The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If anyone needs userified content, let me know. — Scientizzle 00:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of session musicians[edit]

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

That an individual session musician is notable is fine. But this type of list of "all the notable session musicians under the sun" is unworkable, unmaintainable and thus becomes no use at all as an alternative navigation route into session Musicians. Usually I support both a list and a category because each has a different value to the WP user, but here I have to suggest that only a category is workable and the list is not. The list, while a lot of hard work for the originator, is a quantity of indiscriminate information. It cannot avoid being one. I think the idea was great, but I cannot see how this idea can be implemented in an encyclopaedic manner. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I agree with the nom almost completely. This list is nearly infinite in its scope. Shadowjams (talk) 23:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow some time to let it improve. I just created this article to get this admittedly unreferenced and random list out of the session musicians article. I agree that as it stands, it is weak. But it can be improved. Timtrent stated that this idea might not be able to be workable or encyclopaedic. I think it could move in that direction if we add some standards..like each name needs a reputable source (music encyclopedia) indicating that the person is a session musician. Then we could add another standard, such as "must have performed on at least XXX major label albums" or something, to screen out minor session musicians. As well, the list could have more categorizing, such as by era and by genre. Plus screen out the minor, little-known people. I say give the list a chance to improve. It just started its life as a stand-alone article! :) OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How much time is enough? This list has been part of Session musician for a substantial time and all that's happened is that it has become more and more unwieldy. AfD runs for 5 days unless snowballed. Even if every member of the list is referenced the whole thing remains totally unworkable. Unless, of course, you are a miracle worker. Believe me, if you can work miracles then great, but I cannot see how this can possibly be made into a comprehensive and encyclopaedic list. This is a place for categories I'm afraid, not lists. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - impossibly wide scope. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hopelessly unmaintainable, any potential criteria for inclusion would be arbitrary. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If everyone included on the list have Wikipedia articles, and are notable, I don't see why having a list of them is a bad thing. It would be, by definition, limited to those musicians who are notable, which means that it wouldn't be an infinite, unmaintainable list. I'm not sure why this is any different than other lists of notable people by vocation. If we delete this, then we should delete other lists of people by vocation that happen to be very long. In my opinion, the fact that there are a great many notable session musicians isn't a good enough reason to delete the list. Clean it up, make it workable, but no need to delete. As for "how much time is enough" to fix it up, Wikipedia has no deadlines. You work on articles that are not great, but notable, you don't delete them because they aren't perfect. SMSpivey (talk) 05:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: this list is just way too broad in scope. Just about every musician at some time or another has sessioned on a recording. Maybe if the scope had been more specific I would vote keep but this list in its present form is unmaintainable and endless. JamesBurns (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, session musicians are inherently non-notable so there is no need to provide a way to search for a session musicians who play a particular instrument. That would be a function for a directory of musicians, presumably used by soloists looking for backup. Not our job. Benefix (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Give it a chance per User:OnBeyondZebrax. To TenPoundHammer: relying on reliable sources to describe them as session musicians would hardly be arbitrary. Brownsnout spookfish (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per WP:SALAT this is "too general or too broad in scope". Bongomatic 05:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right on, dude. Even though the general page has already been sectioned into categories per WP:SALAT, session musicians are inherently non-notable so there is no reason to provide this directory-style organization. Benefix (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Too many millions to list (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 23:50, 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 delete. — Aitias // discussion 14:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Myles Blade376[edit]

Myles Blade376 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No indication of notability Shadowjams (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It seems pretty clear that this is a vanity page created by a teenager about himself. Could have been speedily-deleted, as it doesn't even attempt to establish notability (vlogging on Youtube doesn't count). But in any case it's pretty obvious that this needs to go. -- Atama^chat 23:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, take away the self promotion, and the links to avoid, and you're left with..........well, nothing. I concur with the speedy-delete.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 00:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following copied from article's talk page

Talk:Myles Blade376, does have notabilty. And many external links for refrences for the page. Myles Dyer is a famous internet celebrity viewed by thousands and has been on a BBC Reality Show called Upstaged. He has been interviewed by a radio station and other local newspapers. Please Contact be if you can to tell me what I can do to make this page better...

• Being "viewed by thousands" and just one apperance on BBC isn't enough, nor is one radio interview or scant local coverage. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

End copied text

• Delete as speedy decliner. Notability needs better references to survive AfD, not just the bare assertions needed to escape speedy. Jclemens (talk) 04:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: inadequate third-party references, and a search doesn't yield any better ones. Gonzonoir (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Is this the same guy? In which case we have one substantial source in which he is the primary subject. But the only other thing I could find was this mention. The Upstaged appearance was as part of a team, and his name is not found anywhere. In total, this is not sufficient to meet notability for me. -- Whpq (talk) 16:45, 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 merge to Nancy Pelosi. seresin ( ¡? )  05:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Political positions of Nancy Pelosi[edit]

Political positions of Nancy Pelosi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is a content fork of the political positions section that currently exists in the Nancy Pelosi article. The Nancy Pelosi article is not overly long and that section still exists there. This article has not been budded off from that article per summary style but rather exists parallel to it, so there is no reason for this article to exist. Loonymonkey (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, encyclopedic. Ottre 23:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment. There are two process problems here. First, User:Levineps created the subarticle and left a summary section in the main article with this edit, with no edit summary explanation, no discussion with other editors on the talk page, no nothing. That's not right, any major change like this requires justification and consultation and consensus ahead of time. Second, User:Loonymonkey has both restored the full section in the main article with this edit, and also nominated the subarticle for deletion claiming the content is duplicated. That's not a reasonable explanation of what's in question here. Looneymonkey is correct, however, that the unsplit Pelosi article isn't too long by size standards, as it's 29 kB (4772 words) "readable prose size", well within guidelines. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"That's not right, any major change like this requires justification and consultation and consensus ahead of time."

Not so. However, there's no reason it couldn't have been reverted. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back into the main article. Pelosi's article is not so long that sub-articles need to be spun off. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I almost always agree with vicious little canines.--MONGO 00:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect back, since the first half of the merge is already done. This didn't need to be split. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• RD back. Current article not unwieldy. If more of the sections turn into text longer than the current 2-3 sentance single 'graf, reconsider. Bongomatic 05:19, 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 delete. — Aitias // discussion 14:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Themis Music[edit]

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

Subject is not notable (enough) per WP:Music. Album is self-published, and while there appear to be a lot of references, most of them are to the band/project's own website and associated sites. Coverage is actually limited to this, which doesn't appear to be a much of a publication; this, a site where one can download music for a fee; and this, whose information is a copy of the first link (or the other way around). Despite the claim to many very different activities, there really is no in-depth independent coverage of the band, and thus notability is not established. Drmies (talk) 22:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Obvious delete The band clearly fails WP:MUSIC; the article has been deleted before on these grounds and in the intervening time has not been signed, released even a single album on a notable label, or received any non-trivial coverage in third-party reliable sources whatsoever. I'm afraid webradio biogs just don't cut the mustard. The one potential claim to notability is as the most prominent members of a notable subgenre; however, if the subgenre consist of (at present) one band of note (the subject, up for deletion) then that crierion cannot be adequate. This is a pure vanity piece. Tangentially important, but could I advise people to take a look at the article's talk page before commenting. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note--I was unsure whether it had been deleted before, which is why I provided an incorrect edit summary when I put the tag on the article. Thanks Blackmetalbaz. Drmies (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete deja vu, I'm not finding any more reliable sources that are better than last time around. Possible Speedy G4, but it has been over 6 months, so maybe not. Still doesn't meet notability per WP:MUSIC. If they keep going, they may get a mention in the music press as being the the most deleted band on wikipedia, which would then make them notable under Music#C1. Excuse my humour, I haven't had my morning coffee yet.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 23:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This strikes me as a subject that will probably eventually gain notability, but hasn't done so yet. The sources given do not pass WP:MUSIC so it's a delete for the time being with no sanction against recreation if more references become available in the future. Trusilver 08:31, 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 deleted CSD G4 as it was substantially identical to the deleted version titled J4jumpy and the changes in the recreated page did not address the reasons for which the material was deleted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J4Jumpy[edit]

J4Jumpy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article about a non-notable publication, which was apparently deleted under a different name (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J4jumpy). In any case, three of its four sources are recursive and while it asserts notability for being an important publication in the Pakistan music scene, it essentially has no reliable sources. Thus, the article should be deleted. TheLetterM (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete CSD G4. Now tagged as such.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 22:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:41, 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 merge to Billings, Montana. MBisanz ^talk 21:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Downtown Billings[edit]

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

This article is unsourced and provides little in the way of encyclopedic value on its own. It is redundant in scope to both the Billings, Montana and the Sections of Billing, Montana articles. The information it contains should be merged into the Downtown Billings section of the Sections of Billings, Montana article and/or the Billings, Montana article. Mike Cline (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC) MuZemike 23:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - There's no need to bring merge discussions here, I would recommend being bold in this case. the wub "?!" 00:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge With the article on Billings, Montana. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge clearly, also, be bold per Pastor Theo. SMSpivey (talk) 04:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Contents have been merged into the Sections of Billings, Montana article. Thanks for the Be Bold encouragement, but one must alway remember the inscription on the three Gates of Busyrane:

"Be bold!" first gate; "Be bold, be bold, and evermore be bold," second gate; "Be not too bold!" third gate.

--Mike Cline (talk) 19:36, 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 21:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gallon challenge[edit]

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

This article violates WP:NOT (for things made up one day). This isn't a notable game or challenge in the encyclopedic sense. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 21:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Drmies (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This has had a very long time to establish that it's not something made up one day. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this type of milk-drinking contest has been covered in newspaper articles like these. [1], [2], [3], [4]. Note that a google news search for "milk chugging" with gallon turns up lots of these results, many behind pay walls. -- Whpq (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Yes there are incidents that have been reported like Milk bet turns sour for Marlins bat boy and Teacher Fired For Milk-Barfing Experiment but these aren't quite what this article is about. For gross-out and juvenile fun you need to rise to phonebooth stuffing, goldfish swallowing and fart lighting. If there is movement to recreate this may I suggest milk chugging as a title? -- Banjeboi 04:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the first article I linked to has the gallon challenge specifically as it's primary subject with a statement of the usual rules followed and isn't a report on an incident. -- Whpq (talk) 13:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In thinking more on this I'm open to a wp:Heymann rewrite if the article is written encyclopedicly about Milk chugging rather than as a challenge. In this way we veer off of college/sophomoric hazing rituals and focus on the activity, variants, actual notable cases, scientific basis, etc. rather than being a repository of rules so you can organize a group of friends. There can be a good article unearthed here but like many pop culture subjects or articles about words, we need to find the encyclopedic aspects and focus on those. If there are notable usages in media they can be included after the notability and other elements have been discussed. -- Banjeboi 15:58, 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 no consensus. However, it is accepted that the article has quite a few issues, and it may well be renominated here before long should they not be resolved. Stifle (talk) 09:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Putinland[edit]

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

The article as written by Martintg has a major problem. These problems include:

1. The documentary article and the Polish article only mention Putinland in their title. According to Martintg, as on eSStonia, this is not valid for inclusion into an article, and hence they have been removed.
2. The lead states that it came into being after the death of Litvinenko. He didn't die until November 2006. Both of the remaining two sources pre-date his death.
3. I've removed "who exposed the brutality of the Kremlin's war in Chechnya" as it is a word for word copyvio of the source.
4. The Edward Lucas article mentions the term in the title only. The source provided is a subscription service, so Martintg needs to provide a direct quotation from the text of the article, otherwise the entire Lucas section needs to be removed as per the other two sources.
5. The assertion "The term is intended to portray Russia as a corrupt and murderous regime where the line between the security forces and organised crime is blurred, with particular reference to FSB involvement in the Russian apartment bombings and the assassinations of prominent critics." is POV original research on the part of Martintg by the looks of it. Even if it can be sourced, its still POV, due to FSB involvement only being alleged in a number of conspiracy theory by different kooks, this goes to show that this is a point article.
6. Then we have have it appeared after the murder of Politkovskaya. This needs a citation, otherwise that too is original research, because the only source left which actually references Putinland in the article is a direct quotation to Politkovskaya herself, which to point out the bleeding obvious, she isn't able to write from the grave, or is she?

As it stands, this is a WP:POINT article in relation to the AfD for eSStonia, in which Martintg was directly asked if he would create Putinland. Sorry Martin, I would prefer for this article to stay, but there is no assertion of notability in the article which is referenced to reliable sources, so instead of prodding it only to have it removed, I think its best to bring it here instead for discussion, and see if notability can be established. I can find no relevant book or scholar results in Google, I also can find no really relevant news sources, for which the majority of results are for "Put inland", and even one for "Putin's land grab". The rest seem to use Putinland as a substitute for Russia. I can't find any notability with this term. Russavia ^Dialogue 20:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 21:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• A question. This is very strange. That was actually Russavia who requested to create this "Putinland" article. But the same Russavia nominated it for deletion. Any explanations?Biophys (talk) 21:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Martintg/Putinland started according to my timestamps at 08:29, 27 January 2009. Timestamp of my post on Termer's talk page; 10:06, 27 January 2009. Don't you think I knew it was already under development? And one can tell I was being facetious, particularly with my suggestion of "Tomb of the Unknown Rapist -- this can be a laundry list of Soviet war memorials where someone has referred to it as the Tomb of the Unknown Rapist -- to make it easier, find a list of Soviet war memorials and just replicate that information here on WP." And I even included a suggestion for you, Biophys. Now please don't feign ignorance to usage of the English language, and try to suggest that I suggested it's creation, when it was already well under way. Over and out. That's all for me on this AfD, unless actually required. --Russavia ^Dialogue 22:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, notability is established by multiple references to the independent reliable sources including a film documentary. Judging from the discussion on Putinjugend and eSStonia, I've come round to the view that notability threshold for the politically loaded neologisms seems to be quite low nowadays and should be kept. As long as these articles are written in an encyclopedic manner, I have no objection to their existance.Martintg (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment are you copy-pasting from keep votes on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ESStonia? I wonder why. Don't you have your own opinion? (Igny (talk) 23:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

?? As I explained, despite my intial opposition, I've come round to the view that these articles are worth keeping. Martintg (talk) 02:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. You are arguing for keeping all these articles now simply because your delete opinion about esstonia failed to delete that article, you can not do anything about that anymore. So no, your delete opinion about esstonia did not change a jota. By "changing your opinions" you are trying to keep this article now. On the other hand, the count in this Russia-Estonia wiki-war is currently 1:3 so you do not mind if all articles stay. You can lie about change in your opinion as much as you can, but as soon as another anti-Estonian article is created, you will change it back to delete again. After all all you need is to maintain your keep opinion for duration of this Afd only, in the next Afd for eSStonia you can always change it back. So again no, your view hasn't changed a bit.(Igny (talk) 02:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Watch it, editor. You're in violation of WP:BATTLE. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 10:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of editors here, including you, who are engaged in this "Battle". Don't you all realize that? The fact that you are trying behind policies and guidelines, does not change that.(Igny (talk) 13:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

