstrating its notability or citing reliable, verifiable sources. The tone of the article leads me to suspect it may be a hoax, or an attempt to make a point, perhaps about interracial relationships (or 'mating', to use the author's delicate expression). Moreover, there may be a conflict of interest, based on the similarity of the page author's handle to the name of the alleged author of the only printed source. This may also mean that the article is an attempt to promote the book itself, in which case the page should be speedily deleted as spam. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for reasons above pablo :_{:  ... hablo ...} 16:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. ArcAngel (talk) 00:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for reasons given. simply not notable. Hornsofthebull (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 is one of those cases when we're reminded that AfD is not a vote, it is a discussion. Ultimately, we must look at our core principles of inclusion. When doing so, it's clear that this article does not belong on this project. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitic incidents alleged to be related to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict[edit]

Antisemitic incidents alleged to be related to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

In violation of Wikipedia:Content forking. And most of the incidents are not confirmedto be linked to Gaza assault. I think they are regular antismetic incidents that should not be related to the said assault. Yamanam (talk) 11:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for the reason above. Yamanam (talk) 11:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this is a bad-faith nomination. Keep in mind that the nominator is attempting to change the title of the article (the title at the top of this page is his concoction) and destroy its content, so the version you see at any particular time may not be the "real" version. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 14:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to Jalapenos do exist: Wikipedia:Assume good faith, words like destroy and bad-faith are not welcome in Wikipedia.Yamanam (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The phrase 'bad faith' is not banned or censored in Wikipedia discussions. If, for example, an editor sincerely believes that another editor has made a change or proposed an action in order to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, it's fair comment to suggest that the action was undertaken in bad faith. The general assumption of good faith should not entirely undermine our critical faculties. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Many incidents have been linked to the conflict. And where there is no clear link, attributing the surge to the conflict is logical. A page name change can get around this obstacle if needed. Chesdovi (talk) 14:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - What you feel is logical, other editors may feel is original research. There may be direct or circumstantial evidence in reliable sources to link a particular incident to a particular conflict, in which case that link can be included with appropriate attribution. Your own guesswork, no matter how logical it seems, is not a reliable source.AlexTiefling (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That's what I meant. Chesdovi (talk) 17:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I looked over the page and although there are many references, it has a resounding feel of not just original research, but the above mentioned content forking concerns me as well. Maybe if the page were yanked, reformatted and reposted with a new name, instead of this one, and less of a tone considered to be original research, it would be fine.--EmperorofPeopleEverywhere (talk) 17:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to respond to a claim that the article has a "feel" and a "tone" of original research. Something is either original research or it isn't. If you find a single statement in the article not supported by the sources, please point it out so we can improve it. Though I don't see how any of this has anything to do with deleting the article. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete but for slightly different reasons to the nominator. My concern with this article is that it doesn't clearly distinguish the difference between antisemitism and political criticism of the state of Israel. Many of the events described in the article sound to me more like the latter than the former. JulesH (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clarify, my concern is a mixture of WP:OR and WP:NPOV concerns. For instance, in the lead section there is a sentence which reads "Nazi imagery was used in anti-Israel rallies across Europe to compare Israeli soldiers to German troops." This is sourced to an article which quite carefully does not call these rallies anti-semitic; in fact it quotes people who seem to be going to lengths to avoid saying they were anti-semitic (saying instead that they "fanned the flames of anti-Semitism") and states that most of the protesters involved denied anti-semitism. Therefore, including this event in an article whose title implies that all the things listed are antisemitic incidents is original research (a claim not supported by the source) and an NPOV violation (some people clearly believe it is not an antisemitic incident, and this viewpoint has not been quoted). JulesH (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, finally we have a single example of a problematic sentence. This is an improvement. Unsurprisingly, this is a sentence that was "worked over" by the nominator - I warned of this problem above. The emphasis of the original sentence was the rally where "protesters hollered "Hamas Hamas, Jews to the gas'", to quote the source. I doubt anyone would seriously deny that this is an antisemitic incident. The general mention of rallies using Nazi imagery was a reflection of the opinion of organizations dealing with antisemitism, mentioned in the cited source, that such imagery is used against Israel in antisemitic contexts. I agree that the opposing POV, that Nazi imagery used in criticizing Israel has nothing to do with antisemitism, should be included, assuming it is a significant POV. I still don't understand why issues with particular statements in the article, which would make great discussion page content, are being used to argue for deleting the article. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I doubt anyone would seriously deny that this is an antisemitic incident." Yet still we have no source that says it is one. And there are plenty more examples in the article, too. "A Jewish student was attacked and stabbed four times by Arab youths in a Parisian suburb." Antisemitism? Or a politically motivated attack? The sources disagree, with one calling it an antisemitic attack and the other suggesting that this is a controversial classification. "A French imam who preached for peace with Jews received death threats and was put under police protection." The source does not call this antisemtism, and it's hard to see the argument for it being so; it's a political difference of opinion escalate to extreme levels by a violent situation. "But the past two weeks have also seen aggression within the Jewish community towards those sympathetic to the plight of Gaza." Hard to see how this could be interpreted as antisemitism. "In Italy, a trade union called for a boycott of Jewish-owned shops in Rome." The only mention of antisemitism in the article is the union's denial that it was the motive for the boycott call.

