< December 14 December 16 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 17:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maraca (hash function)[edit]

Maraca (hash function) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Maraca is a hash function created for the NIST hash function competition. While the competition is notable, submission to the competition is not an assertion of notability - there were no minimum submission criteria and all entrants were accepted. Maraca was rejected for the first round of competition (being accepted would be a claim of notability) and has subsequently been shown to be broken [1]. Hence, all the independent discussion of Maraca, now and in the future, is likely to either concern the competition generally, or else the fact that it's broken. Essentially, it has no future as a notable subject. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth naming it, saying that it's broken, and linking to both in the refs. That's probably enough. ciphergoth (talk) 23:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Shortland Street characters WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). Matt (Talk) 07:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Pierce[edit]

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

Fails WP:FICTION Real-world coverage criteria. Fictional character presented without any sources showing real-world context or notability. dramatic (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  07:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prachee Adhikari[edit]

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

Non-notable actress. No references currently provided in any language, only a collection of links to image galleries. Initially prodded and tagged for multiple issues, but prod and all other tags(Notability, COI, Wikilinking) were removed. Right now article has a set of external links, the non-youtube ones are either very brief mentions or image galleries. Article also should have an interwiki to a Telugu wikipedia (te:మొదటి పేజీ) entry if one exists there. -Optigan13 (talk) 23:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (speedy, per G7 and clear consensus). Mangojuicetalk 21:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Roydon[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer has never played in a fully professional league and therefore does not meet WP:ATHLETE or WP:FOOTYN Mattinbgn\talk 23:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: left note at blocking admin to review. -- Alexf(talk) 11:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 09:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

School of Rock 2: America Rocks[edit]

School of Rock 2: America Rocks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The notability guideline for future films recommends that a film article is not created until principal photography can be confirmed to have begun. This does not exist to ruin anyone's hard work, but for very good, practical reasons. The guideline prevents the creation of film articles the instant a project is announced in Variety or wherever, because experience has shown us that the intention to make a film often does not mean a film will be made. Budget issues, scripting issues, casting issues and scheduling issues can always get in the way of the filmmakers' intentions, and without the guideline, the place would be full of stubby articles about films that were never made, and would thus fail the general notability guideline. Now, sometimes the high profile of a certain projects means that they are more likely to be made than not, but if we made an exception for these then that would only render the guideline toothless. Even "sure things" do not always make it to production (Jurassic Park IV was supposed to have been released in 2005, if the original announcements are to be believed). School of Rock 2, however, is not even in this camp. Little new information has come out since the original spurt of articles in July. No-one's saying the available information can't be included; it's just the best place for it right now is at a parent article, where what little information there is can be placed in the appropriate context. Steve T • C 23:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. No support for deletion here (apart from the nominator). No consensus for a merge either but this decision should not prejudice a decision for or against a merge based on discussion elsewhere. Davewild (talk) 10:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mtigwaki[edit]

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

In universe plot summary, doesn't add anything to understand For Better or For Worse. No sources exist. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd be fine with that. The sources cited by Peregrine Fisher are more about the strip as a whole, not this particular part off it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, Graymornings, it has no relevance outside of the universe of the strip. But does Jabba the Hutt really have relevance out of Star Wars? Nikki and Paulo outside of Lost? Troy McClure outside of The Simpsons? Yet all are featured articles. Yes, they all have more sources, but that's only because their mediums (television and movies) are written about more than comics are. -- Zanimum (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There has been plenty written about Jabba the Hutt outside the movie; he's indisputably a cultural icon. Of course he's been written about more than a minor fictional Native American tribe. He's notable. The Mtigwaki aren't. Two of the sources are mentions by the artist herself; two are minor academic articles. Unless the Mtigwaki have achieved notability on their own, there's no sense having a separate article. Graymornings(talk) 16:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  08:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sheri Cohen[edit]

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

I have not been able to find any evidence that such a person exists. If she conducted a study of menstrual synchrony, no report was ever published as far as I can tell. Looie496 (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 01:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

F-16 flight simulator[edit]

F-16 flight simulator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails to establish a claim of notability, and also to verify this through reliable independent sources. The limited references provided include a press release, and other non-independent sources. The article is also incoherent, and I do not see this as a natural grouping for a subject. Of much more applicability would be an article on military PC-based Desk Top Trainers not just specifying one aircraft type. There is no rational as to why F-16 PC Based desk top trainers are more relevant compared to, say, an F/A-18 PC Desk top trainer. The article cannot be salvaged in such a way that it makes sense, as well as satisfying notability. Icemotoboy (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Your nom confused me a bit, but now I've read the article I get it; this is simply just a list of flight simulator games that feature F-16s. Ryan4314 (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry about that, was a little on the confusing side, wasn't it! Icemotoboy (talk) 20:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cornish self-government movement. Consensus is that this should not be an article of its own, on account of WP:OR concerns, but - even after discounting the last two "keep"s as unhelpful - there's no clear consensus to outhright delete this content. Sourced elements may be merged from the history to the target article.  Sandstein  08:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cornish conspiracy theory[edit]

Cornish conspiracy theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Forking and non notable crankery. A google search for the term "Cornish conspiracy theory" leads to one (I repeat one) single use in any news article and all other links simply refer to this Wikipedia page. Google Book Search returns no results at all for such a term or conspiracy. Oddball tinfoil hat crankery of a complete non notable term and the sources are WP:FORKed to present a personal essay rather than representing what is contained within the link. Sprogeeet (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But does it pass WP:Notability? There only seems to have been one single use of the term in passing in the media, ever. That doesn't seem to suggest it would qualify or that people search for such a term. The only way I could imagine people even finding the article is by its spread in "see also" sections, which is how I found it while browsing. - Sprogeeet (talk) 22:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It should also be noted that the so called "Duchy of Cornwall Human Rights Association" although gaudy and sparkly sounding in name is not an offical representative of the Duchy of Cornwall. This is the official website which has ".org" and is sanctioned by the Duke of Cornwall, the unofficial ".eu" website, is a personal, unaffiliated website of crank historian John Angarrack. - Sprogeeet (talk) 22:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Went a tad overboard here Sprogeeet ? I didn’t say you were wrong, I said that merge/redirect would be more appropriate. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 00:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Tinfoil hats aside, can you explain how such an article which is completely and entirely against the policies of WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, WP:SOAP and WP:FORK would be suitable for keeping on Wikipedia? You have not voiced which policies would support keeping such a crank/extreme fringe made up article, but instead voiced your personal, non-academically supported opinion. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a blog experiment for people to invent their own synthesis and coin their own phrases, it is an encyclopedia. Name one encyclopedia with this nonsense.- Sprogeeet (talk) 22:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - and remove the word "theory" - the major differences between the .org and .eu duchy of Cornwall sites is the .eu has plenty of primary source material that offers a true account of duchy history. The .org site in itself is evidence of conspiracy to conceal the truth through absence. Everything else "Royal" in Britain is flaunted, why not the Duchy? The Duchy was recently asked by a Notary Solicitor if they still aknowledged the outcome of the Foreshore case - they refused to answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FTI-Cornwall (talk • contribs) 22:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:CSD#G4. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kyokugenryu Karate[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Kyokugenryu Karate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not a fictional sport, but a fictional form of a sport. It's not at all notable; I couldn't find any mentions it on the internet. Also while the fiction notability guidelines are currently being developed it doesn't meet them either. It's not culturally significant, the info here could easily be included in the main article and it has no non-trivial real world mentions. Patton123 20:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 23:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jules Drucker (Musician)[edit]

Jules Drucker (Musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not sure if this is notable? Originally tagged with speedy delete but it was removed. ♪TempoDiValse♪ 20:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete per G3; no sources, hoax. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 23:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Profusionism[edit]

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

Apparently this is an "emerging" branch of knowledge. It doesn't appear to have emerged very far at all. The only thing a Google search on "Profusionism" is something to do with creation science and nothing to do with this. Reyk YO! 19:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Clusterfuck. The debate has been hopelessly confused by the fact that the article has changed to two distinct articles; one on the theorem "Permanent is sharp-P-complete" and one on the "Proof of Permanent is sharp-P-complete". It appears that the topic has been split, and that it is impossible to determine which article, or which version of which article, anyone below is commenting on. That at some point one article was set up as a redirect to the other, and the entire situation has been protected against editing makes this hopelessly muddled. There is no prejudice against improving articles during an AFD process, however the manner in which these changes have occured can hardly be called "improvement". The way this situation has worked out, I can't even say with certainty that we have a "no-consensus" situation here. Work out WHICH article we want to delete and WHICH we want to keep, even if we want to delete both or keep both. Once the situation has been sorted out, and we know exactly which article is which and what is going on, feel free to renominate either or both for another go at AFD. Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent is sharp-P-complete[edit]