"Russia-Estonia wiki-war is currently 1:3" ?? I'm from Australia. As for the AfDs on the other articles, I know two or three Estonian editors voted but they were split between "keep" and "delete"; the majority didn't vote at all. Their votes represented a tiny fraction of the total AfD votes, so it made no difference at all. Your characterisations are totally wrong and border on WP:NPA, but your response does reveal more about yourself than anything else. Martintg (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all these conflict articles into one big article on political pejorative neologisms. Then we can provide same weight to all these "terms", and discuss article's encyclopedic worthiness without bias. If not merge, then delete them all, after all Wikipedia is not dictionary of nationalistic slang. (Igny (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I mean something like this with a lead on usage of political neologisms. (Igny (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Your example looks okay to me as it places it all in context, but ofcourse I'd like to hear the views of the other editors first. AfD's aren't required to merge articles, and if this article is kept then I wouldn't oppose such a merge if there was a resonable concensus. Re-directs are alway useful for searches. Martintg (talk) 04:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Igny's idea is a step forward. Having all those tiny pieces of news as separate encyclopedia articles simply doesn't make sense. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NEO. Term not widespread enough to establish notability. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NEO. Little sources apart from Edward Lucas article.DonaldDuck (talk) 03:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you been canvassed to participate here? Martintg (talk) 04:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:N and WP:NEO. Non notable neologism. Two out of the three sources use the term in the title of the article and no where else. Just because someone uses a derogatory term to refer to a country doesn't mean we create an article about it. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is more of a political neologism rather than a derogatory one, used by noted writers and professors rather than thuggish headline grabbing youth groups. And a notable one too, having found another reference here and here. No doubt I will find more. Martintg (talk) 06:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not encyclopedic. See here. If it were more notable it might be eligible for wiktionary but it doesn't belong on wikipedia. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may be misreading Wikipedia:NEO#Articles_on_neologisms. The fact of being a neologism in itself is not sufficient reason for deletion, only neologisms that are unsupported by reliable sources are candidates for deletion. This article has six sources in support, a documentary and number reports by notable people that discusses the characteristics of "Putinland". Martintg (talk) 05:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The authors of this wikipedia article are reaching when they claim this neologism should be kept because it is sourced by blogs. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is an english translation of the view published in his column in German newspaper Der Tagesspiegel [5]. Martintg (talk) 05:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then its an editoral which isn't a very good source either. Now that I look at it, most if not all the sources for this article are editorials. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editorials are a perfectly reliable source for statements as to the opinion of their authors, particularly when published in notable news outlets. These authors, many of them notable, are quoted in the article as to their opinion on what Putinland is. Martintg (talk) 04:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have a suggestion. I think in one of the Eastern Europe arbitration cases it was suggested that some kind of noticeboard for EE matters/conflicts be established. I don't know if such a thing exists, but it clearly isn't working. I think we really need such a common board with a more limited task of sorting out non-encyclopedic, politically motivated stuff like eSStonia, Putinjugend etc. It would make sense finding a consensus concerning such stubs and establish a threshold on notability. Every encyclopedia would need this. Thoughts? Alternatively, if someone wants to continue setting up political battleground stubs, I'd list here long overdue Ansipism, Putin-Dobby, IlveSS,Obamajugend, Dorogoy Leonid Ilyich («Дорогой Леонид Ильич»), Näksip, Nikita Kukuruznik, all of which have at least quite a number of google hits. My vote for Putinland is delete, as it's simply non-notable. Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 09:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of these are silly, but some aren't. Obamajugend, for example, is a real wacky conspiracy theory. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 14:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also wonder what do you think of my idea of establishing a noticeboard/taskforce or whatchamacallit, which would unite Russian, Baltic and other EE Wikipedians with the aim of reducing nationalist battleground attitudes? I found a Wikipedia:Eastern European Wikipedians' notice board, but few people seem to use it.--Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 16:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The taboo policies prohibit me from discussing this in public. If you still want my thoughts, send me an email. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 23:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a great idea. I suggest setting up a subpage to decide upon standards for articles such as this. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To get the ball rolling: User:Miacek/Eastern European battleground.--Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 11:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as long as it is encyclopædic. Without this article, Wikipedia's overview of Putinist Russia would be incomplete. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 10:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NEO. A word in the titles is not really notable. Volodymir k (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Six sources (some of them notable people) are enough to establish notability of the subject. Lets not delete articles based on political convictions. As a side note, User:Volodymir k does almost nothing here except voting in a partisan manner in various AfDs, and he had been previously blocked indef. for voting fraud.Biophys (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment One can see that this is pure WP:SYN. The original article stated "The term is intended to portray Russia as a corrupt and murderous regime where the line between the security forces and organised crime is blurred, with particular reference to FSB involvement in the Russian apartment bombings and the assassinations of prominent critics"...."The term has been used in various contexts, from portraying Russia as a corrupt and murderous regime where the line between the security forces and organised crime is blurred[1] to an oil and gas powered state[2] that is ready to swat away criticism at home, squash troublesome neighbours and sacrifice personal freedoms in the name of a strong centralised state"...as it has been used in "various contexts" it is not a neologism for which there is a definition. Bits are added to it as Martintg finds another source which mentions the term, so that we could end up with "The term has been used in various contexts, from portraying Russia as a corrupt and murderous regime where the line between the security forces and organised crime is blurred[1] to an oil and gas powered state[2] that is ready to swat away criticism at home, squash troublesome neighbours and sacrifice personal freedoms in the name of a strong centralised state, whilst he orders hit on journalists, poisons opponents, embezzles money, molests children and eats babies for breakfast, in the presence of his new wife Alina Kabayeva." I have also raised questions here, and they have gone unanswered, although the editor in question has found time to revert revisions of mine on List of most common surnames‎. It is plain to see that the editor has simply done a Google search for Putinland, gathering sources to string them together to come up with a WP:OR/WP:SYN definition of Putinland. --Russavia ^Dialogue 00:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Possible falsification of sources Why was this reinserted into the article with the comment "A 2 minute Google search will reveal a copy of the article on Lucus' blog". Why is the article sourced to europeanvoice.com? Does Martintg have access to the europeanvoice.com website? Or is it simply being referenced as a result of a google search? And he has now found the article on a blog. There are some problems here. Edward Lucas' blog is not a reliable source for information, and there is no guarantee that the article on europeanvoice.com is the same as on his personal blog. This appears to be a case of using sources which an editor has not even cited, and is a breach of WP:V. --Russavia ^Dialogue 00:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

?? Lucas has a copy of his article published in europeanvoice.com on his blog site. Can we have some rational discussion rather than these weird accusations of "possible falsification of sources"? Martintg (talk) 05:18, 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. The article has been substantially rewritten since nomination. (non-admin closure) Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Cartel (record distributor)[edit]

The Cartel (record distributor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Deleted as an expired WP:PROD, restored per request by User:Andy Dingley at my talk page — Aitias // discussion 20:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Appears to be spun off from the KLF article (it shares some text) - probably better dealt with by that article unless some material dealing with it in a non KLF context can be found. Artw (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Hmmm - I can see why it was prodded in the past! The Cartel are notable within the trade and really very little to do with the KLF. They're a trade organisation between some significant indie publishing labels to share the costs of distribution and level things up a little with the bigger labels. The topic deserves an article, but I'd be hard-pressed to justify this as it stands, even as a stub. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, from what I can gather from the KLF references, it is just the distribution arm of a larger record company, something which is not that uncommon from where I'm from. Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:CORP, as there is a lack of reliable sources to allow stand alone notability outside what is already mentioned in The KLF#KLF Communications article. Keep in light of the rewrite that Andy Dingley has done.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 21:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If I could ask you all to take another look please, there's a new article there. Could still use some work, particularly around the collapse in 1989, but I think it now warrants preservation. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. A hugely significant organisation in the history of independent music in the UK.--Michig (talk) 12:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep since Andy Dingley rewrote virtually the entire article it is now well researched, has good sources, and for the most part is written from a neutral point of view. (I moved a further discussion to Talk:The_Cartel_(record_distributor) since it probably belongs there)--Ludasaphire (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep Clearly notable after the rewrite. ukexpat (talk) 03:30, 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 14:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gaël Kakuta[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN as he has never played a professional game for either Chelsea or Lens. No other references to assert notability. Eastlygod (talk) 20:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Eastlygod (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom as failing WP:ATHLETE; recreate when/if he makes an appearance in a fully-pro league and therefore becomes notable. GiantSnowman 20:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete what East said, and recreate if needed. Govvy (talk) 21:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We do get a lot of these. Not notable till he's played even a fraction of a second of a notable match. A footballer who hasn't yet played football? Not notable. --Dweller (talk) 12:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gael Kakuta - he still hasn't played for the club. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• He has been called up to the squad of Chelsea F.C. The best in Europe according to UEFA co-efficients. I would consider this to be more than enough to meet notability requirements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylan1312 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • When he has actually played for them he is notable. Just being called up to the squad means nothing, irrespective of what club it's at. He could be sent back to the youth team next week and never get near the first team again -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • PS delete per everyone above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • "The best in Europe according to UEFA co-efficients" - Even if that is true, the policy is the same for everywhere else, from the smallest club that passes WP:N to the biggest club in the world. DeMoN2009 11:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Déjà vu delete Nothing has changed since last time. Fails criteria, not appeared as pro in pro league, only youth int, not enough coverage. Why was this not stopped at recreation?--ClubOranje^Talk 06:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not played for the Chelsea first team. DeMoN2009 11:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails the criteria at the moment, if, as would seem likely, this changes then the article may be recreated. Rje (talk) 18:03, 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. MBisanz ^talk 21:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reed Cowan[edit]

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

Delete for non-notability. Reed Cowan is but one of many, many local news anchors and reporters in the US. He is not Brian Williams Arbiteroftruth ^{Plead Your Case} 19:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete sad story, but WP≠NEWS. fails WP:BIO. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP Sure he's one of many... and he might never be listed among The Greats... but as an Emmy Winner and because he gets significant coverage in reliable sources, he qualifies for inclusion. 2008 Emmy recipients, WSNV 1, CBS News, Utah Radio News {forum), Power In You, WSVN 2, CNN, Wesley Smiles, et al. The article requires WP:CLEANUP, not deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE Since the article was nominated, it has been cleaned up and sourced. Notability has been established. Ain't perfect.. but its now worth keeping. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Note, he is the winner of a Regional Emmy, not a National Emmy. I was there when he received the award. Many Regional Emmy winners don't have articles here on Wikipedia. What makes Cowan so special here? Also, the "reliable source" you cited were mostly from stations that he worked in, networks that his station affiliates with, or the organization he established. Those are not independent sources at all. Arbiteroftruth ^{Plead Your Case} 05:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response That other winners do not have articles on Wiki is a good reason to write about them and not delete articles on the ones that do. That aside, Cowan is particulary notable because having completely re-evaluated himself after a personal tradgedy. In order to help others, Cowan released an award-winning documentary on the very personal tradgedy of death of his son and his own subsequent efforts to build schools in Kenya during that country's post-election violence of 2007. Cowan started The Wesley Smiles Coalition to work in tandem with Free the Children. After raising substantial monies for the projects in Africa in the first year after his son's death, Cowan opened schools, water treatment facilities, mobile-medical clinics and other community infrastructure along Enelerai road in Kenya and in Kenya's Motoni district. Cowan is on the advisory board for Free The Children and is producer of the youth organization Power In You. Cowan drafted the first legislation in Utah specifically aimed at curbing bullying in school. Sponsored in the Utah house by Representative Ronda Menlove and in the Utah Senate by Senator Patrice M. Arent, the resolution against bullying, harassment and intimidation in schools was the first of its kind and called for a formal reporting system and cohesive school-to-school response in instances of school bullying. The resolution passed unanimously in Utah's House and Senate. But of course... all this is IN the article. His notability exceeds wiki requirements. Thank you for voicing your concern over the Emmy awards. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Resolutions in State Legislatures are also not an indication of a person's notability. Many, many resolutions on many, many different people are passed in State Legislatures each session, for a variety of reasons. Also, the term "award-winning" is cliche. Winning an Emmy can be "award-winning", while winning the "Block 5 of 14th Street Award for Excellence" (made up award) can be "award-winning". Also, having an epiphany after a personal tragedy is not a notable matter. Many people have such transformations. Arbiteroftruth ^{Plead Your Case} 06:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might consider revisiting the article. Per guideline for notability, he has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. If you do not agree, nothing will change your mind. It is hoped a closing admin will see it a bit differently Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't beleive there is a consensus that regional awards of this nature are indicia of notability. There is no other material claim of notability. Bongomatic 06:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• ??? That is not the only sourced assertion of notability... and you and I am a bit confused by you picking out only one of the many sourced assertions of notability within the article. I assume good faith that it is possible that you perhaps inadvertantly missed all other assertions of notability. Why not revisit it to see its further improvement since you decided his Emmys don't count. Notability is confirmed by significant coverage by multiple sources NOT related to the subject: Deseret News[6]][7][8], WHDH-TV of Boston, Massachusettes[9], Time Magazine[10], Youth Crime Watch of America[11], Phoenix Woman[12], National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences[13], QSaltLake [14], CBS News[15], among others... as well as having a superfluity of WP:V.. but then... these ARE in the article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:56, 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 delete. There is a clear preponderance of delete arguments and while several of them may be discounted for various reasons, the consensus clearly favours deletion. I understand that some of the article's defenders may disagree with me, and would invite them to open a DRV if they wish as I have carefully considered this closure and do not intend to reverse it. Of course, the deletion holds true only through 2012. Stifle (talk) 09:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United States presidential election, 2016[edit]

United States presidential election, 2016 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is a blatant violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Yes, it will happen, but it is entirely speculation and it is not significantly documented. United States presidential election, 2012 was not created until the day of 2008's election, and even that contains fantastical speculation - an election still eight years away is really pushing it. There are no facts; even Obama hasn't said anything - that's only assumed. I will also point you to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2012 (2nd nomination), which was only 4 years before the event.