My reason for suggesting deletion rather than editing is that it seems to me that if all of these problems were fixed, the article would barely resemble its current state. It would be less than half as long, and would have a significantly different emphasis. Now, these problems could be fixed, but I question whether it is practical to fix them starting from this article, or if a different starting point would be a better approach. JulesH (talk) 21:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now I see the problem. You do not consider attacks against Jews as Jews to be antisemitic if they're politically motivated. The sources and common sense do, however; in fact, it's practically a tautology, since antisemitism means hostility toward Jews as Jews. Of course the stabbing of the Jewish student, which happened when his attackers noticed he was Jewish, was politically motivated: it was a politically motivated antisemitic attack. And let me get this straight: you're actually debating whether "Hamas Hamas, Jews to the gas" is an antisemitic slogan. No, that particular article does not specifically say that the slogan is "antisemitic", nor does it say that throwing Molotov cocktails on synagogues is "an attack", nor does it say that Israel is "a country in western Asia". It does, however, explicitly make clear (for the benefit of readers like you, I can only suppose) that boycotting Jewish businesses is an antisemitic act. So there's your source for that particular self-evident issue. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it worthwhile to quote Guillaume Ayme of the campaign group SOS Racisme:

"The people who attacked synagogues, for example, they hated Jews before the start of the conflict and it just gives them a reason or an easy explanation to express this hatred." BBC

He is of the opinion that most attacks are politically motivated, but because they are directed against Jews, and not Israelis, they are considered anti-semitic. This article does have to be carefully sifted through though. Chesdovi (talk) 23:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge merge to 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict, add a section titled something like "anti-semitic backlash" or something like that --Pstanton (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be unwise, as that article is already too long and, as a result, much material even more directly related to the conflict has already been spun off into separate articles, by consensus. This article barely scrapes the surface of the notable information, and when it becomes thorough it will be a fairly long article itself. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete do not merge, anything with the words "alleged" in it's title is a clear content fork, also I don't see it ever becoming neutral enough for a merge as well. Agree with JulesH Secret ^account 20:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article did not have the word "alleged" in its title until the nominator added it, while nominating the article for deletion. I warned above that this behavior would cloud the issue. The reason the article did not have the word "alleged" in its title is because it does not deal with allegations, it deals with facts. The spike in antisemitic incidents during the conflict in question is considered by the multiple reliable sources cited to be related to the conflict. This is made clear in the text of the article, and can be verified just by reading the titles of the cited sources: "Anti-Semitic Attacks Fuelled by Gaza Conflict" (The Times) and so forth. One could also, of course, read the sources. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is a fork. Infomation was originally placed here, but that page was getting to long. Chesdovi (talk) 22:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• reasonably strong keep

1. See no forking here. Please indicate where.
2. The title specifically mentions alleged now. Debresser (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Chesdovi (talk) 21:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:FORK, also its WP:POV. Ijanderson (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into International reaction to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict (CLOSING ADMIN: see my not below) - I think this material is mostly relevant an encyclopedic, and presents facts that are unquestionable - so the material should not be deleted. I think the article has serious issues with WP:V and possibly WP:SYNTH - and needs a more balanced and impartial tone (ie It was named "Attacks against Jews", which is both POV (not all incidents listed are attacks - speech is hurtful and hateful but is not an attack as generally accepted) and bad English (We have a word for "hate against Jews" in English: "Antisemitic"; not using it its like saying "Killing one self" instead of "Suicide"). I disagree the nom is bad faith, but I think it is a mistaken one, and that an effort can be made with the material to bring it to encyclopedic quality.