Permanent is sharp-P-complete (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article not encyclopedic, not an article, is a probable copy-vio, and Wikipedia is not the place to (re)-publish research, and this proof is probably not notable.--Tznkai (talk) 19:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, mathematics is more verifiable than any other discipline :) I also agree this proof as it stands (relying on one source, apparently) is not appropriate, but the article itself is very much admissible. Shreevatsa (talk) 06:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no reason to believe that the wikipedian represented correctly the ideas of the proof. You can say that about any article on Wikipedia with references, not just the mathematics ones. Your point in making that comment is? The rest of your remark seems to be that you don't like how this article is written. That's never a valid argument to delete, as well you should know. The theorem is notable, and thus it should have an article. Merging or rewriting are all editorial decisions to be proposed and worked out elsewhere. --C S (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible the article just retells one proof (I don't know; I didn't write it), but there are independent sources discussing essentially the same proof: see the ones in the references. The article will have to be improved to incorporate all of them. Shreevatsa (talk) 06:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep the result does seem to be notable, whether the proof is notable is another matter. I generally thing the bar for proofs should be set quite high as there can be problems with OR and verifiability. I'm inclined towards keep here. One point is the article might be better titled Permanent is ♯P-complete note use of sharp ♯ symbol rather than hash # which overcomes technical problems.--Salix (talk): 18:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article about the theorem stating that computing the permanent is sharp-P complete. You say yourself that the result is notable. There is no requirement for the proof presented in the article to be Valiant's initial proof. For notable mathematical results proofs are often significantly simplified and improved over time by other mathematicians, and it is a standard and accepted practice for WP math articles to give such simplified and modern proofs. As long as the result is clearly attributed to Valiant (which it is) and the proof given is based on a published source (as seems to be the case here), there is no problem. Nsk92 (talk) 01:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of notability is applied not to separate articles, but to any pieces of them. Otherwise what would prevent me from describing my dog in the article dog (of course this is an absurd exagerration, bit where is the boundary?). Also, I supplied my vote with the observation no one made until now. I also subscribe to other wories wxpressed, but I didn't want to be repetitive. But if you insist, then yest, I agree the presentation of a complex proof is on a dangerous verge to original research. In mathematical chain of thought every step cannot be misstepped. "Expert-unfriendly" Wikipedia gives no guarantee that the wikipedian did not make a blunder somewhere. Retelling an event or description of Madagascar consists of small independent, independently verifiable pieces. Whereas a mathematica proof is a monolith, and would never trust a wikipedian. Mukadderat (talk) 01:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia math articles routinely contain proofs and/or sketches of proofs. As is anything else, these proofs are subject to WP:V and to scruitiny of other Wikipedia users and if mistakes are discovered they should and are corrected. The math proofs given in math articles do need to rely on published reliable sources, and this one does. As a professional mathematician who does read Wkipedia math articles fairly frequently, I can tell you that there is significant encyclopedic value in both explaining the statement of a result and its significance, and in explaining how it was obtained. Mathematics is not static and changes over time; ideas progress, new tools and notions are introduced, language is simplified, etc. Proofs of important results get simplified, improved and rationalized too. It is entirely appropriate to present simpler and more modern proofs than the original ones, and this is routinely done in WP math articles, as well as in math books and math research articles. For example, the proof of Fundamental theorem of Galois theory would hardly be recognized by Évariste Galois, as most of the language and the notions have changed rather considerably since his time. Regarding your example with your dog and the article dog, the difference with the present case is in WP:UNDUE. Nsk92 (talk) 02:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not you describe your dog in the article dog is irrelevant to whether the subject of "dog" is notable and the corresponding article should be deleted. --C S (talk) 01:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I find it ironic that you are complaining that the proof is a "secondary" follow-up. It is in fact the golden standard of Wikipedia that articles should be based, to the extent possible, on secondary sources, not the primary ones. Nsk92 (talk) 01:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact I find it ironic that you don't understand that secondary source and "secondary importance" are quite different issues yet you find it possible to insult me by hinting at my low intelligence. If an author of the text we vote about has the same level of logic, then woe to the readers. Mukadderat (talk) 01:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mukadderat, I usually have a fairly thick skin, but this kind of a personal attack by you is unacceptable. Please retract it. Nsk92 (talk) 02:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pray tell, where is Nsk92's "hinting of [your] low intelligence"? All I see is your not so thinly veiled insult that Nsk92 and others are "lacking basic logic" and your repeating of that kind of insult in your last response. The article is called, "Permanent is sharp-P-complete". There are plenty of reputable sources that say this is an important, seminal fact playing a fundamental role in the theory. Thus the article should not be deleted. That is the basic logic here. The fact that you insist on conflating this with other issues does not make those saying "keep" lacking of logic. --C S (talk) 01:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The page in question is nothing but the proof of this fact. The fact itself and discussion of its importance may be easily put into Computation of the permanent of a matrix. (Wait, it is already there!) I am voting to delete the proof. Mukadderat (talk) 02:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As pointed above in David Eppstein's post, the proof is notable too, because, for example, a classic book on computational complexity by Papadimitriou which is the standard book in the subject, presents essentially the same argument. If this proof is simpler than the original one by Valiant, there is no problem with having this proof: it is informative, directly relevant to the article and encyclopedic. As I said above, with many, probably most, notable results in mathematics the initial proofs are too complicated and inefficient. If the result is interesting, other mathematicians come in and try to simplify and clarify the initial proof, and it is these simplified and clarified arguments that actually make it into books and encyclopedias. It makes perfect encyclopedic sense and in fact reflects the standard practice in Wikipedia articles on mathematical topics to present these new simplified proofs as opposed to the original complicated ones (which also often use language and machinery that becomes outdated). E.g. the proof of the Fundamental theorem of Galois theory contained in that WP article is certainly not the original proof of Évariste Galois, but rather a considerably adapted and simplified modern version. Similarly, proofs of other notable results given in the articles like Picard–Lindelöf theorem, Banach fixed point theorem, etc, are certainly not the original proofs but significant modern simplifications. This is a completely standard, reasonable and acceptable practice. Nsk92 (talk) 06:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Michael Hardy and Ozob. An article about the result, with a sketch of methods of proof would be encyclopedic; the current lengthy texbook-style line-by-line exposition of one particular proof is not encyclopedic. If the article were re-written to focus on the result, establishing its notability, discussing its history, sketching one or more proofs (at the same level of detail as the present Proof overview section), maybe mentioning some consequences, extensions or generalisations, then I would withdraw my Delete !vote. Fundamental theorem of Galois theory is a fairly good model here (although very undersourced) - note how short its Proof section is. But all that would require a major re-write of the current article. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
that this discussion is in progress. We should see if they have something to contribute to this discussion. Michael Hardy (talk) 12:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article protected against revert war. Any admin has rights to unprotect without asking me first. `'Míkka>t 18:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to protection in principle and I know that protecting the wrong version is a time-honored tradion, but please restore the pre-Laudak's version that includes my improvemennts and that most of this AfD is about. All of the discussion above relates to that pre-Laudak's version and the kind of radical transformations he attempted must wait until the AfD is completed. Nsk92 (talk) 18:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to unprotect (it was indeed an edit war, and you properly protected it in the wrong version) but doesn't this lead to a problem with the AfD? As I just pointed out to Laudak above, it is standard to attempt to improve articles in order to stave off their deletion, and Nsk92 has been working to try to do so with this article. Protected, it is impossible to make such improvements and this gives an unfair advantage to the deletionists in this debate. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not only that, but subsequent AfD !voters are looking at something radically different from the pre-Laudak version which does not show my improvements at all. Why don't we break with tradition and protect the right version for a change. Nsk92 (talk) 18:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
David, I understand that you may be annoyed by actions of Laudak, and therefore ignore his argument. His argument was that the deletion was started about the particular topic, namely the proof of some statement. There are many wikipedia articles which topics are specific proofs. And this is OK. This AfD discussion stared as deletion of the proof. During the discusion the article's topic started to change: it started to shift into article about the problem. But the article about the problem already exist: it is computation of the permanent, i.e., the "sharp-P-complete" page started turning into a fork, which is unnecessary. I guess Laudak is relatively new and does not know this wikilawyering term, and hence made his life harder and gained him more enemies :-). `'Míkka>t 18:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"This AFD discussion stared[sic] as deletion of the proof..." Nope, that's your POV. The deletion discussion started with "Article not encyclopedic, not an article, is a probable copy-vio, and Wikipedia is not the place to (re)-publish research, and this proof is probably not notable". The issues here are "not encyclopedic" (this includes the article title and substantial content not related to the proof which existed back then), "not an article" (I have no idea what this means), "probably copy-vio" (let's put in the kitchen sink too!), "(re)-publish[ing] research" (in order to avoid NOR, we have to be republishing, so I have no idea what this means), and "proof is probably not notable", which is in your eyes, the only relevant issue as the discussion supposedly only started with this, right? Mikka, you don't own the discussion and you and the others certainly are not supposed to be able to hijack an AFD in this manner. I suppose the thought of just warning about 3RR and letting the AFD proceed never occurred to you. --C S (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The improvements I made clearly show that the theorem of Valiant is notable, even famous, and more than deserves a separate article, rather than a meager mention in computation of the permanent. The AfD is and was about the theorem, which is a famous and notable mathematical result. Nsk92 (talk) 18:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A meager mention would be in place in permanent. The page computation of the permanent safely holds what you wrote so far. When it grows over 32K, then you may split them into several pages. This is how wikipedia works: meager pages grow, mutate, split, merge, split again... Game of life. `'Míkka>t 19:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article computation of the permanent was created on Dec 17, well after this AfD started, and edited by the most ardent !delete voters here, including Mukadderat and Laudak. Talk about gaming the system! It is thecomputation of the permanent article which is a fork for the article discussed in this AfD. Nsk92 (talk) 19:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and regarding the silly edit warring - I move for an extension of the AfD by another few days in light of the protection. Dcoetzee 18:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would also suggest to do something to separate the votes about two conflated issues: the problem and the proof, in an analogy with your example about quicksort implementations. As I see in this discussion, some people who woted to keep the (expoanded) article still added that they want the proof gone. `'Míkka>t 18:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I would suggest that we restore the version that was being !voted on until an hour ago so that people know what they are actually !voting on. Regarding separating the theorem and the proof: while I believe that the proof belongs in the article about the theorem, in the formal sense the question of including or not including the proof is a content WP:WEIGHT issue for an article, not a deletion issue. If an article about the theorem is kept, the question of whether or not the proof should remain a part of the article is something that would need to be worked out in the talk page of the article. AfD is not the place for making these kinds of decisions. Nsk92 (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The vote was going on long before your edits, and about the different issue. You were free to write a separate article about the problem, under correct title, which is computation of the permanent of a 0-1 matrix, or something. The article was about the proof and no particularly forcing reason to change the subject and to re-start yet another discussion in a talk page when we already have it. Laudak (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry I got myself dragged into an edit war. I was offset by a revert of my good-faith edits with false edit summary: the reverter said that I deleted the proof, which I did not; exactly the opposite. Therefore I made the resoration, assuming that the reverter will undestand their mistake. However I was reverted again with edit summary which made me to conclude that the author wants to own the article: when only two are in disagreement and one side starts speaking about consensus, it usually means that in his view his consensus is better than mine. This kinda pissed me off. Anyway, this was first time with me here and of course it was silly. A good lesson. Thanks, good bye. I will not pursue the issue any more. Laudak (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. probable copy-vio - there is no evidence that this is copyvio, just an unfounded assertion,
  2. Wikipedia is not the place to (re)-publish research - so we can't republish anything ???
  3. proof is probably not notable - the nominator argues from ignorance as a reason for deletion. 86.167.196.116 (talk) 00:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 01:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Yogi Bear Song[edit]