Any and all hypotheses made by the media is complete conjecture, and none refer specifically to 2016. An article from a reliable source is surmising that Jeb Bush may run for the Senate and "it's fair to assume he's also now open to a presidential bid, either in 2012 or 2016, when the Senate term would end." Does that really mean it should be listed in a 2016 article? The reference for Gillibrand says nothing about her and 2016. The ref for Jindal says "Think a few years ahead (even eight years ahead to the 2016 election) and think about:" That should be listed in the 2012 article, not 2016. Whatever happens in 2012 is crucial in what will happen later. And as said in the previous AFD, nothing predicted 8 years before this past election proved reasonable or correct. Obama was an unknown then, and 8 years before 2000 George Bush had never been elected to anything. Reywas92^Talk 19:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- As was stated in the previous afd (which was what, less than 2 weeks ago? Come on), the intent WP:CRYSTAL is to prevent editors from doing their own speculation as to future events. However, since reliable sources are doing plenty of their own speculation, an article on the topic is perfectly viable. The article could probably use some cleanup, but most articles could, quite frankly), but that is not, never was, and doubtfully ever will be a reason for deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree that the article is mostly pointless, but it's even more pointless to keep arguing about it every 2 weeks. What we really need here is a clear policy on upcoming elections (beyond "well documented speculation"). Personally I'd support only permitting articles on immediately upcoming scheduled elections (as well as the exceptionally notable). But absent an agreed upon guideline, I concede that there are legitimate arguments for the existance of the article -- although I trust that everyone agrees that it requires significant work! LSD (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I started a discussion on exactly this point on the talk page for the article under discussion. Feel free to join in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danaman5 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 28 January 2009

Umbralcorax, I suggest you read the second paragraph of the deletion reasoning at the top. Yes, there are sources, but are they appropriate for the article, specifically refer to 2016, or even support the text of the article? I think not. Timmeh! 02:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I agree with LSD on the point that we do need a clear policy on upcoming elections. However, this does seem to violate WP:CRYSTAL. The article does cite reliable sources that speculate about 2016, and it would therefore seem to meet the requirements. However, almost all of the cited articles only mention 2016 in passing with a sentence or two of speculation on it, while some even state that "it’s practically impossible to tell at this juncture who might run in 2016." Another source admits that its speculative candidate for 2016 is even unlikely to run (Jeb Bush). In fact, it looks that half the sources don't even support the article text they're cited for. Sure, there are some reliable sources that speculate about 2016, even if only in passing. However, even if there is speculation, I don't believe there is a significant amount of well documented speculation. I say delete for now per CRYSTAL and create some kind of policy on upcoming elections as LSD proposed. Timmeh! 20:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also wish to bring up another point made by someone in the last AFD: "The creation so far ahead of articles about US events in the absence of those in other countries fails WP:CSB." Timmeh! 20:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I think Timmeh hit this on the nail. All the sources agree it is too early to speculate, and only mention a few words like "this person could run in 2012 or 2016". All the sources will be just like that, so I say that we just use this as a redirect for now, and at the earliest recreate after the 2012 primaries. Rockyobody (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I see this article as following the letter but not the spirit of our reliable sources policy. Yes, reliable sources can be found that discuss this election, but they are so vague and reliant on so many other events that are yet to occur, that they make the sources virtually useless. Our other recent U.S. Presidential Election articles weren't created until the preceding election had occurred. That policy works, because it ensures that a quality article based on more than vague speculation with caveats from pundits can be written.--Danaman5 (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, the only existing sources are vague. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per CRYSTAL. This article shouldn't be created until after the 2012 US prez election occurs. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because the world will end in 2012, making this article uncessary per WP:CRYSTAL. It's too early to talk about the 2012 election, let alone 2016.SPNic (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 'KeepPeople start planning early, and the refs added reflect it. Per WP:CRYSTAL, events that are almost certain to be held merit articles,and the example they give of something too far to be reasonable is the 2028 election. Thus, both this and the 2020 and 2024 elections would be reasonable topics. Speculation can be notable, even based on lack of firm data--we cant do the speculation, but if others do we can report it. DGG (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course, your preference to keep the article is based on the assumption that there is a substantial amount of well documented speculation by reliable sources. However, there is not. A few of the sources cited don't support the text in the article. At least one other asserts itself that the possibility that it mentions of the specific candidate running in 2016 is extremely slim. Yet another claims that it's just about impossible to tell who will run in 2016. The rest (2 or 3) only mention the 2016 election in passing and are extremely vague in their speculation. Timmeh! 23:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that you are making an overly literal reading of WP:CRYSTAL when you say that it sanctions the 2020 and 2024 elections as reasonable topics. The 2028 election is just used as an example of an election that is too far out for an article. I've never seen any speculation on who might run in 2020 or 2024, and I doubt that you could find me a single article if I asked you to. As I said above, even the speculation that is cited in the 2016 article barely qualifies as speculation.--Danaman5 (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timmeh asked me to revisit my comment, but i just feel all the stronger about what I said. In politics, speculation is part of the subject matter. That's what politicians talk about, what newspapers report, and the basis for articles here. It just has to be published in a reliable place, and about half the refs in the article even at present are very good standard RSs. If Time thinks it appropriate to speculate over this election, what they print about it makes such speculations notable. As for Danamah's comment, the next election but one is a very reasonable time span for such things. I could argue yet one further, but I agree that as we get further out than this it becomes more uncertain. The election will be held, and it will be an event of world importance. There are RSs talking about it. What more could possibly be needed? DGG (talk)

Well, there really isn't well-documented and valid speculation cited in the 2016 election article, as WP:CRYSTAL requires of future event articles. As I've said, some of the sources only speculate that "Bob Smith may run in a future election, possibly 2012 or 2016," and the article assumes that the source is speculating that Bob Smith will run or is planning to run in 2016, which is just not true and is too vague anyway. If you look through the sources, you'll see that many don't even support the text in the article. Even the Time article says, after mentioning a presidential run would come after a Senate run, that Bush is unlikely to run for the Senate (and in fact he's since said he won't run); therefore, if he won't run for the Senate, according to the article, he wouldn't run for President. That would make the Time source on Jeb Bush running an inappropriate one to have in the article. Also, as another source does, simply showing a list of possible contenders for president in either 2012 or 2016 without any reasoning is much too vague to have any place in the article. Timmeh! 01:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A legitimate encyclopedia should not be reporting on the speculation of upcoming elections, that's the job of the news media. There currently is no good reason for keeping this USA centric nonsense around. RMHED (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So we should then remove all articles on all US elections? They're all US-centric. And once a newspaper reports something, that's a source. our rule is not to anticipate the media. DGG (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on elections that have already happened are perfectly legitimate fodder. Articles about future elections should be left to the news media. Just because a newspaper reports on something doesn't make that something a legitimate subject for an encyclopedia. RMHED (talk) 20:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It doesn't matter the speculation is done by reliable sources. It's still vague and relying too much on events that have yet to occur. No one, including reliable publications, can make any reasonable predictions as to who will run so far in the future. The only election you can reasonably speculate about is the next one -- in any country. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep For the reasons stated above by others.Ratemonth (talk) 00:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Which reasons? The reasons made by the last editor who said to keep the article were refuted by two other editors. Can you please expand on this or at least clarify? Timmeh! 00:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I am very curious as to why this deletion request for the 2012 article (back in late 2008) was passed with absolutely no opposition, while this one, which should be much less controversial, as it is much earlier in relation to 2016 than it was to 2012 when that article was deleted, has some opposition. Can anybody for keeping this article tell us what has changed since that other AFD that merits keeping this article? Timmeh! 02:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Perhaps it didn't have evidence of notability, as this one does? A strict following of WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL would see this article kept, because of the sources available. However, I think this is one instance where strict following of the rules should defer to WP:Common sense, given that there is little informational value to be had even though the subject is notable and not crystal balling. For that reason, I won't be making a suggestion one way or the other this time. I'm just here to note that those who voted keep last time were following the rules closely... perhaps too closely. Ryan Paddy (talk) 06:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Timmeh, what has changed since late 2008 is that we've experienced the fevered pitch reached during the climax of the 2008 election, the election of the first African-American president, the collapse of the Republican party... and thus, the ensuing skyrocketting interest in politics in general and future elections in particular that has developed as a result. It's a very different ballgame than it was a few months ago--and, perhaps by coincidence, fewer radical inclusionists were involved in the last AfD. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 03:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I have no view as to whether this article should be kept or deleted. But discussion of events that are highly dependent on nearly eight years of other events need to be couched carefully to avoid making logical errors or gazing into balls. See this diff to see the pitfalls of loose thinking / writing on such topics. If Obama wins in 2012 but with a different VP, or if he wins with Biden but Biden doesn't serve out his full term, or if he wins and Obama doesn't serve out his full term, there would be at minimum a replacement vice president who could stand as an incumbent. These are not far-fetched scenarios (I'm not even considering wild ideas such as further amendments to the Constitution that would make it possible for a two-term president to seek a third.) Bongomatic 03:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  That is yet another reason to delete the article. Just about anything could happen by 2016. I could list several more scenarios than those you made examples of. There is just no way to make the article abide by WP:CRYSTAL until at least 2012 because of the infinite number of huge changes that could happen before then and because of the lack of well-documented speculation by reliable sources that supports the article text. Timmeh! 03:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Just too tenuously sourced. I'm not adverse to an article written on published speculation, but this is mostly speculation based on published statements, which is a very different animal. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Any violation of wp:Crystal is not "blatant" it's just that sometimes some editors put some violative content in the article. The article is not, nor does it need to be, violative of wp:Crystal.—Markles 11:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  There really is no well-documented or published speculation in this article or cited by it, as WP:Crystal requires. I doubt you could find much if any published speculation on the content. This is not mentioning that it does blatantly violate WP:CSB. A question I posed before, but maybe you could answer is why nobody objected to this AFD which was only four years before the event instead of seven like this one. Timmeh! 13:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  How does something "fail" or "blatantly violate" a WikiProject? You do realize that WP:CSB is a WikiProject, not a policy or guideline?! You might as well say that this article blatantly violates WP:FOOTY because it doesn't talk about soccer! The way to counter systemic bias is to create articles on subjects which tend to be ignored because of that bias. If you can find reliably-sourced speculation on the Swedish general election, 2014, for example, by all means create that article to counter our America-centric bias! That is what WP:CSB is explicitly about. DHowell (talk) 05:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is what crystal-balling is all about. Just because one expects it to happen does not mean that there is anything informative to say about it. One might as well write an article guessing which current elementary school students who might be running for President in 2036. Mandsford (talk) 14:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Timmeh and WP:CRYSTAL. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 18:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The facts are that many reliable sources have been speculating about potential candidates in 2016. Thus an article documenting those speculations is appropriate per WP:CRYSTAL. If there is speculation not based on reliable sources than it should be removed, but there is plenty of reliably-sourced speculation for an article to exist on this subject. DHowell (talk) 05:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Is there really? The creators of the article couldn't seem to find more than one or two which mention the election in a sentence or two. Also, why do you think this AFD was deleted without opposition only four years out from the election? Timmeh! 12:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Correction: there are now 9 or 10 reputable sources (although one would be plenty, IMHO). As for previous election AfD's...they have little relevance because of the extraordinary coverage of the 2008 election, the amount of speculation by RSs has skyrocketted. Obviously, interest in future elections is consequently hightened. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Timmeh and WP:CRYSTAL. Blubberboy92 (talk) 06:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Reliable sources discussing the subject exist - we are not to judge the quality or the utility of such speculation. As for notability, go to Google and type in "2016 presidential election your favorite candidate here" and you will get thousands of hits. Joshdboz (talk) 06:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The number of those hits that are actually relevant and reliable sources are very few if any. There just isn't well documented speculation on the subject yet. Timmeh! 12:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On what grounds do you deem The Washington Post, USA Today, RealClearPolitics, the New York Daily News, and the National Journal to be irrelevant and unreliable? Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't. You're misinterpreting my point. None of those sources have any articles devoted to the 2016 election, or even more than a sentence or two in an article about something else related to presidential politics. Timmeh! 02:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I get your point. A little bit of well-documented speculation isn't good enough in your opinion. Fine. I have a different opinion, and so do a lot of other editors. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 02:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"A little bit of well-documented speculation" is an oxymoron. Well documented means many pundits/reliable sources have seriously speculated about it. If there is only "a little bit," then it is not well documented. Timmeh! 02:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last I checked, "well" was a qualitative adjective, not a quantitative measurement. The sources are good, so the documentation is done well. Do you think it's impossible to have a small well-done steak or a well-made compact car? "Well-documented" is not the same as "widely-documented"...and anyway, you haven't set a threshold on how much documentation you think constitutes "well-documented". With ten current sources, I think this article is rapidly becoming both well- and widely-documented. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 04:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This article will exist and will be well sourced. Why set a threshold for the first source? That just makes things difficult. We want to collect as much information (based on secondary sources) as possible, and we want new editors to help do it. Remove inappropriate content by all means, but this article should remain at least as a stub. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, of course it will exist and be well sourced. That's not what's in dispute. Right now, it's not well sourced and there really isn't well documented speculation by reliable sources for it. Timmeh! 12:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  We don't delete for "not well sourced", we delete for "unsourceable". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I know that, hence my words, "there really isn't well documented speculation by reliable sources for it." Right now, almost eight years before the election, there are no sources that have articles dedicated to the 2016 election. In four years, there will be a great deal of speculation, but right now there is almost none. Timmeh! 01:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Why are you so eager to delete? The sources we've got are fine. Yes, they're short, yes they're few and far between. So what? If the entire article were unsourced, then that would be grounds for deletion. If *most* of the article were unsourced, you might have a point. But can you point to a single thing in this article that is actually wrong? No. Is there a single thing that is unsourced? At this point, I don't think so. So, this all comes down to a gut feeling that it's "too soon". Well, you may be right, but you should tell that to the pundits who are speculating. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 07:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  There are no sources for Jindal or Romney. Also, anything could happen between now and 2016. Obama could refuse to run for a second term. He could be unable to run for some other reason (impeachment, death). He could lose reelection in 2012. All of these very possible scenarios would dramatically change the field of candidates for 2016. Any speculation right now is more likely than not to be proved completely incorrect within any number of years. No speculation done now could possibly have any facts to back it up, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that should only contain facts or conclusions based on facts. Timmeh! 15:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I support deleting any candidate suggestions not backed up by RSs, go for it. Wikipedia is emphatically not just about absolute fact, it is also about reputable speculation, per WP:Crystal. Everything else you've said here is your own speculation, so why should we take your speculation over speculation by RSs? To put it another way--how do you know that any of these suggestions will prove wrong? Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with TimmehPonileExpress (talk) 13:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is not nearly enough well documented speculation. It fails WP:CRYSTAL. 204.186.77.143 (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete PonileExpress is the man!204.186.77.116 (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Has anybody here actually read Wikipedia:Crystal? The policy specifically allows speculation, as long as the references are significant, so dismissing reputable sources is actually a violation of WP:Crystal. Last time I checked, all of the sources in this article are clearly acceptable under WP:Reliable sources. After the unprecedented 2008 election, it shouldn't be surprising that there is unprecedented interest in upcoming elections. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Random section break[edit]

• Comment Due to the constant misunderstanding and misuse of Wikipedia:Crystal, I quote the policy below. Any future invocations of WP:Crystal should quote the portions relevant to alleged violations. My own emphasis has been added to the quotations. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy states:

• 1. 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. By comparison, the 2028 U.S. presidential election and 2048 Summer Olympics are not considered appropriate article topics because nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research. Avoid predicted sports team line-ups, which are inherently unverifiable and speculative. A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified.
• 2. Individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, pre-assigned to future events or discoveries, are not suitable article topics, if only generic information is known about the item. Lists of tropical cyclone names is encyclopedic; "Tropical Storm Alberto (2012)" is not, even though it is virtually certain that a storm of that name will occur in the North Atlantic and will turn counterclockwise. Similarly, articles about words formed on a predictable numeric system (such as "septenquinquagintillion") are not encyclopedic unless they are defined on good authority, or genuinely in use. Certain scientific extrapolations, such as chemical elements documented by IUPAC, before isolation in the laboratory, are usually considered encyclopedic.
• 3. Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we must wait for this evolution to happen, rather than try to predict it. Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions. An article on Weapons of Star Trek is appropriate; an article on "Weapons to be used in World War III" is not. "Future history" is welcome at Future Wikia, where original research is allowed to some extent, and fact-based speculations are welcome.