• However, If kept, "Alleged" is WP:WTA, if this article is not deleted/merged it should be with "Antisemitic incidents related to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict" title formulation.--Cerejota (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but International reaction to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict is already impossibly long, and several editors there (including myself) are currently discussing splitting it into several articles, both because of its length and because it combines issues that are not obviously related: official statements, humanitarian aid and civilian protests. Also, while I've become convinced that your name "Antisemitic incidents" is better than my "attacks against Jews", I want to point out that JulesH has argued for deletion above (if I understand him correctly) because attacks against Jews do not necessarily constitute antisemitic incidents. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think all attacks against civilian Jews in non-conflict areas, that are against Jews as Jews are antisemitic. Its the definition of the term. This might surprise you. However, the article length issue is can be managed if not so much incidents are included. Just because something is RS doesn't make it notable. I do agree that there is notability of the general phenomenon of the increase compared to Jan 2008 and figures like Sarkozy have addressed the matter. But this would make a two or three paragraph addition to "Reactions". This is why some say this is POVFORKing, because it was done a bit prematurely by eager editors who are themselves Jews - instead of summary article. That said, if clearly linked to reactions in the ways suggeste dby WP:SUMMARY, and IF other sections of "Reactions" are similary summarized, I move to KEEP.--Cerejota (talk) 03:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article meets WP:RS standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Update: user:Chesdovi is currently hard at work revamping the article. I view his changes as a great improvement, noting that since he's in the middle, there are some expected consistency issues. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY. Kudos to ChesD for revamping the article. Any confusion between valid political criticism and antisemitism should be resolved at the article's talk page, not at afd. 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict is already bursting at its seams. We should encourage, not discourage, spinoffs. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to International reactions to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. I mean should we create an article anti-Muslim violence as well?("Sarkozy vows "zero tolerance" for Gaza hate crimes". Reuters. 2009-01-14.)