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

Apparently a drinking song sung by fans of a particular rugby club. Disgusting lyrics, no claim of notability, no references just stupidity all around. There's been multiple occurrences of vandalism. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 17:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finding Kraftland[edit]

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

"independent documentary" doesn't ring good for notability, and sources are similarly dubious. Punkmorten (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Good Vibrations (disambiguation). Boldly redirected. (non-admin closure) — neuro(talk) 03:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good vibrations[edit]

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

This article was created over three years ago, and its longest non-spammy state was last year[14] with 1.5kB, still with lots of WP:OR and a major dict-def vibe (WP:NOT#DICT). I was going to bold-redirect it to either Good Vibrations (the famous Beach Boys song, a plausible capitalization) or Good Vibrations (disambiguation) (which can cover the dict-def'iness just fine), but since the article survived a prod in May 2007[15] and since there were three talkpage volunteers who thought this article is worthwhile (with which I don't agree, but I am not a linguist, and google doesn't help), this should go to AfD for a wider input. – sgeureka t•c 18:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 17:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yorktown High School (Indiana)[edit]

Yorktown High School (Indiana) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. No references. Very little content. Gr0ff (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. High schools are notable, but should not always get their own article per WP:NNC. A high school must have notable content to warrant a seperate page. In this case, Yorktown High School lacks such content and should be removed or merged with the appropriate school district. -Gr0ff (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly true, but high school deletions are near WP:SNOWBALL in Hell proposals. They are unproductive efforts with very rare exception and it has been that way for over a year. The best editors can do is to improve the articles as they can. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. Thanks! -Gr0ff (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 03:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Bay Resort, Haad Yao, Thailand[edit]

Sandy Bay Resort, Haad Yao, Thailand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The entire article is biased, unsourced and gives no information, it might also be considered as advertisement

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSD G4 - already deleted via AFD, nothing changed since then. If someone wants to contest the result of that AFD, please use WP:DRV instead. --Angelo (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Silver[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Alexis Silver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources, and doesn't pass the criteria at WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 01:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On roll consulting[edit]

On roll consulting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No Google hits, and the two cited references don't mention this topic, so WP:Notability isn't apparent. Appears to be WP:OR, WP:NEOLOGISM. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 03:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brockmans Gin[edit]

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

Newly-launched gin brand. Deleted several times as advertising. Spam content now removed, but what's left is "this is a new brand of gin." The sources cited are two articles that merely quote PR releases, and one blog. Notability not established by reliable independent sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 17:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lazarus Clamp[edit]

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

Intro includes "undiscovered" and "largely invisible to promoters, labels and the press" which indicates it is not notable. RJFJR (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 09:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008-2009 ACB season[edit]

2008-2009 ACB season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'm not sure it's appropriate to call this an "article," but this collection of tables was listed for Wikipedia:Proposed deletion in the past for lacking any sort of assertion whatsoever of notability and citations. Prod was struck without explanation, but it seemed an obvious enough case that it attracted the template again, more recently. This random collection of statistics plainly does not warrant retention, especially in its present form. MrZaiustalk 15:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 01:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Losasso[edit]

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

Actor who has only appeared in two episodes (per IMDb) of a show that's not exactly burning up the airwaves yet. Search under spelling used at IMDb (Lossasso) gives just 5 non-wiki ghits and 0 gnews; search under Losasso spelling gives more ghits (60 unique, 3 gnews), but notability still isn't turning up in those. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. "Fangwillripoffacertainuserstinywoodanddigestitinminutes" has been blocked (talk • edit talk • message • contribs • block log • change block settings • watch). MBisanz talk 03:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Morley[edit]

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

Author, does not seem to pass WP's notability guidelines - one book listed on Amazon but not covered by any reliable sources, unreferenced article Richard Hock (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  08:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestled[edit]

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

The notability guidelines for films do not seem to be satisfied:

  1. The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.
    • No suggestion of such. While there is a quotation from an NBC critic, there is no evidence that it is from a full length review (a Google search for the text doesn't generate any hits other than on the filmmaker's website).
  2. The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:
    • Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.
    • No suggestion of such
    • The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.
    • No suggestion of such
    • The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.
    • No suggestion of such
    • The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.
    • No suggestion of such
  3. The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.
    • No suggestion of such
  4. The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.
    • No suggestion of such
  5. The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.
    • No suggestion of such

Bongomatic 14:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's item (3) above. Bongomatic 23:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there even one instance of "significant" coverage? Is any of the awards "major"? Are they even documented? The inthecanfilm link provided doesn't actually say which (minor, festival) awards it actually received, so it is not verifiable. Bongomatic 23:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
chifcpug.org: "WRESTLED, which he edited and sound designed, was picked up by IFC (Independent Film Channel) for the 2006 season. The film, shot on 16mm B&W, gained an official selection in the Slamdunk Film Festival in Park City, Utah, and won the “Best Dramatic Short Film” award from the Orion Film Festival in Texas." Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sources provided in the article are are considered "significant" in that they are more-than-trivial. In The Can Films states "Wrestled was selected to take part in the Apple computer series Made on a Mac, hosted by Roger Ebert, profiling filmmakers who are using the Final Cut Pro software to produce new and innovative work. The film earned critical praise, resulting in interviews with Donlon on NBC and in Relevant Magazine." That is NOT a trivial mention. Reel Chicago states "The film marks the third time Donlon and Ordower have worked together. All three films have been directed by Donlon with Ordower serving as editor and sound designer. The first of these films, 'Wrestled,' was picked up by the Independent Film Channel. Ordower took on producing duties with the second film, 'A Series of Small Things', which was accepted into the Palm Springs International Film Festival. According to Ordower, each film has been an educational experience and has helped the pair take on progressively greater challenges. While 'Wrestled' was shot in two days on black and white film, 'The Man in the Silo' is being shot on Super 16mm color film and makes heavy use of Steadicam and Dolly shots." That mention is not trivial. The guidelines do not mandate that the coverage must be exclusive to the subject, only that it not be trivial. Further, the film is available through the DC Library. Flickerings writes ""Wrestled" is Phil’s first film as a filmmaker. Previous directing and writing experience was for the stage with Chicago’s critically acclaimed Gilead Theater Company, which Phil led and co-founded. Before this film Phil worked in front of the camera as an actor in various indie films, commercials and TV shows including 'Friends' and 'Early Edition'. Phil left Chicago a year ago with his wife and moved to Los Angeles because of representation with the William Morris Agency and management with Foundation. He has tested for two network pilots for NBC and ABC, and is currently working on a feature version of 'Wrestled.'" as a non-trivial report of film and filmmaker. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There needs to be significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
  • reelchicago:
  • Irrelevent misdirection, as the mention not used to source article.
  • Irrelevent misdirection, as the mention not used to source article.
  • Irrelevent misdirection, as the mention not used to source article.
  • Irrelevent misdirection, as the mention not used to source article.
  • Irrelevent misdirection, as the mention not used to source article.
  • Oops... not independent. However, is not contentious and is allowed per guideline.
  • False. The covereage is not in depth, but is most definitely significant as it is MORE THAN TRIVIAL.
None qualifies. Bongomatic 02:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • They actually DO qualify under policy WP:V and guideline WP:RS: "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made", as the guidelines allow that a source may be considered in context with what is being asserted. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, some of the qualify under those guidelines, which get the article 2/3 of the way to notability, which requires verifiability, reliability and "significant coverage". None of them is actually "significant coverage", and none of them verifies the awards (they refer only, with no names), so they don't get you the whole way there. Bongomatic 03:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Closed as moot for housekeeping. Article already deleted by User:Richardshusr, citing WP:CSD#A7. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ph.Art Gallery[edit]

Ph.Art Gallery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Australian art-based website that was founded less than a month ago. I first noticed the article on new pages patrol and left a message here saying that the article creator needed to add verifiable references backing up the notability mentioned in the article in order for it to stay: this has not happened. I therefore request deletion. roleplayer 14:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (default keep). Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cloward-Piven Strategy[edit]