There has not been constant misunderstanding or misuse of WP:Crystal. You have the specific disputed portion in bold already: "speculation about it must be well documented". There is hardly any speculation about the 2016 election by reliable sources. For something to be well documented, people must have written a lot about it. That is just not true of the 2016 election. There has been some brief speculation (Bob Smith may run in 2012 or 2016) located inside articles with a totally different main focus. The 2016 election will happen and it is notable, but speculation, there is little; well documented, it is not. That's why the article merits deletion until there is more and well documented speculation (likely after the 2012 election). Timmeh! 20:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We've got speculation in several well-respected sources, and there are literally thousands of less notable sources out there. To me, that makes the subject "well documented". If you want to put a threshold on how much documentation constitutes "well-documented", then rewrite WP:Crystal and I'll go and dig up enough references to meet your threshold. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Right now, there is not one article cited whose main focus is on speculating about the 2016 election. Well documented means exactly what it means, well documented. If speculation about the election is well documented, you should be able to find several articles by reliable sources whose focus is on the 2016 election. You may also notice that the 2012 election article has plenty of reliable sources speculating on the election and possible candidates (35 to be exact), and this one has just about none. Timmeh! 21:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Well documented means exactly what it means, well documented." So, apparently your argument is that your view is just self-evidently correct? You're welcome to your opinion, but there's nothing in WP:Crystal that says "there must be X number of sources, of which X-3 must focus solely on the subject of the article". I think several sources that mention possible candidates for the 2016 election, plus thousands of hits on Google, makes the subject well-documented with regards to the guidelines in WP:Crystal. You don't like the guidelines, change the guidelines or seek a consensus on what constitutes "well documented", don't just take the policy to mean "Whatever Timmeh thinks is well-documented". The fact that about a third of the editors here disagree with your interpretation of WP:Crystal is evidence that yours is not the only possible interpretation. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 22:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take the definition of well documented from Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English: "if something is well-documented, people have written a lot about it." The truth is that people have not written a lot about the 2016 election. In fact, as I stated earlier, there is not one cited article dedicated to the 2016 election. Therefore, how can you possibly expect anyone to believe there is well documented speculation when you cannot provide some specific examples? Also, a third of the editors here do not disagree with my interpretation of WP:Crystal as none (other than you) have tried to refute my point that there is not well documented speculation on the 2016 election. Also, I suggest you use the show preview button when making comments instead of having so many edits in a short period of time on one page. Timmeh! 00:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out before, there are five major news outlets that have already been cited in the article. Specifically, they are: The Washington Post, USA Today, RealClearPolitics, the New York Daily News, and the National Journal. Along with these notable sources, a Google search provides over 5000 less notable hits for "2016 election" and 3500 for "election in 2016". That's a lot, so yeah Longman is on my side. As for the other editors who disagree, just because they haven't taken the time to refute you on this specific point doesn't mean they agree with you. If WP:Crystal were unambiguous as you imply, then why do you think they disagree? Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 02:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, as I've said before, those news sources only mention 2016 in passing and don't really speculate about the candidates that might run. Second, a Google search is hardly evidence that there are thousands of articles published by reliable websites that speculate about the 2016 election. Of just the first page of Google results for 2016 election, the second is a compilation of some kind of user blogs. The third is a Yahoo answer. Two are stores that sell election apparel. Some others are bloggers joking about running themselves in 2016. 95% of these results don't even contain reliable speculation, and you'll be lucky to find more than one that is an actual article dedicated to speculating about the 2016 election. Timmeh! 02:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say there is a lot of notable speculation, I said there is a lot of speculation, at least five ten instances of which are notable--and this is just from the first couple dozen I've had a chance to sort. After going through all 8500 results, no doubt there will be more. Yes, a lot of it is irrelevant--although the merchandising and jokes are not at all irrelevant, they are very telling, even if they happen to not be notable. See my reply to Reywas92 below for a fuller explanation of my position. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 03:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, you found ten articles about possible candidates for the 2016 election? Timmeh! 04:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if I recall correctly there are currently nine WP:Reliable sources cited in the article--now that I think about it, one was a repeat. But if ten is the magic number, then I can probably find you a tenth. ;) Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 04:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All nine of those sources only mention 2016 in passing with a sentence or less. For speculation to be well documented or widely documented (however you wish to describe it), it needs to be the subject and bulk of an article. The sources cited and their speculation are just too vague and brief on the subject of the 2016 election that they don't belong or even qualify as "well documented." I know when you're the creator of an article, you don't like to see your work destroyed. I am assuming that is the main reason you wish to keep the article. However, the election being eight years away and the only speculation about it being extremely short and vague, there is just no reason for the article to exist until after the 2012 election. That is when a huge amount of speculation will be published very quickly, and there will be reason for the article to exist. That is also when the 2012 article was unprotected and created, and the 2008 election article still had no cited sources even after the 2004 election. Timmeh! 04:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't actually create the article, I re-created it. Other editors had attempted to make this article, only to get a prompt deletion. But yes, of course nobody wants to see their work deleted, both because of the waste of my time and the waste of other editors' time--somebody will eventually have to redo the work I and others have put into this article--why reinvent the wheel? But I wouldn't go so far as to say that's the main reason. I created the article after I heard a commentator on CNN mention that Biden won't run for president in 2016. I was surprised that the commentator was speculating that far in advance, but after thinking about it, I realized why it's a particularly important election...like this election, there will probably be no incumbent running, so the field is going to be wide open. It's no wonder lots of people, including some "notable" pundits can't resist commenting on it...the Democrats want to usher in a new Democratic era, the Republicans can't wait to try and turn the tables, and people in general have become more politically aware as a result of this election. Combine that tidal wave of speculation with my own belief that we as Wikipedians have a responsibility to record both the correct and the incorrect positions taken by the pundits (call this accountability), plus my belief that most editors are waaaaaay too obstructionist--when they could be improving an article by sorting through the references and finding the bits of useful information, they tend to take the lazy route and delete. I think this behavior pushes new editors away from Wikipedia, and turns the editorship into an old boys' club, more interested in quoting policy than expanding the encyclopedia. I also think that most editors have absolutely no sense of scale. In this case, do the math... I've looked through a couple dozen--let's say 40--articles out of about 5000 hits for "2016 election", plus another 3500 for "election in 2016". Out of those 40, I've found nine that are notable. That's almost a 25% success rate. Extrapolate that across 8500 hits, and what do you get? 2125 notable sources. Even if every single one of those only contains only one sentence of relevant information, that's a novel's worth of research available out there...and don't forget about all the other possible permutations, "run in 2016", "running in 2016", "2016 contender", etc, etc, etc. Can there be any doubt at all that this election is the subject of massive speculation? So, maybe the speculation is distributed out over a thousand reputable sources? Isn't that much more notable than a factoid based on one or two fat articles? Yeah, it's tough to sort the wheat from the chaff, but that's just a question of parsing. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 05:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: In response to your suggestion above... I do use the preview button. However, I am an editor. I edit, I correct, I reword. I don't mean to offend, but it's how I work. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 03:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Our job is to document the fact that major pundits are already speculating on the 2016 election--an astonishing fact which is in itself noteworthy. Our job is not to pass judgment on the quality or likelihood of the pundits' predictions' accuracy.Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pundits are not truly speculating on 2016. They are speculating on 2012 with a side note of "or maybe 2016." Please give me the sources that you are talking about that are fully devoted to speculating about 2016. Passing judgement may not be our entire job, but other factors must be taken into account than simply that someone's saying it. Reywas92^Talk 23:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say anything about sources being fully devoted to speculating about 2016, but when a notable writer says "so-and-so may run in 2012 or 2016" then we should take that at face value. We should not do some handwaving, and say "...well, the source might have written "2012 and 2016", but I think they were reeeeaalllly just talking about 2012". That might as well be WP:OR. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 23:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me a source that give more than a couple sentences of serious thought to 2016 specifially? Really, anyone theoretically running in 2012 could run in 2016. Why do we need articles for two future elections, one of which is four years away, one is eight years away, both have the same set of unsubstantiated, conjectural people, and neither of which has a single fact? Maybe I'm not taking crystal literally to the word, but when the entire article is based on unfounded hypothetical assumption from sources that only mention 2016 in passing, although from multiple reliable sources, then we don't need an article on an election eight years away. Reywas92^Talk 02:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that anybody is talking about 2016 at all is amazing (and, incidentally, it's a good sign that this country is starting to overcome its dangerous shortsightedness). Though I have only seen one article that writes about the 2016 election in detail [16], there are currently at least ten reliable sources that mention 2016 in passing (and that's just from the couple dozen I've sifted through so far--it takes a while to sort through 8500 Google hits). Besides reliable sources, there are thousands more regular people looking towards the long-term goals of their respective parties in the form of article comments and blogs. While I have always granted that many of these speculations will be wrong, that is not at all the point. Twenty years from now, I want to be able to open up this article and read that Krauthammer said this and Kristol said that and Oberman said the other...and let's see who was right and who was wrong and who flip-flopped and who held their cards, etc, etc, etc. Wikipedia has effectively infinite space. There is no reason to set arbitrary limits on documenting the facts and speculations of our time. Every source that doesn't get recorded is another piece of information down the memory hole that keeps society from being self-informed, and keeps us from telling the truth about our past. That is why this is important. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 02:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, that article is a very nice read, but it's not about the 2016 election at all. It's just using that date as an example for how the country should do elections. None of that information is useable in the article. Oh of course, our article on the 2016 is the the best place to find long-term goals of the Democratic Party. You have a very nice arguement for inclusionism there, but it doesn't explain why we should have an article on 2016 specifically. Seeing what predictions Krauthamer, Kristol, and Oberman said about the election eight years before the fact is not necessarily for Wikipedia, and who says not having a source on this site now means it's down the memory hole? Would/should their columns even be listed on Wikipedia 20 years from now? Do we or should we list columnists' predictions about 2008 that were made in 2000? And I don't see the 2004 writers' ideas on the 2012 article; I'm sure some could be dug up. If what we really want to know is "who was right and who was wrong and who flip-flopped and who held their cards", then maybe the article should be Columnists' predictions for the United States presidential election, 2016. Reywas92^Talk 03:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...which is why I didn't include it in the references on the article itself. Should we have 2004 (or 2000) speculations on 2008? We don't. I wish we did; that's why I'm trying to strengthen our coverage of upcoming elections. Yes, as the volume of speculation increases, we should certainly create articles like the one you suggest, but at the moment, I think this is the best place for the small amount of notable speculation that currently exists. Finally, with Wikipedia rapidly becoming the central clearinghouse for all information, I think this is certainly the right place. With any luck, our pundits will one day be able to use it as a resource for improving their own punditry. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 03:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this article should be deleted. It is complete BS. No one knows anything about this election.Mountedpolice (talk) 02:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

nobody knows much , actually, bout a great many things, but it doesn't stop people from talking and writing about them, and their guess and predictions and speculations from being notable. Consequently, Wikipedia is not about Truth, and verifiable speculations by noted figures are notable. Of all the afds in the last month or so this is the one where I find any significant support for deletion most inexplicable. It's surer that this event will talk place than that almost anything else at that period in human affairs. it's of such critical importance to so many people, that of course people will already talk. And its reasonable that they should. This is probably the next forthcoming election where there is serious question over the Democratic nominee. Of course anyone interested in US or world politics will be thinking of what comes after him. If they aren't, they ought to be. --DGG (talk) 03:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment cf. the following Wikipedia articles: 2016, 2032, the 2070s, 2100–2109, the 31st century, the 48th century, the 10th millenium, and The End of Time. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 03:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That is completely different, though the fictional events are a little excessive. But that's not speculation! Reywas92^Talk 03:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A book about the end of time is not speculation? Anyway, why do you cite the 2012 AfD in your case for this one? After all, according to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, "Deletion debates can sometimes be faulty, and even if the debate was correct it can be hard to draw comparisons...Comparisons can be highly subjective, and so it is better to look at the debates in question and see what policies were cited and make an argument based on how they apply to the current debate than just say "x was kept so this should be too..." Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 03:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A book about the end of time is a book, not an election. It has already been written and isn't a future event. As for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, just because one editor ignores advice it gives doesn't mean it gives you the right to do so as well. Timmeh! 04:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point conceeded on the book, though the other articles I cited do contain plenty of speculation. If it really offends you that much that I like to clarify and otherwise tweak my remarks, then I'll try to keep it down to a minimum, as I have been since you made your last comment on the subject--however, the preview button has not proven an effective tool for me in the past. As for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, my point is not to excuse my own actions, but rather to point out that the foundation of this entire AfD is, in part, a violation of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 04:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed that statement about the preview button after I saw your response above. As for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, that page is neither a policy nor a guideline, just an essay giving advice, so it cannot be violated. Timmeh! 04:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I see several of us have made similar mistakes regarding the nature of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:CSB. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion As requested in the last AfD for this article just a couple weeks ago, if this AfD does result in a deletion, I suggest a date be set for its earliest possible recreation. Likewise, if it does not result in a deletion, I strongly recommend setting a date for the next allowable AfD nom. Otherwise, this could get very disruptive. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 04:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support November 6, 2012, when concrete facts may start showing up, and most of the unknowns around Obama are cleared. Reywas92^Talk 19:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While the election may be far off, credible media/news organazations have already begun to speculate. Hence, an article should exsist.Smallman12q (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Speculation and violates crystal, can be recreated closer to the time. Ryan4314 (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• How does it violate WP:Crystal? Don't you think it equally true that second-guessing notable sources violates WP:OR? Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The last US election was simply huge and President Obama wants what every first term US president wants - a second term. That's the 2012 election. Career politicians, consultants and strategists map out these things far in advance. Bluebloods look to the "right" pre-school to groom their spawn for success 20-30 years out. You don't think the Republican and Democratic parties are also mapping out the next elections for the next couple of rounds? At first blush the article sure seems premature but this is the bread and butter of politics and futurists. Here's a few books that may help and, no, not all of them are sci-fi. Here's a few articles that may also help showing how various paths to the 2016 White House are being worked out. The New York Times reports VP Biden said he had no plans to run for president in 2016, when he would be turning 74 years old, meaning he will be free to structure his operation to serve Mr. Obama’s ambitions rather than his own. That makes him unlike virtually every other modern vice president — with the exception of Mr. Cheney, who while serving President Bush likewise never harbored his own dreams of the Oval Office. I see room for clarity, better sourcing and crystal watching but those aren't reasons to delete. -- Banjeboi 02:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately at this point there are no sources that are not crystal.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Reywas92 (talk • contribs)
    • Actually there are plenty that talk about long-term planning. If you focus on who is or isn't running you're likely to be knee-deep but that is true of all politics articles regarding election. They need to be watched to prevent that. -- Banjeboi 20:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment According to WP:Deletion, these are the reasons we delete articles:

• Copyright violations and other material violating Wikipedia's fair-use policy
• Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages which exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish
• Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)
• Content forks (unless a merge or redirect is appropriate)
• Articles which cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles which are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)
• Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed
• Articles whose subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)
• Articles which breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons
• Redundant or otherwise useless templates
• Categories representing overcategorization
• Images that are unused, obsolete, or violate fair-use policy
• Any other use of article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace.
• Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia

Many reasons have been given for deleting this article, most of which do not appear anywhere in our deletion policy. The only actually acceptable reason that has been cited in this discussion is the last one--that it violates the "What Wikipedia is not" policy. However, a reading of WP:Not reveals no clear reason here either. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 07:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that the closing admin would already know the Deletion criteria, so there was no reason to list all that. For both Nathan McKnight and Timmeh, this is what was said to me before when I had repeatedly commented on an AFD: "If in an AFD, your arguement is strong, state it once and the closing admin will see it. But if you argue every keep/delete vote, it exudes weakness on your part and makes it look personal. It makes it look like you're desprate to have it deleted/kept." It was even worse on the previous debate. Are you really going to quit Wikipedia if this ends the other way? I see absolutely no reason why an article on an election eight years away for which there are no concrete facts should be kept, but if it is I won't think the world is wrong. Reywas92^Talk 19:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not obsessed with deleting the article. I just love arguing with people I think are wrong. :) Of course, I am not quoting large chunks of Wikipedia policy, I am just arguing my view on the issue to attempt to sway some editors my way and gain consensus. I might not agree with the potential ruling on whether this article will be deleted or kept, but I will by no means be angry or upset about it. I will keep on editing Wikipedia, and I hope Nathan feels the same way.Timmeh! 19:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a lot of people chime in in a kneejerk fashion and I hope that some of the arguments I've made her might give these editors food for thought--including occasional reminders of what our policies actually say. I like to have a robust discussion because I think there are bigger issues at stake here than one article--namely, that we have a tendency to dismiss as trivial information that doesn't interest us but may interest others, and perhaps more importantly, that kneejerk deletions have a tendency to drive away new editors. Will I be disappointed if this nom doesn't go my way? Of course I will. An editor's convictions ought to be important to them. Will I take it personally? No, although some remarks have come close to personal attacks, I'm pretty thick skinned and I don't take offense. I hope that nobody has interpreted my own remarks as personal attacks either. I'm glad that Timmeh and I agree on this much at least. Finally, I don't think there is a right and wrong answer here. There are just different views of what Wikipedia's function should be. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timmeh, if we're cluttering up this AfD, maybe we could take this debate to one of our talk pages, because I really don't get your point of view and I would genuinely like to understand where you're coming from for the sake of future debates. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Philip Stevens (talk) 09:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. It is just too early to say anything useful about the 2016 U.S. presidential election. If people still want to work on it based on speculation, they can spend the next three years and nine months working on this article at the Future Wikia, then transfer it back to Wikipedia under the GFDL. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Initially looked like an attactive idea, but no, future articles should have a serious development, governed by wikipedia policy throughout. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in 2 years (or more probably four) there may be something to put here, but right now there is nothing but speculation. Some of it can be sourced but most of it deals primarily with the 2012 election which quite rightly has an article. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delet Vive Barack Obama! Vive Barack Obama! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.186.77.142 (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC) — 204.186.77.142 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete it is pure speculation and taking up unneccessary space. Though I cannot practice the same form of elocution as the user Timmeh, I agree with him in all sentiments. Wikipedia could use more fair and unbiased and dare I say intelligent users like him. Raywas is also a very good user who started this page. Kudos to both gentlewomen.Rickji2 (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it's way too early to have this. The only certainty about the 2016 Presidential election is that it will be held. The article ("sourced" or not) is loaded with speculation, assuming that Obama serves two complete terms (hardly a certainty - see Jimmy Carter and John F. Kennedy) and predictions as to apportionment based on a yet-to-be-held census. Let's wait a few years when more than speculation becomes available.B.Wind (talk) 04:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted, G4. Non admin close. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Cariato[edit]

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

Ok, there are a few references, but I can't spot why some campaign flunkey is now notable and not just another piece of indiscriminate information. "Mail and Messenger Managwr"? So he's a mailman? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a hoax. A good hoax. But a hoax. Check the references closely. For example: # ^ http://www.whitehouse.gov.administration.home-html.org/ and http://www.change.gov.transitionupdate.com/ These are fake sites. This should be a quick deletion. Simon12 (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• A hoax? How do you figure that these are fake sites? GlassCobra 20:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The transition site is www.change.gov. www.change.gov.transitionupdate.com could be owned by anyone, and should not be considered reliable. Doing a little research shows it's a private site, created on January 13, 2009, and not a government site. The White House official site is at www.whitehouse.gov. www.whitehouse.gov.administration.home-html.org is another private site. The democratic-underground cite is likely taken from Wikipedia. It doesn't provide an external link anywhere else, so can not be considered reliable.

This one http://www.senate.gov.nominationsindex-html.org/ is a really good fake, but, again, it's not the Senate site. That would be here: http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/one_item_and_teasers/nom_cmtec.htm, and Cariato is nowhere to be found.

Whoever is doing this hoax has been at it for two months, and the name is getting out there. I was taken in at first, also. But until someone provides one actual, real, verifiable source for this, it should be considered a hoax. Simon12 (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, White House staff are not subject to Senate confirmation. Rahm Emmanuel didn't need to be confirmed. If that's not a giveaway, I don't know what is. A speedy delete is quite warranted. Simon12 (talk) 20:58, 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 to Pizza by someone else, Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pizzeria[edit]

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

Delete, wiktionary already has a WP:DICDEF - this article is unnecessary. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Pizza as a plausible search term - this article has been happily doing just that since 2005, until it was converted into the current less-than-useful dictionary definition a few weeks ago. I'd suggest just restoring the status quo is the most sensible option. ~ mazca ^t|c 19:26, 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the Presidency of Barack Obama[edit]

Timeline of the Presidency of Barack Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This page is as redundant with Presidency of Barack Obama as Barack Obama's first 100 days which was deleted last week. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama's first 100 days) TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Delete per WP:NOT and WP:NOTE. Grsz¹¹ 18:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP is not the place for a day-by-day summary of the president's actions. Reywas92^Talk 19:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've started section on Talk:Timeline of the Presidency of Barack Obama to breakdown what kind of info belongs and what doesn't. Obviously there's no obligation at all to cover every single day, but the beginnings of presidencies are usually more event-filled. Joshdboz (talk) 11:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Timeline articles can serve as a more detailed source of information not worth keeping within the main article. See United States presidential election, 2008 timeline for a good example of this. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 19:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While a worthwhile project, this seems to be way beyond the scope of an encyclopedia. Every day has its own entry. By the end of four years, or eight!, this will run into hundreds of pages. Really more like a primary source than a readable article. Give it its own website, but not WP. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep WP has other articles like this, such as 2009#Events and 2009 in music. No, it's not "like an encyclopedia", but WP isn't like an encyclopedia in many, many ways. Whether editors keep this article up to date, and the entries at a consistent level of selection, that remains to be seen. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this AFD seems relevant: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama's first 100 days. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 23:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Although at present this article may be redundant with portions of Presidency of Barack Obama, this will certainly change in the future. As the list of actions taken by President Obama grows, it will eventually be necessary for the Wikipedia community to decide which of his actions are important enough to be mentioned in the main article in order to keep it from being too lengthy. This page should be kept in order to serve as a record of ALL the president's actions, regardless of their believed worthiness for the main article. — Shawn81 (talk) 01:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP is WP:NOT#DIRECTORY of everything the POTUS does. Reywas92^Talk 02:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That argument is pretty much why I wanted to keep Barack Obama's first 100 days. I think his first hundred days will eventually have too much content to be viewed as worth keeping in the larger article. Consensus is that this was not a valid reason to keep.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As creator, the only reason it was started was because the Presidency of Barack Obama section was rapidly filling up with daily info that would quickly overwhelm the article. There's no reason why this timeline must be daily, but I find no difference (in form or notability) between it and the many other timelines on this site. The Timeline of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict was created for the same reason when the relevant info was too much for the parent article. Joshdboz (talk) 06:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was created before the article was rapidly filling up since it is not even filling up yet. It is probably 10-20% of the acceptable size. Barack Obama's first 100 days was also created for overflow so as to section the article in a manageable way.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm speaking about the size of a single section, which was already of substantial size and just covered a few days in January. Since this information will inevitably be removed or greatly reduced over four years, there's no reason why it shouldn't be moved elsewhere. Joshdboz (talk) 07:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can foresee separate articles for each year of his presidency plus pages for foreign, domestic, military, and economic policies and numerous other pages. I think the first 100 days will be such a large volume of encyclopedic content that it should be WP:PRESERVEd. If this is kept, I am going to WP:DRV that article. When the WP:AFD occurred everyone said have one article and then if it fills up see if we need WP:SUMMARY articles.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional keep: Possibly rename, and make sure it doesn't end up like news coverage. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The page is going to evolve, and the important points of the presidency will become apparent, the less important ones will disappear. Having a separate page to the main page about the presidency allows a broader view on the main page, and a more detailed timeline on this. It's not exactly the only timeline in Wikipedia: List of timelines Mihtjel (talk) 08:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmm. Currently, this is a mindbendingly dumb article, grossly failing WP:NOT#NEWS. It won't be after a while. I'd say userfy until there's actually enough of a presidency to justify a timeline. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Torsodog^Talk 19:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep We will need a timeline of baracks time in office, otherwise, his presidency page will get filled with trivia. I think this article is neccessary for people to know exactly what the timeline is/was. Portillo (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: Now that the First 100 days section of Presidency of Barack Obama is beginning to get pretty lengthy, it has been shortened. This will continue to be the case, and all the information that isn't notable enough to be on the main article (though still notable) would remain here. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – a good way of keeping Presidency of Barack Obama from clogging up. The timeline article must be maintained on a regular basis so that only truly notable events are listed, but the fact that not all events currently listed are equally notable is no ground for deletion. 88.234.217.196 (talk) 01:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - A time line that is constantly updated is incredibly useful, its also better than the silly 100 days notion because a presidency is not and should not be defined by the first 100 of its 1460 days in office HawkShark (talk) 12:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It's a useful source of information on the subject (what wikipedia is supposed to be, yes?) and prevents other articles from clogging up with data. If editors fail to keep up to date in later months it is still a detailed, reliable source of President Obama's first impact in the position. --Logonberry (talk) 13:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this list for now -- most of its entries seem notable/concise. ↜Just me, here, now … 15:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep We NEED to keep this, at least until his 100 days are up. I don't think any othe president in recent times has been such under the scope in his first hundred days. I think for a variety of reasons but mainly because he's walking into one of the most busiest times in american history (economic meltdown, global warming, two wars, etc.) And the fact that he ran on change throughout his campaign, therefore people are very interested in each day that passes. People in the media are actually doing programs and what have you regarding this. So yes, KEEP. Neverfades (talk) 02:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This article is an aggregate of the news, and therefore patently fails WP:NOT#NEWS. If the Presidency page quickly gets filled up with short pieces of information such as those on this page, the correct response is not to create another article to hold all the trivia. It's to select only important issues, and weave them into the content of the main article. Currently this article is filled with trivial reports on everything he has done, and so also fails WP:NOT#IINFO. I would also like to point out to the eventual closer that the four immediately preceding comments have zero basis in policy (respectively: no policy even alluded to; notability doesn't apply to content itself, and no refutation of the arguments for deletion; useful and useful) and should therefore be disregarded on closure. seresin ( ¡? )  07:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:Recentism: "[...] As a growing phenomenon on the Web, Wikipedia is generally looking for ways to increase its relevance and breadth in comparison with other reference sites. One area in which Wikipedia excels is its ability to compile reference information on current events and news. [...] After 'recentist' articles have calmed down, the instigating news story has dropped from the Main Page and the front pages of newspapers, and the number of edits per day has dropped to a reasonable minimum, concerned Wikipedians ought to initiate comprehensive rewrites. Most articles can be condensed to keep only the most important information, the wider notable effects of an event, and links to major issues to which the article is related. Much of the timeline content and day-to-day updates with minor details can safely be excised. [...]"