Secondly, if the article is to stay we need to rename it something like "Allegations of antisemitism perceived to be in relation to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict". This is because there is a lot of claims of antisemitism made by sources all over.VR _talk 06:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Take this source for example. The reliable source clearly says "accusations of anti-semitism". It does not say that the union's call for boycott was a definite act of antisemitism. The article title should therefore be something like "Allegations of antisemitism..." or "Claims of antisemitism..."VR _talk 06:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am having flashbacks of "allegations of apartheid"... "allegations" is WP:WTA... curren title is correct, let the facts speak for themselves is a matter to be solved by editing not deletion or renaming. I can't believe brewcrewer is being the reasonable one here...--Cerejota (talk) 08:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete as POV fork. Stifle (talk) 09:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is valid and well sourced article. I do not see any content forking. Fork with what article? Even if there was a content fork, it should be removed from another article and placed here.Biophys (talk) 22:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as this is a clear POV Fork and serves no other purpose than to project the victimhood of Jews(which is not WP is all about). Anti-Semitic attacks(which are sometimes just anti-Israel) related to recent war should be noted in an appropriate section in the same article. It is not useful to create a new article for every set of hate crimes against Jews or Muslims. Zencv ^{Lets discuss} 22:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the scale of the backlash, noted in the article, and its reaction, sets this "set of hate crimes" aside from other waves. Chesdovi (talk) 22:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no objective way to measure "scale of backlash". The same could be said(by someone else) for creating an article titled "Islamophobic attacks occuring after 7/7 in Britain". I don't think that 2 years from now, any independent historian would be talking about these attacks as if these were a separate notable incident that required a separate article, apart from the 2009 Gaza war. Zencv ^{Lets discuss} 22:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As has already been noted on this page, because of the sheer length of 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict, many of its aspects have been spun off according to WP:SUMMARY. There is an objective way to measure the scale of the backlash, which is used by some of the sources in the article: comparison between number of incidents in this period with a similar period; not that a lack of such a method would provide any reason for deleting the article. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the number of incidents is no measure of objectivity. There are countless hate crimes against many other races happening everywhere, everyday. Now let us say once things cool down, and if [alleged] increase in antisemitic attacks come down, should we have an article titled "Reduction in number of antiSemitic attacks alleged to truce between Hamas and Israel"? The problem is that of notability as a separate article Zencv ^{Lets discuss} 20:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any wave of hate crimes against any group would be notable enough for a separate article if it affected the lives of millions of people around the world, received significant attention in the world media, and drew responses from world leaders, human rights groups and notable religious figures. BTW, I would support your suggestion of merging this article into 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict or one of its spinoff articles (you suggest delete, but in your comment you speak of merging), except that those articles are way too long already, and this article is also long, as it has a lot of material to cover. If you agree that the content should be on Wikipedia, the existence of a separate article is a typical application of WP:SUMMARY and is a purely procedural matter. I don't understand whether you in fact agree that the content should be on Wikipedia. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jalapenos, let me tell you very honestly, with all due respect to you as an editor, when this article first came into my notice, I thought this was a pretty lame article. I proposed some changes to the lead as a first step(refer talk page), but I did not actually incorporated those changes into the article, as I was thinking of nominating this article for deletion. As a first step, I wanted to notify you of my intentions and arguments and it was then that I noticed that another user had already proposed this for deletion and you yourself had sought the comment of another user in your talk page. My feelings for this article is similar to that of the user whose comments/opinion you had sought. I don't see a need for this article, it is so specific that a reader would be quite unlikely to come across it, and it smells of POV Fork. I was not actively calling for a merge, rather wanted to say that it would suffice to include notable parts of this article in the Gaza article Zencv ^{Lets discuss} 22:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As specific as Islamist demonstration outside Danish Embassy in London in 2006? Chesdovi (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zencv, no disrespect is taken, as articles are hardly ever top-notch at their very beginning. User:Chesdovi is currently turning it into a far better article than it was when I started it. The only merit I can see in your claim that this is a POV fork is that there are often articles similar to this one that are POV forks. But this article deals with a very real and significant phenomenon, as can be seen by reading the cited sources, and as has been acknowledged by several people on this page, even those who don't support keep. POV forks tend to be an attempt to find new ground for content that was opposed in the original article. Here there was no controversy, simply none whatsoever, in 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict, Effects of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict or International reaction to the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict. The motivation for spinning off the article was simply that it was getting or going to get too long for the already overweighted host article. Again, this is a typical application of WP:SUMMARY. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I cant find forking or original research. HereFord 01:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not every trend/news event deserves an article in Wikipedia. WP:INDISCRIMINATE. maybe a move to Wikinews is fine. JVent (talk) 04:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this has been widely reported upon and is a very real phenomenon. --GHcool (talk) 06:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into International reaction to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. It is an important issue that needs to be covered but I think as a standalone article it becomes a bit too decontextualized or the context get's completely shifted inappropriately in my view. For example, I look at the page and the very first thing I see is a Judenstern badge. Somehow the context is transformed to the Holocaust when in fact the context is the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict. That seems inappropriate. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This article, like others of its ilk, is a transparent ruse to sneak cheap propaganda into the Wikipedia in the guise of scholarship. It sits comfortably with Israel and the apartheid analogy, Blood Libel at Deir Yassin, and the dozens of massacre articles and massacre lists and massacre summaries written by both sides. None of these articles represents a trend or cultural artifact of any significance in itself; they should all be deleted and, where the information is meaningful, recast into articles that are not mere attempts to get hate words into Wikipedia titles.

Could you imagine an article in the 11th edition of Britannica with this preposterous title?