Cloward-Piven Strategy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Citations are entirely opinion pieces from unreliable sources like discoverthenetworks.com Bali ultimate (talk) 13:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • cmt the first five you listed are clearly not reliable sources (all right wing mags/websites) the last might be a reliable source (cursory glance it appears to be an academic paper) accept nowhere does the term "Cloward-Piven Strategy" appear.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, the Washington Times is not a reliable source? Theseeker4 (talk) 16:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • cmt News articles in WT are probably ok. But op-eds, in WT or anywhere else, are certainly not rs (this particular one says sometihng about this "strategy" being used to have created the current financial crisis, in order to "destroy capitalism and support Mr. Obama." the whole thing looks like some weird right-wing meme.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The final source establishes only that there was a book written by Cloward and Piven in which the final chapter argued for this particular approach. There is no indication that it became a "strategy" or was ever known as such, that it would work, that anyone ever tried it, or that it is in any other way relevant to welfare in America. The article repeats without any reliable sources a fringe theory that liberals have used the welfare system to bring financial ruin on America. The article does not cover the fringe theory, it is the fringe theory. I see no way the article could be reformed to meet WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. The correct way to report it would be to mention the subject an article about the book or the professors involved, but even there one would have to establish that it is a notable position of theirs. Wikidemon (talk) 17:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Biased sources can be reliable sources, as long as we are careful to consider the bias of the source in its use. Unless you want to label them as "extremist", nothing on WP:RS discounts the use of the sources I provided. A large proportion of the notability of this topic is because it is a strategy that Barack Obama was accused of having used during his election campaign. It was widely talked about in right wing sources of all kinds. The ones I indicate are, I believe, generally respected publications, even if their bias is well known. While I wouldn't want to trust their opinions that Obama is involved with this strategy, I certainly would trust their descriptions of what it is. And the fact that they make the accusation indicates notability.
As to the fact that the academic paper does not mention the strategy by name, this is somewhat unfortunate. It is, however, clearly discussing the same subject, and I don't see that the lack of use of a particular term means that this does not add to the notability of that subject. JulesH (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't elevate fodder of election-year attack politics into articles that presume that these things actually exist, nor is every claim coming out of the blogosphere a notable thing in its own right. Even far more reputable publications like Wall Street Journal or Fox News often carry editorials that coin concepts or arguments as attacks on people, organizations, or ideologies.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemon (talk • contribs) 15:49 15 December 2008 Stricken because it is now clear to me that this is more than election-year "fodder" - Wikidemon (talk) 06:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note - opinion changed from "delete" to "weak keep" in light of sources found by JeremyMcCracken. There are only a few, mostly redundant with each other, and some come from the promoters of the plan, but there does seem to be a small amount of discussion in academic / activist circles about this in the 1970s that got picked up later by conservative critics. Given that the article is not bad at all as a brand new topic, but I think it should make clear that the "strategy" is a term given to a proposed action plan that was followed somewhat but not widely, as opposed to a new descriptive term given to a pre-existing phenomenon. But that's a matter for ongoing editing, not an AfD discussion.Wikidemon (talk) 06:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not good enough. That the phrase "Cloward-Piven strategy" was used in several books doesn't mean anything, because the phrase seems to only refer to the strategy of flooding welfare rolls as a means of welfare reform, not as a means of bringing about "the demise of the capitalist system" as this article contends. The article would need to be rewritten as something like Cloward-Piven welfare reform stategy, and all of the existing text would need to be dumped. And with that, we would end up with an article about a deeply non-notable topic. So why bother keeping it? --GoodDamon 16:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure about the rewrite- the abstract to the original article on The Nation's website (here) indicates they meant to implement "guaranteed annual income", which the Reisch and Andrews cite supports. Politically, that's about borderline between welfare and socialism, but that's just a word choice, not a need for a rewrite. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are free to do so and may add appropriate critical information to the article to that effect but the mere fact that the strategy is the subject of scholarship, as referenced in the article, is proof that it is notable and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Let’s look at another example of a disputed political strategy/theory. Conservatives would say there is no such thing as a vast right wing conspiracy and yet it has been talked about and written about extensively by reliable sources since Hillary Clinton began using the phrase during her husband’s presidency. Wikipedia has an article on the topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vast_right_wing_conspiracy. Whether there actually is such a “conspiracy” is irrelevant in terms of meeting Wikipedia standards for inclusion. The VRWC article should stand. The Cloward-Piven Strategy has been well discussed by reliable sources and therefore the article concerning it should also stand. Further thought: I'm not sure why everyone here seems to have ignored the 1966 article from the Nation magazine in which the professors explain themselves. Is there a reason none of you have mentioned it? I regret I could not provide a link to it because I could not find a copy of it on the Web, but I have read it and know it exists and its existence can be verified. Moreover, Bali ultimate misdescribed the WP deletion policy to me previously and gave me a stern warning for removing the tag. Although I didn't know there was a deletion policy I looked it up and coincidentally happened to be adhering to it. It may be found at [[22]] and the relevant portion says: "If you disagree: Any editor who disagrees with a proposed deletion can simply remove the tag. Even after the page is deleted, any editor can have the page restored by any administrator simply by asking. In both cases the editor is encouraged to fix the perceived problem with the page." I will now follow the policy and remove the tag but there is no reason why this discussion can't continue and why we can't all work together to improve the article. Syntacticus (talk) 05:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait- don't remove the AfD tag. That's referring to proposed deletions, which are a means of deleting an article without coming to AfD. (You tag the article with ((prod)), and it's deleted after a few days if no one removes the tag.) We're past that now, so it has to go through discussion. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Syntacticus, you're correct that some political phrases are notable enough for articles even though the "other side" would dispute the very existence of the subject referred to. You gave Vast right-wing conspiracy as an example from the left; I gave Bush Derangement Syndrome as an example from the right. Both of those have been so extensively discussed as to merit articles. That doesn't mean that every phrase employed by a handful of polemicists must be similarly covered. This one just doesn't qualify. JamesMLane t c 06:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:SNOW. Lenticel (talk) 23:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xkcd theory[edit]

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

This article's content is based only on text found in one strip of a webcomic. It is not notable and has not been put forth as "Xkcd theory" anywhere else. I prodded it earlier, but it was declined. Mysdaao talk 12:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy as no claim to notability? Hobit (talk) 14:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only applies to people and music. JulesH (talk) 14:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 09:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The X Factor (UK Series 6)[edit]

The X Factor (UK Series 6) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete. Pure WP:CRYSTAL and no WP:RS. Filming doesn't start until May and the programme doesn't air till August, so I also suggest that this be PROTECTED to stop die-hard fans from re-creating. Bravedog (talk) 12:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This page exists for pure speculation currently as no details exist Delete--Jaydub47 (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 03:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Email marketing best practices[edit]

Email marketing best practices (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide Scapler (talk) 12:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Peridon (talk) 13:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I declined the G11 speedy request and edited out the link farm at the end to take care of the spam issues. No opinion (yet) on deletion.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is still a direct copy-and-paste from the website I noted from above. This either 1) completely fails WP:NOT#WEBHOST or 2) if the person is not the copyright holder, is blatant copyright infringement. I still claim spam as the article is designed to try to exploit Wikipedia SEO capabilities for corporate gain. MuZemike (talk) 00:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was WP:SNOW keep. No policy-based grounds provided for deletion. No chance this article about a notable potato variety will actually be deleted. Non-admin close. JulesH (talk) 13:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adirondack Blue potato[edit]

Adirondack Blue potato (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

It sucks Plankstop (talk) 11:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Plankstop (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Xyr only other contribution has been the creation of Elin Sen (AfD discussion). Uncle G (talk) 13:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 03:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled 10th Album (Dream Theater)[edit]

Untitled 10th Album (Dream Theater) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Untitled unsourced speculative future album per WP:HAMMER. Prod removed by IP editor. tomasz. 11:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 01:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Owl City[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Owl City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No real claim to notability. 2 albums are independently released, not on an important label. lacks coverage in reliable sources. Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Many links to this article have been placed in articles, and other articles have been redirected to this one via AFD. Please check incoming links and redirects. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 23:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elin Sen[edit]

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

H.O.A.X The Rolling Camel (talk) 11:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Addition: I found this, which seems to be the results from 2008 championships. No mention of her. — Twinzor Say hi! 11:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I would remind participants that just because a user is not an administrator, it does not mean that their views should be taken any less seriously than users who have been through the RFA gauntlet. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Burkina Faso crash[edit]

2008 Burkina Faso crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Wikipedia is not a news source and currently neither the article or a search shows any lasting coverage of this event. Nuttah (talk) 10:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And by the same token, just because you think it isn't notable does not mean that it isn't. Luckily, it's not up to any one person's opinion. If it had been 60 persons killed in a bus accident in Wyoming, I don't think the article would even have been nominated. I think also that most Wikipedians don't know (and don't care) where Burkina Faso is. For those who don't know, but don't want to say that they don't know, it's a nation in West Africa, formerly known as Upper Volta. Mandsford (talk) 17:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually my opinion has nothing to do with it at all. That is why we have guidelines that spell out exactly what is needed to be notable. Bombs go off everyday in Iraq but we do not have articles on them but if one went off in the US you bet we would have an article on it. Heck for that matter the fact they have had 800 meningitis deaths[25] or 31 miners killed[26] would be notable in most countries. GtstrickyTalk or C 20:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"and considering that Nuttah is not even an administrator", what does that have to do with anything? GtstrickyTalk or C 16:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's another ad hominem attack from this user. There's already one in this Afd debate. Cheers. Trance addict - Armin van Buuren - Oceanlab 18:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's an argument based on a mistaken assumption. OOODDD isn't the first person to conclude that comments from an administrator might be weighed higher than those from a non-administrator. Logical conclusion, but not correct. Odd as it may seem, we're all equals during debate, and the decision has to be made by an administrator who didn't participate. In my first month, an administrator voted !keep on article that I was hoping would be kept, and my thought at that time was "Here comes the cavalry!". Needless to say, the article got deleted anyway. So please, no arguments based on the status of who said what. Mandsford (talk) 14:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 17:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Abadilah[edit]

AfDs for this article:
'Abadilah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

One of a list of apparently completely unremarkable settlements in the UAE. Completely failing to meet WP:N. The mere existence doesn't warrant an article, if they should be mentioned they can be named in the article of the region/country/emirate to which they belong. As for the argument that they're just stubs: They exist for months now, and not even the most basic information was provided.