This methodology (ie allowing coverage to current events to remain in flux, ultimately to have its more notable parts distilled out) only makes sense -- as it allows there to be in existence community-produced articles about current events from which the community can thereafter cull the best bits. ↜Just me, here, now … 17:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • I appreciate the concern and I think it is useful to take into account in terms of the content chosen for the timeline (discussions of which should take place on the talk page). In terms of Not News, the policy states "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article" - and absolutely, most of the items listed are not individually sufficient for an article, but are highly relevant to his presidency, and therefore a chronological account of his presidency. Neither is this an indiscriminate collection, because it is relatively clearly defined by the title what kind of general information is relevant and what is not, which also happens to be based on an agreed to be notable article, the Presidency of Barack Obama. Joshdboz (talk) 09:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a fansite. Jtrainor (talk) 10:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I highly doubt people are making this as a fanpage because they like President Obama. In what way does this resemble a fansite? --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's informative and useful. I'd say it should be condensed or merged into a different article when it gets too big or possible bias enters into it. But at the moment it's important and quite practical. And perfectly reasonable to be on Wikipedia. 86.25.127.142 (talk) 10:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep per Portillo and HawkShark. The notion of "100 days" probably has more to do with people's fascination with powers and/or multiples of 10 than with anything else. And a timeline can do what a typical article can't: present an abundance of information in summary form. In Presidency of Barack Obama, quality is king, but in a timeline, quantity can have its moment in the sun. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I can see why some people want to let it go, but wikipedia is rapidly becoming a source for valid information of all sorts. If they can find it here and it's well cited Why wouldn't we keep it? Misery507 (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now. Once we get to ... April/May of 2009 then the 100 days of Barack article would make sense without being too recent-ish. To me this does seem like a list that will careen out of control and may be better suited for a political wiki with wikipedia keeping the most notable bits. -- Banjeboi 03:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Many news sources cover the actions of a U.S. president on any given day, which means that an article Actions of Barack Obama on February 15, 2010 would probably be notable and should be kept under Wikipedia policy. (Whether they should remain or not, there are even articles like Casey Knowles and Ann Nixon Cooper which are about people who are known mostly because they played a peripheral role in events surrounding Obama for a few days). But rather than having a different article for each day in Obama's presidential terms, we can combine them into a few "timeline" articles like this one. Such an article is sourced, notable, and relevant. Mike Serfas (talk) 04:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Notability is not the only concern for inclusion. Transitory events of little lasting consequence, even if notable, may not be appropriate encyclopedia subjects. Indeed, it has been acknowledged already here that eventually this won't be a day-by-day breakdown. The debate is what to do until that eventual time. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article topic is more than routine news coverage and notability is not temporary.--J.Mundo (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Timelines articles are acceptable in Wikipedia. Do we really have to discuss the notability of President Obama's actions? --J.Mundo (talk) 16:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Alot has been said, and editor:Jmundo wraps it up nicely.--Buster7 (talk) 03:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep unless there's a way for this article to be automatically generated from other dated information, which as of now I don't think there is. ciphergoth (talk) 09:03, 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 Withdrawn. I must admit, I wasn't aware that libraries were generally considered notable. Shows that you still learn something every day here. Black Kite 20:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bozeman Public Library[edit]

Bozeman Public Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

It's a library. Unsourced, no reason given why it's particularly notable, have tried to find them but nothing really out there. Black Kite 18:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Although I am not entirely convinced that a public library is particulary notable, Wikipedia seems to have established that library articles are worth keeping, and there are plenty of them. See, e.g., Category:Public libraries in the United States by state. •••Life of Riley (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The Institute of Museum and Library Services awarded this library the 2003 National Award for Library Service.[17]. Also the in-depth subject of secondary sources, easily demonstrating passing WP:NOTABILITY. [18][19] --Oakshade (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Textbook WP:NOT#PAPER situation. Needs to be improved (with links like Oakshade's), not deleted. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Oakshade. Articles on libraries have become Good Articles and I think there's even some FA's out there. Neither would be possible if libraries are not inclusion-worthy. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The sources for the information in the article can be located via Google: [20]. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm in the minority here, but I don't see what makes the public library in Bozeman, Montana more notable than any other library. Articles like these are good practice for someone wanting to sharpen their writing skills, but libraries generally offer the same services wherever they might be -- including their own web page Bozeman Public Library. Why do we need to duplicate something the library already has? "The Bozeman Public Library is a beautiful space where users can get a cup of coffee at a coffee shop located within the building and then study or read. When the reader tires of the book, a glance out the window will treat the eyes to a view of the local Bridger Mountain Range. A full range of services for young and old include computer access, an extensive newspaper and periodical section, a young reader area, and comfortable readings chairs and work tables. To ensure the fair access for the use of the computer, the computer users are limited to 1 hour." With the exception of the view of mountains, there's not much said of this that can't be said of any other public library. Obviously, this isn't written by someone on the staff -- Bozeman has had a library for more than three years! Mandsford (talk) 14:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It was nationally recognized and awarded for its operations, besides being the non-trivial subject of secondary independent sources.--Oakshade (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this instance, I stand corrected. I didn't see that in the article, but I see where you referred to it above. Mandsford (talk) 01:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per improved citations. Bearian (talk) 15:58, 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 14:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joop Bersee[edit]

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

Delete article without independent sources and no indication of notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete--subject has been anthologized but that's all the coverage I can find. Drmies (talk) 22:42, 28 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]
• Delete - based on google book and scholar searches, the subject exists, however the coverage is trivial. PhilKnight (talk) 16:03, 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. Nonsense Tone 21:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wah ni qui wah[edit]

Wah ni qui wah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hoax. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as nonsense. Stifle (talk) 21:00, 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 14:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Halo Solitude[edit]

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

Normally I would prod articles like this, but I have a feeling this might be easily contested. First, I cannot find any reliable secondary sources that can provide any notability of this mod of Halo. Second and more importantly, the article greatly fails the What Wikipedia is not policy, including using Wikipedia as a webhost and as a place to promote the mod. MuZemike 18:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 18:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Hm. An incomplete mod of an obsolete game, with no release date set? I think delete is safe. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Only primary sources are given in the article. SharkD (talk) 16:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per items mentioned above and lack of any sources.じんない 03:11, 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. MBisanz ^talk 21:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Library consultant[edit]

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

This is an original research essay, possibly a copyvio by the way it is written, but I haven;t found it yet. It's interesting but not valid in an encyclopaedia Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Original research. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don;t think its OR, since it is sourced; but what its sourced to is not usable, being just an advertisement for a particular library consultant, www.acohen.com/. There probably are real sources, but this article would have to be re-created properly. DGG (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I never noticed the A Cohen link. A Cohen is also the creator of the article. Suddenly this looks like spam and this pretty much Speedy Deletion material. Since this AfD is already running I'll leave it to the community to choose where to go with it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:37, 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 Makoto Tateno. MBisanz ^talk 21:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to Love You[edit]

Hate to Love You (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:N and WP:BK. Extensive searches in English turned up exactly one reliable third-party sources that establish notability; other reliable sources note the series as the first title in the Deux imprint, but these are more about the imprint than the series itself. Basic searches in Japanese turned up pretty much only online sellers. It is believed only reason the article was created was because it was licenced for translation into English, which is not a notability criteria. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Makoto Tateno since he has an article and seems at least marginally notable (though maybe not). One single review isn't enough to make it notable. Mostly just another Aurora promo thing that's been clean up to leave...nothing to talk about. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The author does seem to be notable for her shoujo manga, though her article isn't brilliant at asserting it; a merge/redirect would not be out of order. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Collectonian. -- Goodraise (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Where are we standing with the "multiple licensing" discussion? Because this has been licensed and translated by two different companies in two different languages, which would seem to imply some notability. 159.182.1.4 (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, it does imply some notability. However, comma, it is not a current criterion of WP:BK and the discussions at WT:BK are not progressing towards a fast adoption of it. As such, given current guidelines, multiple translations only imply and not demonstrate notability. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The current status is Evidence of notability but not a criteria of notability, final decision is from common good sense. In that case good sense say No. So (number of translated language + good sense) => fail. By the way my opinion is *Merge--KrebMarkt 11:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Even though the article was created by an admitted representative of Aurora Publishing as a form of promotion, the review by WP:ANIME has only turned up one review and almost no other third-party coverage by reliable sources. That is not enough to meet the significant coverage test of WP:NOTE. The fact that there is no article on the Japanese Wikipedia should also be taken as an indicator about the work's lack of notability. I hesitate to merge/redirect this article to the author's page, in part because only part of the author's bibliography can be verified and little indication that any of her other works are notable. --Farix (Talk) 12:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. I don't understand Farix's objections; if none of her other works are notable, I don't see how they suggests Hate to Love You should be deleted or kept as a standalone article, and nothing else. --Gwern (contribs) 15:11 30 January 2009 (GMT)

• That argument was why I am against merging as an alternative to deletion. --Farix (Talk) 21:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There seem to be numerous search results which look like notable review sites to me. I'll add links to some of them in the article. Dream Focus (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• All I see are links to blogs, forums, or other self-published sources. --Farix (Talk) 21:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Numerous search results, yes, but which don't meet our guidelines for reliable sources. Just because it doesn't call itself a blog doesn't make it not self-published. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:07, 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. MBisanz ^talk 17:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Talbott[edit]

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

This particular person has not received much in the way of third-party independent recognition of his ideas. There is a bit of discussion between other Immanuel Velikovsky fans in talking amongst themselves about their various catastrophist ideas, but the single third party source referenced in the article only mentions Talbott off-handedly in reference to his one-event status associated with the founding of Pensée (Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered). His Saturnian ideas have NOT received notice by third party sources needed per WP:FRINGE and WP:V. There is essentially no way that this article can be sourced appropriately. Essentially, David Talbott fails our WP:BIO guidelines. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, Fails BIO; crufty. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep - the article sucks, but he seems notable enough, when all his various activities are taken together. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have wrestled with such arguments for a while. "All his various activities" that are of any note seem to be publishing a moderately successful ten-issue magazine devoted to Velikovsky. His Saturnian stuff isn't notable, his Thunderbolts stuff isn't notable, and his advocacy on messageboards and listservs can be read in internet archives, but has not received the notice of third-parties. Essentially, the issue is one of sourcing. If you could point us to the third-party reliable sources which indicate to you that his various activities taken together have been noticed by enough of th outside world for us to write an article in a mainstream encyclopedia, I'd love to see them. As it is, I think it is nearly impossible to write an article about this guy. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability applies to the subject, not the content. It is not "nearly impossible to write an article about this guy", it's already been done. Should ScienceApologist have any valid concerns about sourcing, he could (and should) discuss this rationally on the article talk page. Also as per my "Keep" argument below, he contradicts himself on this matter. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not (yet) a mainstream encyclopedia we currently should adhere to five pillars and what Wikipwdia is/is not which the WP:MAINSTREAM page (a proposal authored by ScienceApologist) appears to be in direct conflict with. Davesmith au (talk) 23:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I found a few additional sources, that help with personal notability of mr Talbot (they are not great, but there you are). such as: -www.coasttocoastam.com/ guest on the broadly syndicated nutjob radio show. -The Saturn Myth review of book and idea by a sympathetic person (who also works for Aeon, one of Mr. Talbott's journals). -review of Thunderbolts materials
    • In addition, the whole field of Catastrophism seems to be getting a lot of attention these days from folks who like fringe historical revisionism. Mr. Talbott seems a moderately important figure in that realm, so better to keep the article and make it readable, rather than deal with the nutters recreating stuff to be speedily deleted next month. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep - WP:IDONTLIKEIT and an edit war not going your way are not a good basis for an AFD. Artw (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an uncivil and rude comment that does not assume good faith about the nomination. You obviously didn't consider it carefully. Please indicate what third-party independent sources you would use to write this article. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You pretty much admit to AFDing this as a result of edit conflicts with other users here. (talk)
      • That is a GROSS misinterpretation of the post to WP:FTN. My AfD nomination has nothing to do with conflicts associated with other users. I am reporting this. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • After careful consideration of the recent activity on the talk page and the article's recent edit history, and having offered a correction of ScienceApologist's misrepresentation of the facts at WP:FTN, and with reference to my own "Keep" arguments below, I have to agree with Artw on this matter. Davesmith au (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Disclosure: I am involved with the work of David Talbott as already disclosed in good faith here prior to my direct involvement with this article, see also here. Should anyone show where any bias I may have is influencing the article I am only too happy to discuss it. Having said that, I expect the article to reflect a NPOV encyclopedic biography, rather than either a glowing endorsement or an attempted discreditation of his work. Third party sources should be (and have been) discussed on the article's talk page. There are at least four in the current rendering of the bio. ScienceApologist's characterizing of people as Velikovsky "fans" does not make it so, and is only his POV. WP:FRINGE has nothing to say about article deletion, but rather, content. WP:V has also been discussed on the talk page, general consensus over a number of sources also having been reached before ScienceApologist joined the discussion. To assert that there is "essentially no way that this article can be sourced appropriately" (especially as some of his own edits - see further on - list sources) is to discount the input of many other contributors on the talk page and to the article, including himself. As David Talbott has already been considered in a previous AfD the result of which was "keep", and as there's been ongoing discussion since then about his bio, ScienceApologist should be a bit more specific than "fails our WP:BIO guidelines". Under the circumstances, one must ask why has ScienceApologist been editing the article (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here), if he thinks it not notable? Surely this is some indication that he thought it had some value. I submit that whilst he thought he could get away with applying his own negative POV to the article in an attempt to discredit Talbott, someone with whom he has an undeclared COI, that's what he tried to do. He even instigated a WP:BRD action which he failed to follow through or discuss, and then after I questioned his good faith by asserting a COI from my own firsthand experience with him in other fora, he listed the article for deletion, without acknowledging or refuting the alleged COI or attempting ANY dispute resolution proceedings. On those grounds alone admins should de-list this AfD post haste, before discussion degenerates into a slanging match. See also Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Editing "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." and Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Discussion "Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page." and also Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_discussion "It is also inappropriate to request deletion because of an editorial dispute. Such disputes are not resolved by deleting the whole page; instead, use dispute resolution." Davesmith au (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I should also note a complete revision of the talk page is recommended to anyone attempting to assess this issue. Davesmith au (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. ScienceApologist, in the WP:FTN post you say someone you believe to be the subject or someone related to them is trying to rid the article of criticism. You never even mentioned the thought they could be non-notable after several edits and reverts. Those edits and reverts are a dispute, perhaps even an edit war and you are personally involved in it. Nominating an article for deletion during a dispute is a bad idea. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He doesn't have to have received "much" 3rd party recognition, just enough to satisfy the guidelines, which he has done. Personally, I think we do well to provide objective information about people like this, and the present article does so very nicely. It is not necessary to have a long astronomical explanation of why he is hopelessly wrong, as simply stating his theories seems to do the job nicely.DGG (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He's published by a non-vanity publisher and he's discussed in a couple of sources that are credible cataloguers of such people. Crazy as a box of frogs, but notable nonetheless. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Very unhappy Keep, because "AfD is not cleanup". The article sucks. It's terrible. For examples of a good treatment of these nutball (even if notable) "theories" on Wikipedia, see 1434: The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet Sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance and 1421: The Year China Discovered the World. We really need a new Z-class quality rating for articles that so utterly fail to provide critical context: "critical" as in both crucial and skeptical, and by "context" I mean such optional niceties as elementary logic, laws of nature, causality, and the historical record.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've ordered a copy of the book "1434: The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet Sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance" as it looks hilarious and the title is so wonderfully over the top. If it's any good I'll have two more, as birthday presents to serious medievalist re-enactors who will be equally outraged and amused by it. The Wikipedia article is also a fine read and manages to debunk without cruelty, even allowing itself a poke at Wikipedia. Isn't this sort of thing just what we're here for? The kooks aren't going away, so at least someone with a little knowledge should still make the effort to challenge their claims. Contrast this to Cold Fusion where we can no longer defend against the pseudoscience because credible science has stopped talking about it and we're running low on sources. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with the understanding that the subject is every bit as deserving of a Wikipedia entry as Immanuel Velikovsky, Zecharia Sitchin, Erich von Däniken, and other similarly notable inhabitants of the fringe and with the hope that the entry can be reframed in such a manner that the reader does not confuse the subject as a potential candidate for Canonization or recipient of a Nobel Prize. While it is true that Talbott's work has not been subject to extensive critical examination by third parties in the mainstream, such as David Morrison, James Oberg, Henry Bauer, Robert Jastrow, James Trefil, and Jay Pasachoff (all of whom published criticisms of Velikovsky), it has been criticized in Skeptic by L. Ellenberger (1995) and in the subscriber-only fringe publications Aeon by R. Ashton (1988) and C&C Review by L. Rose (2000) and P. James (2000), all of whom were cited in the version drastically edited recently by Dicklyon. Phaedrus7 (talk) 19:17, 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. MBisanz ^talk 17:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