This is not a vote to delete, just a venting of my festering disgust with the way we editors deal with these topics. --Ravpapa (talk) 11:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of article may not feature in the Britannica, but it would in an almanac of some sort. Also Wiki is not paper. Your accusation of "cheap propaganda" does not tally with the exposure this backlash has had in the media. Have you seen how many sources there are? There have also been news reports about it on TV: Gaza: rise in anti-Semitism?. Chesdovi (talk) 11:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a slight difference, important though, between attacking a Jewish only because s/he is Jewish (which is anti-semitic), and attacking a Jewish because Israel (his national home) is brutally assaulting another nation, the latter is not anti-semitic. Yamanam (talk) 12:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Difference in motivation, but still anti-semitic. Not every Jew holds Israeli citizenship! Chesdovi (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is my point exactly; the motivation will determine whether this attack is anti-semitic or not (no matter what is the nationality of the attacked person). Yes, not every Hew hods an Israeli citizenship, but the perception of the whole world that every Jew is entitled to get an Israeli citizenship, therefor, the actions of Israeli government are reflected someway or another on the Jews all over the world. let us not confuse the reader, let us make it clear: not all attacks against Jews are anti-semitic attacks. One question might clarify this issue more, do u consider the Palestinian attacks (living in Gaza or West Bank)on Jewish Israeli people an anti-semitic action? The answer is no, apply the same concept on this article and you will find that it is forking.Yamanam (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attacking an Israeli who happens to be Jewish is not antisemitic, but attacking a Jew because he is a Jew is antisemitic, even if the motivation is a perceived connection between Jews and Israel's actions at any given time. That perceived connection is unjustified, because many Jews have absolutely nothing to do with Israel. But the question has nothing to do with justification, it has to do with the definition of antisemitism. For example, if (hypothetically) all Jews were members of a cabal plotting to enslave the human race, it could be justified to attack Jews, but such attacks would still be antisemitic, since antisemitism is defined as "hostility toward Jews". Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitism is defined by European Forum on Antisemistism as:

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities

So it is a perception of Jews, not a perception of Israeli. The mentioned attacks against Jews were mainly because of a perception of them being Israeli since it was motivated by the israeli brutal assault. Yamanam (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yamanam, you must accept the fact that not every Jew is an Israeli and not every Israeli is a Jew. The Balfour Declaration of 1917 specifically stated that "nothing shall be done which may prejudice... the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country". Your theory that because Israel allows all Jews to apply for citizenship, Jews are therefore accountable for Israel's actions is astounding! Your suggestion that Israel's actions are reflected on all Jews is interesting. While many Jews would be proud of Israel's achivements, I am sure they would baulk at being vilified for its shortcomings! Israel is not the representitve of the Jewish people. And neither do Jews represent Israel. Livni said "whatever one's opinion of Israel's military operation, it should not be used to legitimize hate and anti-Semitic incitement." It is because many people, including yourself, mix the two, these attacks have occurred. And they are to be condemed as any other anti-semitic attack. There is no justification. According to you, it would not be Islamophobic for me to attack a Muslim or mosque in London because a Muslim country brutally attacked another nation. This is warped thinking. Embassies are the place for protests, not people or institutions whhich share the same religion. That is what the Jewish community of Antwerp meant when they issued a statement condeming the anti-semitic violence saying "we are all Flemish, we are all Antwerp inhabitants". This is what the Spainish PM explained aswell: "The Israeli government should be criticised if it used disproportionate force, but without going too far in the sense that everything Jewish or Semitic would need to be unanimously criticised." The problem with too many people is that they don't see the difference between the two. That is why Neturei Karta are so intent on making their statements that "Not all Jews are Zionists"! Chesdovi (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Chesdovi, don't think that i am justifying or looking for a justification for those people who are attacking Jews, I think u already knew that. Another thing, I certainly know that not every Jew is israeli and not every israeli is Jew; I am only emphasizing on one point, the underlying reasons for those attacks are not because the attacked are Jew, they are rather because of the level of brutality that was exercised by the israeli government. And since most people "don't see the difference between the two" they attacked Jews thinking they are the same thing as Israel. You brought it up, do you think that the attackers would attack members of Neturei Karta? the answer is yes and no; NO if the attacker knew Neturei Karta's political views, and YES if the attacker didn't know Neturei Karta's political views. Yamanam (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the new Motives section will have placated you? :-) Chesdovi (talk) 23:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noted your reply, to be quite honest with you, this section made the article better, and by better I mean it minimized the ambiguity of the artilce. But still the title and most sections of the article imply that those attacks are in response to the conflict and are targeting Jewish only becasue they are Jewish. Yamanam (talk) 19:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are targeting Jews because of the conflict and because they are Jewish. They are targeting Jews because they believe all Jews are supportive of Israel and back its actions. All Jews therefore advocate the massacre of civilians. All Jews are greedy too. And because the massacre of civilians is evil, just as greed and arrogance is evil, all Jews are understandably attacked. It is not a gratuitous hate. There is always a perceived reason behind the anti-semitic prejudice, a motive for the attacks. It is not just because they were born Jewish, but because what Jews are associated with. It would not be anti-semitic for an ill-treated worker to punch his boss, who happened to be Jewish. But for him to punch another random Jew in the street as revenge against his boss, would be. “But I wasn’t punching him because he was Jewish”, he retorts. “It was because of the ill-treatment of my Jewish boss; and as all Jews share the same ethnicity, all must support the ill-treatment of workers. My assault therefore, cannot be classed anti-semitic.” Now did this worker ask the random Jew whether he supports ill treatment of workers before he punched him? No. He just perceived these two Jews were one and the same and both equally deserving of his retribution. Did any of the current anti-semitic attackers ask their victims whether they supported the Israeli action before they carried out their attack? Did the pakistani terrorist in Mumbai ask Leibish Teitelbaum whether he was an anti-Zionist before he shot him? No. They just attacked them because they were Jewish and because what those people associate all Jews with. These recent global attacks carried out against random Jews are indeed anti-semitic precisely because the attackers are perceiving all Jews to be collectively supportive and therefore culpable for, in this case, Israeli actions. Attacks against the Israeli embassy would not be called anti-semitic. Attacks against pro-Israel supporters would not be anti-semitic. The attack at the BICOM office is not classed anti-semitic. Attacks against random synagogues and random Jews are.