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:

'Akamiyah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
'Aqqah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
'Asamah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
'Ashashah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
'Ayim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
'Uqayr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
'Uraybi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Averell (talk) 09:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Truth is, I would have let them alone if there'd been even the tiniest amount of verifiable information. Just one source, a sourced population figure, anything. But I didn't even find anything useful on Google. If the only thing you can say about those towns is "they exist", then to me it seems perfectly o.k. to say that in one of the "upper" articles (and make a redirect of the town names, if you like). Averell (talk) 10:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Darkspin (talk) 10:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC) I agree with the above statement from User:Averell and in addition want to add a statement that no matter the size of the population it does not constitute the right to neglect or reject the fact of its existence.[reply]

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

HTPTP[edit]

The result was Speedy delete as blatant advertising Guy (Help!) 20:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page describes a networking idea that may not have achieved sufficient notability for inclusion. This idea is not published anywhere else. Wherever 'htptp' appears on Google, it is usually a typo of 'http'. The idea itself appears to be a type of caching, or else distributed webpage serving. The last few sentences imply that this page will be used to develop the concept. Richard Cavell (talk) 09:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 09:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John vogan[edit]

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

This person may not have achieved sufficient notability for inclusion. Richard Cavell (talk) 09:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep -- there's a clear consensus here that third-party reliable sources discussing this topic can, and to a significant extent, have been found, remedying any original research problems. John254 17:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Names for the number 0[edit]

(formerly "Aught ought naught nought")

Aught ought naught nought (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article constitutes original research. It is also a synthesis and lacks reliable, third-party sources discussing the subject. It was started, as the creator admits, "because the words often confuse me and thought others would appreciate some insight"; however, that does not sound like a valid reason for starting an article. Biruitorul Talk 07:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Kylu as a blatant advertisement. Non-admin closure. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 06:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AhnLab, Inc.[edit]

AhnLab, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article does not seem to satisfy the requirements of notability as it currently exists, as listed in WP:ORG. OliverTwisted (talk) 06:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

monday[edit]

AfDs for this article:
    Monday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This day is the least notable, and article has very few citations, and is completely inaccurate Johnishungry (talk)


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The revision history of Monday is enough to conclude that all three of Johnishungry (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count), Pisswiggles (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count), and Kemptinplickc (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) are one single person who is here purely to disrupt. The revision history of this article indicates that 74.214.108.37 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) is that person, too. 74.214.106.9 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) below probably is as well. This is just vandalism. Uncle G (talk) 07:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Newegg[edit]

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

    Company is not notable, and this is primarily an advertisement page Johnishungry (talk) 05:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 01:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    TV-Fucked By Plastic Queens[edit]

    TV-Fucked By Plastic Queens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    NN bootleg album, fails WP:MUSIC. Five pages of Google results show no reporting on the bootleg other than fansites and lyrics pages. roux   05:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    --Darkspin (talk) 10:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC) this article is about a music band album and fits its name. It depicts a RARE album release that for that reason does not have very many pages about it.[reply]

    this might be true, but it doesn't seem notable per WP:MUSIC notability guidelines. tomasz. 11:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 03:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jason Yeldell[edit]

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

    The article appears to be a promotional piece written by the subject of the article. Additionally, while some effort has been made to cleanup and source the article, nothing establishing notability has been found. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/merge to Todd Friel. Please add anything useable to the main article. Black Kite 17:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wretched with Todd Friel[edit]

    Wretched with Todd Friel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Does not meet WP:NOTE, as does not cite any sources independent of subject. At time of nomination only references were to the program's own website, that of its parent network, and that of its predecessor series. I am also nominating related article Todd Friel for deletion. HrafnTalkStalk 05:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Given that that article likewise contains no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", I do not see how this offers any improvement. HrafnTalkStalk 19:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not the point. Articles with good sources doesn't make it notable. If ABC News had a report on a dog that saved a girl from falling, even if it has good ABC sources, it doesn't make it notable. This would, facts and information do, sources prove the facts. -- American Eagle (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." That is the point. Your ABC News report example is not "significant coverage", so is beside the point. HrafnTalkStalk 22:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Notice the end of it, "...for a stand-alone article." I think this (Wretched) is perhaps a weak delete, as the show is not yet nationally known. Friel, on the other hand, is well-known as a comedian and Christian in many works. Wretched is mostly notable for being a work of Friel, so generally should be merged and redirected to it, probably as a section. -- American Eagle (talk) 23:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. for deletion. Disagreement over notability and whether sources are sufficient to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 11:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Todd Friel[edit]

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

    No indication that this article meets WP:NOTE or WP:BIO. Of the 17 references at time of nomination, 16 are clearly not independent (3 are to the agency representing Friel, 3 are to pieces written by Friel himself and 10 to mentions by organisations for whom Friel has performed/spoken/written) and 1 is to a blog entry (unreliable and unacceptable per WP:BLP) I am also nominating related article Wretched with Todd Friel for deletion. HrafnTalkStalk 05:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:BIGNUMBER, even if any of this were supported by WP:RS. HrafnTalkStalk 06:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No. And there are sources to prove them, or turn on your TV. The problem is that most of the sources are Christian organizations, which makes it worthy of a template message, but not deletion. -- American Eagle (talk) 05:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To each his own. ILovePlankton (talk) 06:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, (with the possible exception of his agency) all of the sources are "Christian organizations" and (with the possible exception of the blog entry) none of them are "independent of the subject". Additionally, as none of them are scholarly or major news organisations, their reliability is highly questionable. HrafnTalkStalk 06:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. After clicking through most of the free news articles (in the google news link above), I couldn't find much of anything that would be usable. There might be usable references in the articles that are pay per view.  LinguistAtLarge  07:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Trouble is there's generally no way of knowing whether a pay-per-view article has substantive coverage (or merely an insubstantial mention-in-passing) without paying for it. This is why sources referenced for specific facts in the article count, but WP:GOOGLEHITS do not. HrafnTalkStalk 11:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many sources which are "pay-per-view" on the Internet are free to view at many public libraries. Some will even give you a library card which you can use to access some of these sources for free at home. DHowell (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Also keep in mind that this isn't a game of "find the name mentioned in a major newspaper". There has to be significant coverage where this person is the subject of the article, not some passing mention in a book, magazine or newspaper.--Rtphokie (talk) 12:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: could you please specify what this "substantial coverage from non trivial publications" is? HrafnTalkStalk 11:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The full version of the first article can be found here -- its mention of Friel is clearly trivial. Is American Daily a WP:RS? It appears to be simply a politically partisan blog that accepts contributed articles via email. HrafnTalkStalk 03:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good find. While the Pioneer Press article is clearly not all about Friel, I wouldn't say that it is "clearly trivial" either. The first two paragraphs are about Friel, and there are 4 more paragraphs which quote him. And how did you decide that American Daily is how you describe it? The author is described as a "Staff Writer" and an "award-winning investigative reporter and researcher" whose written for "numerous local newspapers". This hardly sounds like a blog which accepts articles from any random e-mailer. Even if it is partisan, are you saying it exercises no editorial control and does no fact checking over its contributed articles? Where's your evidence for this? And I'm sure that in this day and age even the most respected printed newspapers would accept articles from their journalists via email, so I'm not sure how that matters. DHowell (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is "clearly trivial" in that it's depth of coverage is similar to the example of "trivial" included in the WP:NOTE footnote. Laura Adelmann may be a "staff writer" (though I take author-bio-blurbs with more than a pinch of salt) -- but not for American Daily -- she works for New Media Alliance (which is itself merely a "coalition of citizen writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets"), which in turn shops its writings to AD (and presumably other news outlets). AD's contribution policy can be found here. AD gives little impression of editorial oversight or the infrastructure needed for fact checking, and is most certainly not a "mainstream news organization" in the context of WP:RS. HrafnTalkStalk 05:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The WP:NOTE footnote talks about a "one sentence mention", and that is precisely what it is: a one sentence mention. If one tried to use that as a source for an article, the most the article could ever say is "Three Blind Mice was a band that Bill Clinton was part of while in high school." That's trivial. Far more can be said about Todd Friel from the information gathered from mainstream newspapers alone. And I see no reason to doubt the reliability and independence of Laura Adelmann as a source for information about Friel, despite whatever AD's contribution policy might be. DHowell (talk) 05:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Christopher Leadem[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Christopher Leadem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable author; all his works appear to have been self-published. Reads like self-promotion. Cue the Strings (talk) 04:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Save I am Edwyn Thai, Professor of English Literature at Hong Kong International University. I teach Leadem's "Highland Ballad" as an example of Western Romanticism of Historical Events. I fail to see the fault in making his literature available free and worldwide. This somehow lessens its value? All the same criticisms above were made of Wikipedia in its infancy: unprofessional, non-notable, undocumented information. Does that mean it too should have been deleted. The point of this site is education. I am an educator. You're going to have to do better than unfounded attacks to stop the information. The question for me is, Why do you try? [30] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.119.232.100 (talk) 13:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Interesting. I'm not turning up any such institution in my searches. Can you provide us with a link? Oh, and this is interesting too:
     jules@vengeance:~$ whois 162.119.232.100