South African Translators' Institute[edit]

South African Translators' Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I've searched around for 3rd party mentions of this body, without any luck. Google only brings up listings in various directory services. There are no articles in the major news media of South Africa (neither Independent Online nor Media24) mentioning this organisation. The entire article is written based off information found on the organisation's website. Given the lack of any external 3rd party references whatsoever, this should be deleted for failing WP:V and WP:N Zunaid 16:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Here is the information that the OP was looking for:

Here are some links from Media24's archives:

http://152.111.1.87/argief/berigte/dieburger/1998/07/22/16/7.html

http://152.111.1.87/argief/berigte/dieburger/2005/06/01/TB/04/01.html

http://152.111.1.87/argief/berigte/dieburger/1990/10/23/6/7.html

And from Mail and Guardian's archives:

http://www.mg.co.za/article/2007-09-12-not-lost-in-translation

The organisation is mentioned on the International Federation of Translators' web site:

http://fit-ift.org/en/africa.php

and on the web site of the American Translators' Association:

http://www.atanet.org//ata_activities/FIT_Survey_Report.pdf

And some more mention of it:

http://www.atkv.org.za/links.cfm?ipkCategoryID=175

and even the South African government's web site:

http://www.gcis.gov.za/gcis/directory.jsp?dir=10&cat=8&org=482

The OP claims to have Googled for 3rd party mentions. Really? What's this then:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=af&client=opera&rls=en&hs=w6Y&q=sati%40intekom.co.za&btnG=Soek

http://www.google.com/search?hl=af&client=opera&rls=en&hs=87Y&q=SATI+combrink&btnG=Soek

http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=sati+savi&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

http://www.google.com/search?hl=af&client=opera&rls=en&hs=VWE&q=%22south+african+translators+institute%22+site%3A.uk&btnG=Soek

I see no reason to delete this page. Translator associations from elsewhere in the world also have wiki pages. The fact that my sole source was the organisation's own web site doesn't mean it is not verifiable or not notable. -- leuce (talk) 17:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, lists of translation services are not sources which establish notability. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, a 700-member organization with the article sourced to its own website doesn't confer WP:N or pass WP:ORG. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The number of members is irrelevant to the notability -- read the fifth paragraph of WP:ORG. Furthermore, the organisation complies with the [Primary Criteria] and with the [Alternate Criteria for non-commercial organisations] listed on that page. -- leuce (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The links provided above only seem to be passing mentions and directory listings, not the substantial coverage required for notability. These books give only a sentence each to the subject but this one appears to have substantial coverage, as the subject appears as a section heading with coverage going on to the following page. The real clincher, however, is this, a 25-page peer-reviewed paper in a major journal that, from its abstract, we can see focuses largely on this organisation's activities. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. For those with FUTON bias I just found this. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've had a read through the PDF you linked. The title is Antwerp Papers in Linguistics: Text Editing, From a Talent to a Scientific Discipline. Having read through it I have to say it fails WP:N's requirement of "substantial coverage" (or whatever we're calling it these days) of the SATI. The one section of the paper that deals with text editing in South Africa does not cover the South African Translator's Institute but rather reports the results of a survey taken of SATI's members, a survey which in fact does NOT revolve around SATI itself but rather around a code of ethics for text editors. IMHO there is nothing in the paper that can be used to provide source material in the article, because there is nothing in the source material about SATI the organisation. Furthermore, the title and abstract of the other links you provided certainly do not indicate that there is any substantial or significant coverage of this organisation, at least not to the extent that it can be used to fill out the article, which is what WP:N asks for. Zunaid 09:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The PDF appears to include the "clincher" article. That article was written by the secretary of SATI (as can be found on p. 83 of the PDF). It is not the least bit independent. Bongomatic 06:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: if third party sources are writing about it, it's notable enough for Wikipedia. I think this is an object lesson in attempting to improve an article before deleting it. We're not short on space. T L Miles (talk) 05:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But where are these third party sources? Please see my response above. The third party sources quoted above are not actually about the organisation. I'm not averse to the article being rewritten, but thus far have not been convinced that sufficient sources out there exist to write an independent article. Zunaid 09:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the third party sources? those linked above. They are not books devoted to this organisation, but they show a) it exists b) what it's purpose is c) what it actually does. The Eva Hung mention, on page 209, establishes its notability beyond any reasonable doubt, as you have an independent written source saying this organisation offers accreditation and doing so is an important step in the professionalisation of the field in SA. I'm not sure what "not actually about the organisation" means, if the organisation's activities are being discussed. Do you mean that this org is not the primary focus of these articles? That's not required to establish notability. As "sufficient sources out there exist to write an independent article": the article created need not be extensive. If self referential material needs to be cut from the article, then cut it ruthlessly. Perhaps the article needs to be rewritten completely. But I'm really confused why that would mean we should not have an article on Wikipedia about this org, which is what a deletion is aimed at. You seem to be killing flies with hammers, here. And in the time spent creating this AFD the article could have been cleaned up. T L Miles (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per Phil Bridger and TL Miles. The gbooks results, especially Language in South Africa mentioned by Phil, and the Towards a code of ethics for text editors paper linked above (see p66-67 & 70) are sufficient RSs. The preview, but not the snippet for Language in South Africa, which has a section on SATI on pp. 433-34 mentions the existence of an "unpublished" (in 1995) history of SATI by Dr. JH... If it is in any major library, it may count as another and a very substantial RS. The introduction to Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies vol 25 #2, 2007, explains that the issue is devoted to papers presented for SATI's 50th anniversary. The article by Beukes gives some history of translation in SA, with an account "of the modes of governmentality embodied by the South African Translators’ Association."John Z (talk) 06:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep On balance, a sufficient amount of evidence for notability. Being a national accrediting agency is significant enough. DGG (talk) 14:45, 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 keep. Nominated too soon after previous debate. Mgm|^(talk) 23:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Starfleet ship registry and classes in Star Trek[edit]

Starfleet ship registry and classes in Star Trek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete The article is filled with original research, there are NO authoritative sources on the subject of Starfleet starship registries and classes, the canon sources can't be used because they are primary sources, and the non-canon sources are almost guaranteed to be contradicted by each other. There is nothing worth saving in this article. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably also point out that the subject is the very definition of trivia. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 16:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: this looks like recreation of deleted materiel, let me check my archives, but I think this is stuff I suggested an editor take to the Trek wiki (sorry forget the name right now.) If it is, it is speedyable. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, I cannot find it. It looks familiar, though. :-( KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the arguments made ~50 days ago in the last AfD. There are certainly specialized encyclopedias that cover this. Hobit (talk) 19:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but can you point me to the encyclopedia that discusses how Starfleet picks its starship registry numbers, or analyses the ranges of numbers? There are multiple published sources that discuss starships in Star Trek, but none go into this much detail about the trivia contained in this article. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural keep this was nominated in December 2008 and kept then - repeatedly discussing articles that resulted in a consensus one way or another in the vain hope that consensus has changed is disruptive. Had I participated in December's discussion I may well have commented on the benefits of its deletion, but here the repetition is worse than the retention of the article. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is too soon after a keep close. As fiction article standards are under active discussion, perhaps there might be a change in consensus in another 4 or 5 months, which would be a reasonable time to try again. This is case of "I didn't like the result, so let me try till I get it my way" DGG (talk) 22:44, 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. MBisanz ^talk 17:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Small Business Computer Support[edit]

Small Business Computer Support (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an essay and original research. It's interesting, perhaps even valuable, but not encyclopaedia material. Journalese has no place here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly an unencyclopaedic essay. Anaxial (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The topic is notable - I had no difficulty finding more than one book about it. If the current draft is poor then our policy is to keep it for further work. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It is not a topic independent of other topics. The current article is unsourced OR. Bongomatic 06:34, 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 speedy delete. A7 Tone 21:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Olesen[edit]

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

I've found nothing to fulfill WP:BIO or WP:ACADEMIC#Criteria. I also couldn't find anything citing his work on Britten. JaGa^talk 16:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Surely this is a Speedy Delete as a non notable person? You can find more about me in (eg) Google than about him, and I know I'm not notable! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:22, 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 Poe Elementary School attack. Or, as appropriate, the the school district or list. Stifle (talk) 09:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poe Elementary School (Houston)[edit]

Poe Elementary School (Houston) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability in question. As this is an elementary school which has NOT received a Blue Ribbon Award, I am unsure of its notability. The sole criteria for its inclusion as an article of its own has been the fact that there was a school shooting there in 1959. The shooting itself has its own article. I wonder if maybe the shooting itself is notable history, but the school itself is not notable, and therefore the article on the shooting should be kept, but the article on the school itself should be a redirect back to the district. Personal note which may or may not be helpful: my son went to this school for three years, and I was unaware of the shooting until I read about it on wikipedia. Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Houston Independent School District. Elementary schools tend not to be notable. Reywas92^Talk 19:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Complex merge into Poe Elementary School attack and Houston Independent School District, with redirect to HISD and a note in the HISD page linking to Poe Elementary School attack. Resurrect article it it becomes notable for more than a single event. No need to delete edit history, it will be useful should the school become notable enough for an article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a List of Houston Independent School District schools article - Maybe that will work better? WhisperToMe (talk) 05:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 07:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Complex merge per Davidwr. Cunard (talk) 07:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• It warms the cockles of my heart to know I coined a term. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:47, 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 17:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Mysterious Rhinestone Cowboy/Once Upon a Time (David Allan Coe Album)[edit]

The Mysterious Rhinestone Cowboy/Once Upon a Time (David Allan Coe Album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Just a two-disc packaging of two of Coe's existing albums. While each individual album is without a doubt notable, there is nothing to say about this particular issue. This is just a budget lin compilation, and it is very similar in nature to this AfD. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - while interesting and encyclopedic things can be written about many types of compilation album, when the album in question is simply a repackaging of two existing albums I can't see how the article could be usefully expanded. The existence of this release can easily be mentioned in a sentence in both of the individual albums' articles, and I don't think there's enough content available to do any more than that. ~ mazca ^t|c 19:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. I agree with mazca, a simple mention on each albums page will suffice.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 21:26, 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 Withdrawn by nominator, in light of additional sources that were not apparent when nominating (NAC) Mayalld (talk) 10:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An Bord Snip[edit]

An Bord Snip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

• Delete non-notable neologism per WP:NEO. No relevant GHITS found. Possibly WP:MADEUP Mayalld (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This term is constantly being used in news media and common parlance in Ireland at the moment. It is intrinsically connected to the global financial crisis and Ireland's reaction to same. Most Irish people do not know there is an official name for the group or what that name is ("Special Group on Public Service Numbers and Expenditure Programmes"). It is extrememly likely that a person seeking knowledge about this group would use the slang term, "An Bord Snip", to source information. Granted it is a local-ism but it is no less meaningful in Ireland than American euphemisms like "credit crunch" or "Wall Street vs. Main Street". Admittedly, in its current state the article is quite poorly supported or referenced but it is a work-in-progress and I expect Irish Wikipedians will enthusiastically flesh it out. As for no GHITS, the term fills a whole page of Google search results. Perhaps a higher quality article will illustrate why it deserves to be kept. (Disclosure: I am the primary author of this article)--Cajmcmahon (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Alexf^(talk) 19:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP This article is highly relevant to the on-going economic crisis in Ireland, the subject of this article is referenced daily on Irish television and news media, and it is vital that a record is created of the impact and development of this group Damiantgordon (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aside - Suggesting "Possibly WP:MADEUP" as a reason for deletion is totally incorrect, this is a real organisation. As for "No relevant GHITS found", the first page of the 1500 google hits includes every national newspaper in Ireland. Finally suggesting WP:NEO misses the fact that the original board was formed by Charles Haughey in 1987 Damiantgordon (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hence, probably, why it's usually being referred to as 'An Bord Snip Nua' on RTE Radio. --Handelaar (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP I agree with both the points made above by Cajmcmahon and Damiantgordon in relation to keeping this article. I particularly agree with the point in relation to the use of other descriptors such as "Credit Crunch". Surely this article is then a similar record? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mooneycol (talk • contribs) 23:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Special Group on Public Service Numbers and Expenditure Programmes. Notability is clear from the sources in the article, but we should use the official name. Anyone typing in the colloquial name will still be redirected there. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Both Keep and Move as Phil suggests --Handelaar (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreed both Keep and Move with a redirect 89.101.63.72 (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I partially agree with rationale for the Move suggestion. A concern I have however is, it will create multiple pages/entries. The board from 1987 had a different name from the 2008/09 board, yet both are know under the umbrella term "An Bord Snip". If we use the official name, we shall have to create two pages with largely identical sections. If we use the unofficial name, it will make for more concise reading and better organization of thought. If, years from now, there is another financial crisis and a similar group is set up, no matter what its official, politically expedient, PR-friendly name, it can slot quite easily into this page as a new section. Furthermore, though fictitious, I would argue the term is by now a concrete noun in Ireland and part of the Irish vernacular. I would suggest, just because the name may strike some as made-up or non-standard, it is how it is known on the ground and that gives it factual weight. It is my opinion that this should be the parent/top-level/root page. At the very least, it makes for better organisation and taxonomy. (Disclosure: I am the primary author of this article) --Cajmcmahon (talk) 18:59, 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. Alexf^(talk) 15:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Tremelling[edit]

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

• Delete non notable amateur sportsman per WP:ATHLETE Mayalld (talk) 15:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I've tagged it for speedy deletion. andy (talk) 15:29, 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. Whilst there are technical issues to be resolved, the Article is an appropriate split (NAC) (non-admin closure) Mayalld (talk) 09:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pixar awards and nominations (feature films)[edit]