Noting the surge of anti-semitic attacks in the UK during the Gaza conflict, it will be interesting to know whether any of the 150,000 British Sinhalese people have been attacked by any of the 120,000 British Sri Lankan Tamil people or their Hindus supporters anywhere in the UK in response to the Sri-Lankan’s armys “brutal attack” of Mullaitivu. 50,000 demonstrated against it today in London. Chesdovi (talk) 00:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For me these attacks are antisemitic simply by definition but more importantly they must be motivated by the actions of the Israeli government in Gaza or else they shouldn't be in the article obviously. I think this discussion between the two of you illustrates why this article shouldn't be a standalone article and why it's better to merge it into the article specifically related to this conflict. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which article should it be merged into. It has been noted that the Reaction page is too long. I don't think its an "effect" of the conflict either? Chesdovi (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the reaction page which could be reduced in size quite dramatically I think. If it really can't be reduced in size sufficiently for some reason then I think it would be better if this article was renamed and included these kind of incidents/attacks against civilians/property from both sides of the conflict to avoid content forking. There's already too much content forking around I-P issues. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:SYN violation. Merge any notable information into the appropriate articles. csloat (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note which souces used violate WP:Synthesis. The article is entitled "Attacks which occured during the conflict". All these did? The article goes on to link most the attacks to the war, as their sources do. There is no OR here? Chesdovi (talk) 15:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If one of the sources used was the issue, it wouldn't be a SYN violation. The violation is the article itself, which strings together various sources, apparently for soapboxing purposes. It is actually your burden (or, the burden of those who want to keep the article) to show a single reliable source that strings all these incidents together under a category like this and gives that category notability; that does not seem to exist here. csloat (talk) 09:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment How about we rename it to 'Racial backlash alleged to be related to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza' to include information like this?--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't open that link? I thought of renaming it to: Antisemitic backlash to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. Chesdovi (talk) 23:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1058812.html copy and paste, it is about anti-Arab attacks taking place in Israel related to the 'conflict'. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's better. These Anti-Arab attacks should be added somewhere. It mentions Gaza, but what does "nationally motivated" mean? Was it in response to Hamas rockets? Chesdovi (talk) 00:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have found another: Share Email Print Church defaced by pro-Israel, anti-Arab graffiti. Chesdovi (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Needs some improvement, but well sourced and not a POV fork. Rlendog (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - I don't see why this was separated from the main article on the International reaction to the Gaza conflict, as all of the attacks (whether they were anti-Israeli or just plain racist) are directly linked to this particularly conflict. Also, if merged, I suggest a rename to just "Violent incidents" or something of that nature and we could include attacks by the Israeli army against protesters in the West Bank (four or five incidents that I know of) in that particular section. This current article seems to serve no productive purpose other than being POV or attempting to foster sympathy for Jews around the world, which might not be wrong to some, but is counter to the purpose of Wikipedia. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename the title doesnt seem to be Encyclopedic. --Wayiran (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article is well-sourced, decently written and contains content that is useful. This AfD is probably in bad faith, based on the nom's comments regarding Jews in the discussion. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 22:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete - There are far too many POV forks. LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 22:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - um...I think I'm allowed to have a say, right? I think it should be deleted because it is mainly attacks against Jews not Arabs. It should talk about attacks on both sides. 