     OrgName:    Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program
 OrgID:      KPMCP
 Address:    25 North Via Monte
 Address:    Network Design and Engineering
 City:       Walnut Creek
 StateProv:  CA
 PostalCode: 94598
 Country:    US
    I wonder what a Hong Kong-based professor is doing in Walnut Creek, CA. JulesH (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Writing sabatical, would you like a sample? No such link? Have you tried it? You never heard of Project Gutenberg, which you yourselves sight as a link. Do you know what makes me truly angry? All you have to say is negative, is he good enough to be let into our club. A Nobel Prize winner once described such a club in his high school. It's only activity? Sit around and decide who was as wonderful as themselves. Do the work, do the math, and stop with these mindless attacks. EDWYN THAI, HONG KONG INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY. ENTER MY NAME IN GOOGLE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.119.232.100 (talk) 22:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Who said they'd never heard of Project Gutenberg? I do note that Leadem's book is somewhat unusual for being a self-published work that PG has accepted for republication; they will usually only accept professionally published works. Not being aware of the process that lead to their acceptance, however, I cannot be sure that this was not simply a mistake (i.e., they were perhaps unaware that the books' publisher was a self-publishing service).
    As for looking up your identity, I can find nothing that satisfies me as to your identity. The reason I enquire, by the way, is that if you really _are_ who you say you are, and we can find a way of proving it, it might be enough to save the article. One of the criteria we use to judge a book as notable is if it "is the subject of instruction at multiple [...] universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country." (WP:BK). As the author of a notable book, Leadem's article may be more likely to be kept. But first we have to show through real sources (not something randomly posted on a Wikipedia discussion page by somebody whose identity cannot be verified) that this is the case.
    Now, if you really are who you say you are, there should be a page at your university's web site with some details about who you are and the courses you run. Ideally, this page would mention the books you use in your courses. Please provide a link to this page, as it will help your cause. JulesH (talk) 13:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Save[edit]

    Hello. Christopher Leadem, the self-publishing, self-promoting, non-notable author in question. It's all bs and personal attacks, but so be it. And 'Vengeance' (this is who you listen to?) if you look up this computer you'll find it to be owned by the Arapahoe Library District, Greenwood Village, CO. I'm not sure what that makes me guilty of, but I'm sure you'll think of something.

    First, I'd like to apologize to ET, for suffering the cross-examination of nerds. Were you sleeping when the People's Republic of China rolled their armored vehicles into Hong Kong? Are you unaware of the Chinese government's brutal suppression of the Internet? ET may be in Hong Kong, Taiwan, California (more on that in a minute), I don't care. He's standing up for what he believes in the face of potentially serious consequences. Would you do the same?

    Second, if someone has in fact hacked into the Kaiser Permanente computer system, they'd better get out fast. A little thing called HIPPA, the Patient Privacy Act. It carries stiff penalties for such things.

    Third, is this a serious encyclopedia, or a chat room? 'LOL'?

    Delete the article as if it were untrue or irrelevant? It's documented information (view the links above), it brings people to the site, and is all of about a hundred words long. What's the down side?

    Sincerely,

    Christopher Leadem, Author, Human Being

    PS- "Every new group or organization starts out asking for tolerance, then becomes itself intolerant." -Milton Goldstien

    "100% of your ads have been negative." Barrack Obama

    "...who vested with a moment's authority doth beat his breast like an ape and proclaim to the Heavens above, 'Here, see me!'" -William Shakespeare

    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.226.126 (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Nom Withdrawn, Redirected to Photoreceptor_cell#Dark_current. Lenticel (talk) 06:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dark current (biochemistry)[edit]

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

    The information in this page is already in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoreceptor_cell#Dark_current Fangfufu (talk) 04:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I want to withdraw the nomination as redirection would be better. Fangfufu (talk) 05:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Neutral, but a redirect would be better than a deletion.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I actually support this idea. Am I supposed to vote? Fangfufu (talk) 04:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:VOTE ILovePlankton (talk) 05:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 13:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tom and Jerry: A Little Learning[edit]

    Tom and Jerry: A Little Learning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Prod for notability and lack of reliable sources expired. Declining Prod and referring here because the article was previously deleted via prod. I agree with the prod, looks to fail WP:CRYSTAL Jclemens (talk) 04:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  07:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Aeroflot — Russian Airlines terminated destinations[edit]

    Aeroflot — Russian Airlines terminated destinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    I do not believe it is necessary for us to have a list of places which are no longer serviced, and this list is not important enough to exist here. Remember, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Scapler (talk) 04:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - not as rare as one might think, unfortunately. ;D Scapler (talk) 04:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addendum: I should add to my reason for delete the following reasons: unsourced, unlikely search term and notability of terminated destinations not established. Merely being true is not reason for inclusion. What does this list offer as encyclopedic info?--Boffob (talk) 15:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    *Delete. Yep, even for a Wikipedia list, this is pretty bad. Doesn't meet WP:SALAT by a long shot. Graymornings(talk) 04:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC) Changed to keep, see below.[reply]

    • Thank you! --Dimitree 03:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
    • As for Dublin. Aeroflot definitely terminated destination Moscow-Dublin-Moscow as its own (direct flight) and now operates it in code share with CSA Czech Airlines WITHOUT STOPOVER in Prague. Leg Prague-Dublin is operated by CSA Czech Airlines fleet... --Dimitree 03:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
    • No, bad or overly detailed content is condensed or eliminated. Hiving it off to its own article is simply a way of avoiding making editorial decisions. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking up one of the references I am using, using just the Antonov An-2, Aeroflot used to serve over 2,000 villages and selos throughout the USSR. Another source lists at least 12 destinations in Antarctica which Aeroflot used to serve with Ilyushin Il-76, Ilyushin Il-18, Antonov An-2, Mil Mi-8, etc. There is no chance that such a list would ever be completed, and as stated above, only once that list was complete would a reader even begin to understand the sheer size of Aeroflot and the complexity of its history. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 21:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Even with only international destinations being addressed, and this would go to the arbitrary date of 1992 being used, wouldn't one also have to list destinations of Центральное управление международных воздушных сообщений (ЦУМВС)? Whilst the entity that we now know as JSC Aeroflot-Russian Airlines is the legal successor to the entity that was known as Aeroflot, this same entity was born out of the operations of the ЦУМВС (being based at Sheremetyevo (blaahhhhhh) Airport). As much as I don't believe such lists belong, other airlines don't differentiate between say Qantas Empire Airways and Qantas Airways Limited. In part of the re-write of the main article I have been working on, I have touched quite considerably on the An-2 operations, for example, did you know that villages, towns and cities in Siberia and the Far East an area the size of the continental US had no rail/road connections, and therefore they were reliant on Aeroflot and AviaArktika services with the An-2 for their very survival. Would it add anything to the article for the entire list of communities which were reliant upon these services to be drawn up? I believe it would be crufty and so much so to the point that it would lose all meaning. It's the way that I believe lists would be better served as prose within the article proper, explaining why the network has been reduced and prose describing the changes, and perhaps with the addition of a map (as shown below); in the case of Aeroflot, the name was changed from Aeroflot-Russian International Airlines to Aeroflot-Russian Airlines, and this was done in order to better demonstrate the direction that the company was taking; i.e. concentrating more on the domestic market (one which it was not prevalent in between 1992-2000) and less on the international market. Prose, prose, prose, in my mind would be much more preferably to lists such as these. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 16:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    in fact, the very size of the airline is a reason for having the information. WP i not paper, and having too much information is not a reason for deletion. If necessary, we can separate into domestic and international, or even divide further. The relevant policy for this objection is WP NOT PAPER. How to present the information is a qy for the talk page. Quite possibly graphics such as you mention would be a good addition to enrich the article further.DGG (talk) 06:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. this all looks like a reason for keeping, not deleting. How does the fact that Aeroflot is the largest airline the world has ever seen make this information unnotable? Surely it makes it even more notable that information about any smaller airline. We don't delete articles because theyt might grow too large. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, please, be so kind to use an appropriate and correct language instead of you obscene folklore: citation (being based at Sheremetyevo (blaahhhhhh) Airport). For those who do not speak Russian, blaahhhhhh means almost the same as fuck...
    • Second, regarding the arbitrary date of 1992 being used. As I've said earlier twice, 1992 is the year when Aeroflot became a Russian Federation flag-carrier, keeping in mind 8 December 1991 when the Soviet Union has collapsed (History of the Soviet Union (1985–1991)). Official decision of renaming (rebranding) of Aeroflot - Soviet Airlines into Aeroflot - Russian Airlines was taken on 28 July 1992 [31].So starting from 28 of July 1992 Aeroflot is the Russian Federation flag-carrier with its network. Am I correct?...
    • Third, as for the name was changed from Aeroflot-Russian International Airlines to Aeroflot-Russian Airlines, please, do not distort facts. Aeroflot remained always Aeroflot and changing of the name do not involve changing of its product. First domestic routes (after being converted from Soviet into Russian Airlines) were launched in 1995 to Saint Petersburg, Khabarovsk, Novosibirsk, Yakutsk, Neryungri and Novosibirsk - look here [32]...
    • Forth, try to be objective even if you can not. Regards, --Dimitree 03:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