List of Pixar awards and nominations (feature films) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a Copy & Paste fork/move from List of Pixar awards and nominations with the entire history lost. This constitutes GFDL violation. Non-withstanding the good intentions, there are better ways of splitting articles. — Edokter • Talk • 00:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete since List of Pixar awards and nominations is sufficient and forking was unnecessary; can the nominator clarify the GFDL violations that took place? Was the list's initial edit summary, "moving List of Pixar awards and nominations (section Feature Films) to here because of it's exhaustive length and it's readines for standing on it's own", not clear? —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • An edit summary is not enough, when 80+% of a page is copied. The edit summary must also be linked, and the original article's history retained. When splitting articles, the minor part should be split with a linked edit summary. — Edokter • Talk • 17:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keepThis isn't a fork. I'm not a forker and I have a clean record of wikiedits. What I'm trying to do is make wikipedia a better encyclopedia and I have been doing that since November 2007. The page is still ((underconstruction)). There are no copyvio I said in my first edit that it has been moved over from the section of List of Pixar awards and nominations to here. How else should I do this? Articles are splitt everyday and are done in the same way (as far as I know). Per Wikipedia:Splitting I should have added ((splitfrom)) but I didn't delete the original section yet. The list is still underconstruction and I therefore didn't delete the contents of the feature films in the List of Pixar awards and nominations. I proposed moving List of Pixar awards and nominations to List of Pixar awards and nominations (short films) because the shorts section is long enough for a standalone list. I have improved List of Pixar awards and nominations (feature films) a lot and it can be featured soon. Just calm down and wait till the page is ready and then delete the features section of the original page. I can also delete the section now and this whole problem would be resolved. But I wanted to wait for someone to post his opinion on moving from List of Pixar awards and nominations to "List of Pixar awards and nominations (short films)" and than I can delete the section and put the diffs in ((splitfrom)). --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPLIT requires the original article to be linked; you omitted that. The split should have been discussed beforehand; such a big change needs consensus, so ((splitfrom)) and a spllit notice on the talk page would not have been a bad idea. You can still initiate a a split discussion. — Edokter • Talk • 17:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I split the shorts section (This time the right way). If there is later consensus that the list should be merged back I would be happy to help in the merging. Now I'm BOLD and fix wiki the way I see fit. If the community doesn't like that I split it I would support their decission and have no problem against it.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also did as requested per Wikipedia:Splitting and added ((splitfrom)) to the main article's page. I learned from my mistakes and will in the future add the required templates and edit summaries when splitting articles.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Resolved ?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there are no further comments here in the next 24 hours, and discussion on the talk page is progressing, I will withdraw my nomination. — Edokter • Talk • 20:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 13:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The methodology is the correct way to split an article. History cann be restored/duplicated by an import which is something any admin can do. Article was created last week and normally (unless there is a pressing reason) we give articles a week or a month to develop. I do not see a serious attempt to resolve the issue without jumping to AFD. I am unsure what this nomination is trying to achieve. -- Cat ^chi? 16:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This article is fine under [WP:N]. It's a very useful and organized article. It also does a good job of citing its sources. Smallman12q (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and then consider whether the split is justified on the appropriate talk p. If it was done wrong, do it over right. It is not appropriate to delete articles because of technical errors that are fixable. DGG (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also did ((splitfrom)) so it's done right and linked the split article in the original articles history. Which ensures that GFDL is applied. I also think that admins can import histories to other articles which ensures the right attribution. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and trout slap all concerned. The parent list is getting large so splitting off featured films or some other content is understandable but it's better to discuss what makes the most sense and possibly draft what the new article would look like to avoid trauma and drama. Sort it out, we want the content. -- Banjeboi 03:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also am the biggest contributor to the original page: http://vs.aka-online.de/cgi-bin/wppagehiststat.pl --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep..it seems the editors have collaborated and resolved the deletion controversy. Well done.--Buster7 (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The problem with this article, as I see it, is that it is long and only going to get much longer. Pixar has been coming out with a feature film every year recently, and each of their features tends to win or be nominated for a lot of awards. If the awards were listed only in the article about the particular film, there wouldn't be a problem, but since Pixar could conceivably continue to release movies forever, this article's length could expand indefinitely. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No need to worry. Wikipedia has plenty of room.--Buster7 (talk) 04:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A perfectly justifiable fork that improves readability of both articles. Any GFDL history issues can be addressed retrospectively. Alansohn (talk) 03:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete / Merge. Since the large bulk of Pixar's awards listed in List of Pixar awards and nominations are for feature films, this fork is totally counterproductive. Any information missing from the main article should be incorporated there (note that that article requires some improvement--the list "by award" is incomplete). Bongomatic 06:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't supposed to be a fork. The List of Pixar awards and nominations was too long. I therefore wanted to split the list into List of Pixar awards and nominations (feature films) and List of Pixar awards and nominations (short films) and keep List of Pixar awards and nominations for the last section which is by award. The section feature films was deleted before with the edit summary:"split content to List of Pixar awards and nominations (feature films)". Now it's back again. If the AFD results in keep I will delete the feature section and add a short summary with a main article link. I hope this AFD results in keep, because I worked a lot on the List_of_Pixar_awards_and_nominations_(feature_films) and this work shouldn't go for nothing. A delete is actually counterproductive and not the right way to do this. I added many references which were missing in the split list and added short summaries for each film. There is also an intro that wasn't there in the original list. Deleting this list is actually, in my opinion, illegal because it is referenced in contrast to the other page. It also isn't a fork because it concerns only the feature films in contrast to the other list which is general about Pixar. When a page becomes too long it should be split and a short summary with a main link should be there (I will do the summary and link if this Afd results in keep). That's the rule of Wikipedia which I followed. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The effort is prodigious, and the article looks good. However, it's hard (for me, anyway) to imagine anyone wanting to look at the information split by short / feature. Why not by award type? Why not by year? Won versus nominated? To me, this sort of information is much better suited to a database that allows one to slice the information in different ways (something WP is ill-suited to). Bongomatic 16:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Win/Nominated; Year descending/ascending; are all sorting problems which isn't the concern of the Afd. What I suggested with the splitting was to reduce the size of the then long List of Pixar awards and nominations. Shorts and features are completely different as you know. Merging them together wouldn't be right as usually they aren't comparable and don't have the same awards. You can compare Ratatouille with Cars on the awards nominated and won but not Burn-e and Toy Story. One list about the shorts, the other about the features. I don't get why there is such a big dilemma about this (generaly speaking).--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notwithstanding the process, per DGG. Bearian (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep jeez. I would poop a brick if all of this content got DELETED! At the least, bare minimum, this should be USERFIED. If the organization of this article/its companion articles sucks, they should be reorganized. If this should be moved, move it. Discuss this on the talk pages and make it workable! But, lord, don't delete. Do you really want the brick thing to happen? Really? SMSpivey (talk) 05:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 17:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Lazys[edit]

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

Fails to establish notability and entirely sourced from self made band pages and a blog Sillyfolkboy (talk) 15:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BAND, due to the joint national tour of Australia. Spinach Monster (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the criteria state: "Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country." — there is zero coverage from a reliable source. The article is based on references from primary sources (e.g. myspace/mp3.au etc)/. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Spinach Monster (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The site you referenced is merely a directory of local bands, listing some 3000 artists/groups in the local area. It doesn't distinguish why the Lazys are notable and worthy of inclusion. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll go for a Keep too. They've achieved something, unlike a lot of the bands that try to get pages on here to get known without the hard work. Could do with outside references, though. Peridon (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: no significant independent 3rd party notability. Current references are limited to MySpace and a passing mention in FasterLouder. Fails WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 03:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable WP:BAND. JoannaMinogue (talk) 09:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no indication of multisourced notability. A-Kartoffel (talk) 07:27, 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 redirect to Indosiar. MBisanz ^talk 17:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Indosiar[edit]

List of programs broadcast by Indosiar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I think this is the last of the Indonesian TV spam, this is indiscrimate info and non-notable, as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by TV ONE (Indonesia) Benefix (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTGUIDE, listcruft. JamesBurns (talk) 03:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —SatuSuro 05:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom SatuSuro 05:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Indosiar, as that article is short enough to include a list of programs. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by QTV (Indonesia) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of programs broadcast by networks. DHowell (talk) 05:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Merging listcruft/spam doesn't get rid of it, in fact it makes it worse by polluting the article it is merged to. Clearly concensus has changed since the mass AFD, as we saw in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by TV ONE (Indonesia) which was a clear delete and not merge. Benefix (talk) 14:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge. I was under the impression that list articles are supposed to enumerate notable items, which is not the case with this. The notable subset of items would seem short enough to include in the Indosiar article. Bongomatic 06:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom _Annas_ (talk) 04:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Balder Olrik[edit]

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

Fails WP:CREATIVE. JaGa^talk 14:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nn per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The claim that "The Incident" inspired The Blair Witch Project is completely unverifiable "the+incident"+"blair+witch+project"+"balder+olrik"&btnG=Search The claim he was the youngest to be accepted at the Royal Danish Academy Of Art relies on WP mirrors too (either that or it is an exact copyvio of material written by the subject themselves. "Balder+Olrik"+"Royal+Danish+Academy+Of+Art"+"youngest"&btnG=Search- Mgm|^(talk) 23:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 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 hard as test or a vandalism edit, noting that valid entries on books and films occasionally look like this when posted. Tikiwont (talk) 15:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley nero[edit]

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

• Delete Wikipedia is not the place for your unpublished novel Mayalld (talk) 14:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no source, no context. Plot summary? News item? Short story? Whatever it is, it's not an encyclopedia article. JohnCD (talk) 15:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• SPEEDY DELETE, its nothing but a badly restated version of plot of the film Die Hard, with a few names changed. Adding speedy tag to this nonsense. Why bother with AfD for trash like this? Wuhwuzdat (talk) 15:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. notability not asserted. No means of verification. No proper sources. -- Alexf^(talk) 15:35, 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. Per WP:COPYVIO MBisanz ^talk 14:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asoka Bandarage[edit]

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

I can't find anything that allows her to surpass WP:PROF#Criteria or WP:CREATIVE. JaGa^talk 14:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a quick look-see indicates her books have seen significant reviews and her opinions are cited in news articles, and she's been asked to write in the Harvard International Review due to her expertise in her subject. [21]. Hobit (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete pure copyvio of [22]; when an article on a professor doesn't give the link to the official CV, it's usually worth look for it. But she has five reputable books, and is probably notable, so perhaps someone will want to re-create the article properly. DGG (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 14:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Protection Program[edit]

Princess Protection Program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Repeatedly recreated unreferenced article for non-notable future film. Speedy (repost) tag was removed without comment.SummerPhD (talk) 14:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Keep The article is lacking reliable sources and is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF but with the info shown below seems to be a valid film.Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 15:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It seems I messed up my nomination. My reason for the nom should have read: "Repeatedly recreated unreferenced article for non-notable future film. Speedy (repost) tag was removed without comment." - SummerPhD (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy deleteDelete: I don't see any justification for removing the speedy delete tag. It is a repost. There is something extremely funky about this thing. It doesn't quite seem to be a hoax, but when I look in all the places that I would expect to find announcements of a Disney Channel Original Movie, I'm not finding this one.—Kww(talk) 15:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found one decent source for the plot and existence of the movie at http://www.disneychannelmedianet.com/web/display/display_item.aspx?item=ph/htm/112568_433.htm .—Kww(talk) 20:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That proves it exists. Now we need substantial coverage in independent reliable sources for notability. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No we don't. There are several other criteria that indicate notability of a movie. One of them (Significant involvement of a notable individual applies. The top three cast members are notable in their own right and that's just by a cursory glance.) - Mgm|^(talk) 23:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Actually, I think we do. I struck out speedy delete, but I didn't write in keep, because I'm conflicted. This film barely seems to exist, despite starring some of the most recognizable Disney creations. Everything in Wikipedia:Notability (films) is stated to apply only if backed by books, television documentaries, full-length featured newspaper articles from large circulation newspapers, full-length magazine reviews and criticism, and specifically excluding the kind of source I found, which fall under media reprints of press releases, trailers, and advertising for the film. Where is a truly independent and reliable source to push this thing past WP:N? Someone needs to find at at least one.—Kww(talk) 01:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry about your conflicts, but I can sympathyze. WP:NF gets a lot of grief. What the section requires is that their be a reasonable presumption that sources exists... not that you actually have to present them. Now certainly its a quibble... and one that gets kicked around quite a bit... but considering that principle filming HAS finished and it has been announced that it WILL air on June 19 2009, it is a safe presumption that in the following few days, weeks, and months that Disney will be hyping the hell out of their new tween idols. I do not have to have the articles in my hand to KNOW its gonna happen... and that's the happy part about presumption. However, and all that aside, the article has indeed been expanded and sourced.. at least to sites catering to Disney fluff. You can put your money that there will indeed be more... lots more... as Disney gets the hypr train rolling. And currently I am checking article about these tweeners. Safe presumption. Safe bet. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• My final analysis is that this thing is not currently notable. There's no reliable press about it at all. The closest to an independent reliable source that anyone found was in the New York Times, but that was simply a program listing, and that fails WP:NF as a source of notability.—Kww(talk) 14:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Princess Protection Program is in fact a real Disney Channel Original Movie. The article itself could use some cleanup, but if it's sources you are looking for, try these:

1.The IMDB Page for Princess Protection Program

2.The Kid's TV Movies on About.com Page for Princess Protection Program

3.The Disney Channel Media Net page for the movie

If these aren't enough, I can come up with more. That's not a problem because the movie EXISTS!Cssiitcic (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment We have other pages on upcoming movies, why delete this one?Cssiitcic (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If articles for other upcoming Disney movies were kept (such as Dadnapped) then this one should be kept, too.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Colleen8463 (talk • contribs) 12:25, January 28, 2009(UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and tag for cleanup and expansion. While the current article is poorly sourced (no offense to the author), a cursory search seems to indicate that there is enough out there to easuily meet the guideline of WP:NFF. This means that deletion should be taken off the table. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And yes... if the article is still here in 5 hours when I get off of work, I'll fix it myself. I think it cam be a worthy inclusion to Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And there is Google News that would seem to indicate that things have gotten beter toward meeting WP:NFF since the first AfD's, not worse. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Watch those Google News results ... not a one from a reliable source. That's what I was commenting on above ... 90 days before release, with two of their major stars in it, and I would expect their PR machine to be in full motion. It's not. I fully expected when I saw this pop up on my watchlist again that I would find decent sourcing for it, and there doesn't seem to be much available on it. Something's funky.—Kww(talk) 20:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Michael. Ikip (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — see first two gNews hits at [23]. Looks like it finally has enough verifiable speculation to not be crystalballery. MuZemike 22:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I bumped edits with a few kind contributors, but the article has been nicely expanded and prpperly sourced with everyone's help. It's not the flashiest, but with filming having been competed and Disney airing it on June 19, you can just bet its gonna get all kinds of happy hype for their new tween idols. Its a another Disney Keeper. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I went in and removed a lot of that ... blog-sourced info, and what looked to be a pirated copy of the trailer.—Kww(talk) 05:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem. It has several of Disney's hottest pre-teen stars. When their publicity people begin the push, you'll be seeing this on billboards accross the country. Pity, as it is all a bit contrived and saccherine... but it will have coverage to burn. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is sufficient information to verify the existence of this movie. Given its cast, it is virtually certain to obtain uncontested notability soon after release (and the arguments that it already has such status—while weak—seem persuasive to many here. Given the high likelihood of recreation, seems pointless to delete it now. If by some chance it is never widely reviewed or fails to get any additional coverage, bring it back to AfD. Bongomatic 06:50, 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.