78.148.63.39 (talk) 22:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment - Being that Antisemitism is generally accepted to mean prejudice and discrimination against Jews and not Arabs, it follows that an article discussing the subject would focus on acts of hatred against Jews and not against Arabs. Even if we assume that Antisemitism includes hatred against Arabs, the mere fact that an article is incomplete is not grounds for deletion. Be bold and write an article about hatred relating to Arabs that has occurred as a result of this event rather than trying to get this (good) article deleted. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 00:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I think it's reasonable to assume that the international reactions article will be split into sub-articles given it's current size. See Talk:International_reaction_to_the_2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Splitting_the_Article. This article could then be renamed and become one of the sub-articles dealing with all racially/stupidity motivated incidents. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sean, looking at this from a categorization perspective, I tend to support your idea. Logically, there are 4 types of backlash incidents that belong in one article: anti-Israeli, anti-Jewish, anti-Palestinian and anti-Arab/Muslim. The problem is that almost all of the incidents, at least those that were reported, belonged to one type - this type: anti-Jewish. There were a few attacks against Israeli embassies, Dead Sea Care products stands and the like (anti-Israeli). There were one or two incidents in Israel against Israeli Arabs/Palestinian citizens of Israel (anti-Palestinian). And as far as I'm aware, there was one attack during the conflict, in France, against Arabs (anti-Arab/Muslim), and it would be difficult to tie even that attack to the conflict. So the question is what do/should we do on Wikipedia when several issues should logically be categorized together, but one of the issues overshadows the others. I have wondered about this regarding completely noncontentious, apolitical issues, and have never seen a coherent, convincing answer. Perhaps somebody has one now. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it's a bit of a conundrum and I don't want to be like the NBC execs who nearly shelved Seinfeld after the pilot testing because it was 'too Jewish'...classic. Actually I'm surprised that there haven't been more attacks on Jewelers because 'it sounds a bit like Jew' or Indians because '..aren't they the same as Arabs' given that there's there's no danger of stupidity running out in the near future. I have to openly declare a strong POV bias here so you know where I'm coming from. I'm not at all in favour of the content forking around I-P issues. It's a bit of a problem here. It's turning WP into a West Bank-like patchwork. For example, I'd much rather all of the rocket attack articles were changed into articles documenting incidents involving both sides, rockets, incusions into Gaza, suicide bombings etc so that they could become more timeline-like rather than focus on a specific aspect that only affects one side. It was unfortunate in my view that a recent articles for deletion nomination about Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip in 2008 resulted in the deletion of the article when the info could have been combined with existing info to reduce content forking. So, I really see this as an opportunity to stop the patchwork spreading. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - obviously notable material which needs to be split from the reactions page per WP:SIZE. (N)POV has absolutely nothing to do with it, and there's nothing inherently POV about either the article's title or its content. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 01:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Well sourced and detailed. Gives an account of incidents against Jews sparked by the last Israeli-Palastinian conflict in Gaza which were well documented by world media and by Jewish organizations. Best. Tkalisky (talk) 06:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - seems an acceptable spinoff article. The main conflict article is excessively long already, necessitating the creation of articles like this (see also, for instance, list of Qassam rocket attacks); I don't agree that it's a POV fork, as I don't think this article is particularly biased. It's undisputable that there did occur a number of antisemitic incidents related to the recent Gaza conflict; there is a danger of original research here, in assuming the existence of links that didn't actually exist, but most of the examples here do appear to be specifically related to the Gaza conflict. A merge into the International Reaction article would be possible, but it doesn't strike me as absolutely necessary either. Terraxos (talk) 23:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, feels too content fork-y to me. Wizardman 04:38, 2 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.