    This Article Aeroflot — Russian Airlines terminated destinations, as you can see, IS in a separate page (if it is the only remark). As for dates. Almost all of them are indicated in references and sources. So I do not think it is necessary to post a date to each terminated destination. Moreover, you will not find such a detalization at any other similar page devoted to an airline terminated destinations... So if it is so necessary to someone to delete it, let's also delete all the others similar pages, ok? If Aeroflot (the world's biggest carrier at its time) does not merit such a privilege, what else does? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitree (talk • contribs) 23:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There aren't any similar pages. All the other airlines have terminated destinations and current destinations on the same page. Juzhong (talk) 23:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Dmitry, in regards to terminated destinations of other airlines, I would support them being removed as well, because they are simply WP:CRUFT. The problem with 99.99% of the destination articles (which are on very thin ice going by past AfDs) is that they provide no context, they are not sourced (there are many which are still unsourced after I placed unref tags on them over 12 months ago -- yet people still keep adding and deleting to them), most of those which are sourced are not done within the confines of WP:V (I fail to see what "Reference: Airline website" adds, why not simply give a link to the website in the main article for such things). One editor has approached the destinations with maps, e.g. File:Easyjetdestinations.png. I would also refer to previous AfDs for such articles, such as Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Previous_United_Airlines_destinations. I also recall similar articles for others such as JAT Airways and Delta Air Lines also being deleted, but I can't find those AfDs. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS shouldn't be used as a reason to keep or delete, each article has to stand on its own merits, but in previous discussions, it has been considered that these articles should be deleted. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 23:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment 2 Juzhong: As I said earlier, if the question of the union of pages is the only one, let's unit both articles. No problem: let's unit these two Articles (Actual destinations and Terminated). Or let's delete ALL SIMILAR ARTICLES OF ALL AIR COMPANIES, including Delta, United, British Airways, BMI and all the rest. According to you, these Articles are "indiscriminate and useless" (as Boffob and other say). I would like to underline: it is history and no one can escape it or change it. But if someone (very distanced from aviation) thinks it is useless, let him do not read it. Let's delete all historical articles because they have no anything in commun with reality we live in. Useless facts, names, dates, destinations and so on --89.178.19.152 (talk) 00:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment 2 Russavia: Would you please indicate what exactly articles of this kind are unsourced? What exactly articles have no external links? And if people, as you say, "still keep adding and deleting to them", so there is a need! Please, be objective: everything has its history even if it (history) is not ok for someone. Neither you nor I can decide what to do with history. And, please, privately, speak Russian with me - you can do as good as you do in English. Regs, --Dimitree 01:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitree (talk • contribs)
    • Comment 2 Martintg: Really? Totally useless? And how did you decide? Any arguments? Aeroflot operated flights to Australia (where you live now) and Qantas never did the same to Russia, for example. Just have a look around the site and you will find hundreds of articles of such kind. As for Qantas, you are able to do whatever you want with it, even delete (it's up to you), but be polite and politically correct, at least, while speaking to an open audience... Regs, --89.178.16.178 (talk) 02:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most wikipedians don't have time to read these discussions before they vote, they just use insults like useless and boring. There's no point trying to talk to them. Juzhong (talk) 09:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment 2 Juzhong: so what for this spectacle is playing? I wonder how agressive are those who live in GB and other English speaking countries. It seems I insult them by creating this Article. Morover, I've maiden the same (created the Article "Aeroflot Destinations") in 4 other European langueges, but only here, in English Wikipedia, I met such a reaction. Especially hypocritically sound all their insults commented with "cheers" and "smiles". Fancy! --Dimitree 09:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Regarding "not reading", I think it just got too big. When it was smaller, wikipedia probably had a few deletion discussions and everyone who participated had time to follow them. Now there are so many of them that people just take a quick at the article and vote based on their first impression, it's just quicker that way. Juzhong (talk) 09:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you be so kind to give, at least, one objective reason for deleting? Let me kindly inform you: there are HUNDREDS of Articles (Sections) dedicated to Terminated Destinations of EACH air company, presented on Wikipedia pages. So, according to your logics, next should be, for example, the section "Destinations" from the page of "TAROM - Compania Natională de Transporturi Aeriene Române"? Multsumesk! --Dimitree 20:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitree (talk • contribs)
    • Don't bring ethnicity into this - that's considered a personal attack. But yes, if TAROM destinations (as opposed to just the section) were nominated for deletion, I'd gladly support. It's equally boring and useless, equally capable of being folded into the main article, equally trivial, etc. - Biruitorul Talk 20:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, would you please citate my "bringing ethnicity into this"? If I know to thank someone in his native language - it is considered a personal attack? Fancy! You should better rebuke others, for example,Russavia who uses a foul language (in English transliteration). And "I'm not to tell" you what you MUST have. Citate me, please, without distorting facts (as it happens here: first - deleting of sources, second - voting for deletion). And saying "we are", you mean whom? Yourself?
    No, the whole business about "well, you're Romanian, so of course you'd like to keep the Tarom list" is silly and unnecessary. "We" is the Wikipedia community - we can have any articles we please.
    • Any article you please? With no limits? So, what are we talking about? I like my article. Me means we - Wiki community. It is ok? --Dimitree 04:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
    • OK, we can have any articles we please, or we can delete any we please: clearer? No, it's not OK: this process was decided upon by the community, and you do not have the power to override its will; similarly, the fact that no article must exist is also the product of community consensus.
    • Second, you say, citation - "A random list of places the airline happened to fly during one decade - not so much" - end of citation. So do you mean saying "random"? It is official network of one of the world's biggest airline. Why it is random? Please, see references and sources. And "not so much" mean what? If I place here ALL NETWORK of Soviet Aeroflot (1923-1992) it takes TOO MUCH SPACE, bieleve me: 102 countries and 133 destinations on six continents, including Antarctica. But in question is Aeroflot - Russian Airlines, not Soviet. Feel the difference...
    Random bits of trivia don't really enrich the project.
    • Really? Don't enreach? Eliminate, please, all the same articles for "enreaching" the project. --Dimitree 04:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Third, you say, citation - "A list being indiscriminate is a perfectly valid reason for deleting it" - end of citation. I kindly ask you to explain in what consist this indiscriminate? Also, I kindly ask you to give a reason for existence of sections ("Terminated Destinations") almost on each page dedicated to each airline presented in Wiki. For others - it is ok, for Aeroflot - "A list being indiscriminate". On what criterion is based this categorical statement?
    Well, because frankly, the thing is pretty boring - writing actual articles is so much more interesting. - Biruitorul Talk 07:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Decide for yourself what is MUCH MORE interesting for you, not for me. --Dimitree 04:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Right, except quite a few participants happen to be on my side. - Biruitorul Talk 06:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He was blocked for 2 days. The 2 days are over. Moving on...

    I've spent A MONTH for creating this article: collecting and sorting of information, its verification, endless dialogues with Aeroflot current route-managers, flight-attendants who served and serves all these destinations (from 1979 till now!!! - almost 30 years in Aeroflot), disputes on aviation forums - and all in vain? All for "being deleted"? Not even MERGED! While EACH OTHER aircompany, presented here, on Wiki-pages, has such a section "Terminated Destinations", merged in global article "Destinations". It is not a fair game! Really! I do not pretend to be an Aeroflot's lower, but I think that one of the world's biggest airline (and biggest in 80-th!) - flag-carrier of my Motherland - Russia, - merits to have a complete article "Destinations". Anyway, all decisions are taking here through a "voting", so the only thing for me is to wait for results of this "voting"... Thanx for your time and best regards, --Dimitree 04:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

    Your conversations with airline employees are not valid encyclopedia material: see WP:NOR, WP:PSTS, WP:RS. Yet a further reason to delete.
    • Comment 2 Biruitorul As you can see, conversation (anyhow you call it), is not indicated in text of the article. And of course, conversation can not be considered as a "further reason to delete". Be objective. Try. Or imitate, at least.

    P.S.: I'd like to mention that NOWHERE EXCEPT ENGLISH-SPEAKING WIKIPEDIA I was attacked in a such way. I've created similar articles in five European languages I fluently speak. And only here I met such a "cordial welcome". I regeret it, really... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitree (talk • contribs) 04:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    We have higher standards here. Biruitorul Talk 07:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment 2 Biruitorul As I've already asked you above, be so kind to explain me, saying "we are", "we have" and so on, you mean WHOM? Yourself? Try to take care of yourself not of "us". And now I ask you using your terminology: "do not bring ethnicity into this" while comparing English-Wiki to other European Wiki-pages: French, Spanish, Italian and Portuguese. According to you, these Wikis have lower standards, haven't they? Would you please indicate me these "higher standards"? To use obscene language and being bloked from editing for violating rules and engaging in editorial wars like User:Russavia? To accuse me of sockpuppetry without any proofs like User:Graymornings? To delete references from the article and nominate it for deleting like User:Scapler? To post "borring" and "indiscriminate", "useless" taking them for criteria like you, User:Biruitorul? It is dicrimination, my friend! To your displeasure, I was thanked there (in Roman-speaking Wikis) and my articles are only being improved by other editors. And finally, please, cease to invent irrelevant pretexts for deleting. Do not make yourself an object to laugh at (even having "a higher standard" then all others)... Regs, --Dimitree 13:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • We, en.wiki, have higher standards. Example: de:Willy Brandt just appeared on the Main Page of de.wiki; it's a Good Article with just 10 footnotes and reams of uncited text, something you'd never see here. You don't seem to get that Russavia's block ended a week ago, and that Scapler was well within his rights in nominating for deletion. Claims of "discrimination" are really rather daft in this instance. - Biruitorul Talk 06:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Sorry, but where did you find this figure "2,000+ destinations"? Do not distort facts, please! In its peack (mid 80-th) Aeroflot flew to 102 countries (133 destinations) and this was actual until 1992... --Dimitree 04:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

    Your conversations with airline employees are not valid encyclopedia material Do you think that the words of the witnesses don't mean anything (for example in court trial)? I'm former Aeroflot pilot, who actually served those routes (shown in the article under question) in the past. Do you consider that my words as a witness worth nothing? Don't you think that most articles in any kind of encyclopedia are based on the words of witnesses and participants of those events and facts the articles talk about?

    You have been accused of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dimitree. Thank you. And my question is: Do you really cannot see (by checking my IP address) that I'm writing from different country (than user nicknamed 'Dimitree')??? Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tolip" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tolip (talk • contribs) 17:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - Regarding seeing the differences between your IP and Dimitri's IP, editors on Wikipedia (for purposes of privacy) cannot see the IP address of either user. Also, in regards to your comments during the deletion debate, your witness in court would of course be valid, unless of course its hearsay, as reporting what any other personnel of Aeroflot would be. Also, here we have our own set of laws. Wikipedia:No original research states that editors are forbidden "from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources". So, Dimitri's interviews are not admissible in court OR on Wikipedia. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • REMARK: You say, citation - "editors on Wikipedia (for purposes of privacy) cannot see the IP address of either user". Ok, no problem, EDITORS CANNOT SEE. BUT! As practise shows, EDITORS CAN ACCUSE WITHOUT ANY PROOFS OTHER USER OF SOCKPUPPETRY. And that was comitted by Graymorning. And it is still ok! So, what are you talkimg here about? What are you voting for? What are you supporting? My honest eagerness to keep (or merge) MY OWN article or unworthy and mean actions of Graymorning? Nothing personal, really... --Dimitree 04:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitree (talk • contribs) [reply]
    • It's perfectly valid to make an accusation without hard proof: not for nothing does WP:RCU exist. Indeed you may find yourself there rather quickly. - Biruitorul Talk 06:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:
    • Would you please explain me what kind source for an article is suitable? Have you seen SIMILAR ARTICLES of any other airline? Have you seen THEIR SOURCES? Have a look just to be a bit more competent.
    • According to you, citation - the subject "destination no longer served by Aeroflot" is not encyclopaedia, making the list rather indiscriminate - end of citation. So let's follow your logics and what do we have? We have the subject "destination no longer served by United/Qantas/British Airways/BMI/Alitalia/Air France/Varig/Lufthansa/Cathay Pacific......." is not encyclopaedia, making the list rather indiscriminate and have to be deleted. But they exist! Paradox or double standards?
    • You say, citation - a lot of these would have been scheduled for political as much as commercial reasons - end of citation. You are right, but if you speak about Aeroflot - Soviet Airlines. But this airline was abolished on 28 of July 1992 and since that date we have Aeroflot - Russian Airlines which terminated destinations are disputing here. I've already said to User:Russavia regarding his the arbitrary date of 1992 being used... 1992 is the year when Aeroflot became a Russian Federation flag-carrier (8 December 1991 the Soviet Union has collapsed (History of the Soviet Union (1985–1991)). Official decision of renaming/rebranding of Aeroflot - Soviet Airlines into Aeroflot - Russian Airlines was taken on 28 July 1992 [33]. So starting from 28 of July 1992 Aeroflot is the Russian Federation flag-carrier with its network. And exactly THIS NETWORK (freed from Communist Party politics and Soviet presence all over the world) I've presented here. If you want you can easy follow the dynamics of reduction of Aeroflot - Russian Airlines network since 1992 till 2004 [34]... --Dimitree 01:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
    • TO ALL VOTING FOR DELETION AND NOT FOR MERGING (KEEPING): WHY ALL OTHER ARTICLES DEDICATED TO OTHER AIRLINES HAVE SUCH A SECTION/PAGE 'TERMINATED DESTINATIONS' AND Aeroflot DOES NOT MERIT IT? LOOK: [35], [36], [37],

    [38], [39], [40], [41], [42] endless list... --Dimitree 01:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    The result was speedily deleted as an attack page under CSD G10.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mazing contest[edit]

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

    Wikipedia is not a Warcraft fan site. This is nothing but fancruft that fails WP:Notability Scapler (talk) 03:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 01:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    RingMute[edit]

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

    The product appears to be non-notable. dbolton (talk) 03:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Muntadhar al Zaidi[edit]

    The result was to keep the article.

    Non-admin WP:SNOW close. No possible outcome other than keep due to overwhelming consensus. Mike R (talk) 14:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Muntadhar al Zaidi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    The phantom-shoe-thrower from a recent press conference, who attempted to whack Bush in the head with his footwear. Whilst a commendable action, Wikipedia is not a newspaper and this person is only notable for one event thus failing WP:BLP1E Nanonic (talk) 03:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • He was not 'made notable', he received some minor, soon-to-be-forgotten, attention for a single act of no long-term consequences or impact. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty sure we have precedent for that. (1, 2) Anyway, I'd say that the protests and fuss he's created since the incident cinch notability. FlyingToaster 19:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep because as this story continues to unfold, it is clearly neither minor, nor soon-to-be-forgotten, nor without long-term consequences. -Alexanderj (talk) 02:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the record, Brhaspati was the second person to create a duplicate article [43] having been beaten to the punch by User:Fastabbas by about 1.5 hours.[44]. Viriditas (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would object to deletion as that would lose the history which is needed for proper attribution. - Mgm|(talk) 10:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If there is anything worth merging (I have my doubts), preserve the history. Deleting this news story outright without merging is no great loss. Hecklers throw things (eggs, pies, etc.) at politicians all the time. Such incidents are generally forgotten once the news cycle fades. • Gene93k (talk) 11:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. This story could easily exploded on Monday. Besides, it was a huge full-circle moment for Bush. Saddam's statue was flogged with shoes when it was toppled and now Bush was on the receiving end of a leather sole and the harsh words of a pissed journalist. Furthermore, the whole incident could be considered a defining moment of the President's final trip to Iraq. Starks (talk) 12:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Hecklers throw things...at politicians all the time". This was the US President we are talking about, on a trip probably partly designed to show success in a major issue: the SECURITY of Iraq. I think it's obvious to anybody that that aspect is important. "Such incidents are generally forgotten once the news cycle fades". I'd be willing to wager a substantial amount that this incident will almost certainly appear in every single biographical documentary of Bush and most major general documentaries about the Iraq war. It has major symoblism, and it's memorable and dramatic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenji (talk • contribs) 14:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep it. He is one of the very few Journalists who have the courage to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.178.224.164 (talk) 11:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I am giving a argument. Even if I can't vote, hopefully this will be persuasive to other editors. 67.150.254.154 (talk) 01:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's much too early to suggest that this fellow is in any way comparable to Rosa Parks. Hyperbole will not help to clarify this discussion. I'm leaning towards voting 'keep' myself, but this man is not an instant folk hero; he's a journalist with more than one event of wider significance in his life to date. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps, but Robert B. Livingston is in good company. Rosa Parks was the first thing that came to my mind when I heard the story break. Of course, the symbolic expression of what we in the states refer to as a Rosa Parks-type figure is going to transform itself based on the culture that expresses it. I couldn't help notice how many news outlets tried to smear this guy hours after the story broke. Gotta love those "anonymous unnamed sources" who say he "detested Americans". Any particular reason nobody can go on record to say that? For more fun and games, head on over to the article talk page, where you will discover that the NYT rewrote their story when Zaidi was portrayed in too positive a light. Viriditas (talk) 07:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, you are a primary contributor to the article, and I encourage you to keep at it. It was not my intention to take you down a notch, but rather to point out that multiple articles were created within a very short period of time. The three of you have close company with several other editors who also created duplicates, including User: AndriLimma. Viriditas (talk) 07:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't worry, didn't take offense; just thought I should comment rather than vote because of it. Thanks! Graymornings(talk) 07:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    oh!than what would you like to say about the article of "robin hood".......bush is kissing my ass not "good bye" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.2.56 (talk) 12:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 01:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Palegas[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Palegas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Completing unfinished nom for user:BeebleBrox6. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) PeterSymonds (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Sgt. Frog episodes[edit]

    List of Sgt. Frog episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This is an unverifiable, original research episode listing. Wikipedia is not a television directory or indiscriminate list of trivia. Tavix (talk) 02:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • They scare me too, which is why I've been staying away from them, but possibly someone (else) at the cleanup committee can be talked into lending a hand. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply I could be wrong, but I think that it is original research because it seems like a person just decided to compile a random episode list from the show. From the article, is there any way to prove that these are actually the episodes and they actually contains this? No, because it is unreferenced. Tavix (talk) 22:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the trout, I'll use it for dinner. =) Tavix (talk) 22:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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'll tag this as spam. Schuym1 (talk) 02:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Iwars[edit]

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

    I can't find any reliable sources that show notability on Google and there is no results on Google News. Schuym1 (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The subject is clearly notable meeting WP:MUSIC requirements, being quite well-known with plenty of third-party sources. Non-admin closure. Jamie☆S93 02:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Stairway to Heaven[edit]

    Stairway to Heaven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Never released as a single, so failed to chart on Billboard Hot 100 NumberOneDisturbedFan (talk) 01:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep. I strongly doubt that this is a good-faith nomination. The sourcing on the this article is good, the ranking on such lists as Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time should count as a chart, and, if you need a technical chart to overcome WP:MUSIC, Rolf Harris did reach #7 in the UK with it.—Kww(talk) 01:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 03:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of J.O.N.A.S episodes[edit]

    List of J.O.N.A.S episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    WP:CRYSTAL list of episodes of an as-yet unreleased TV series. Sole references are from a blog/fansite, looking at the refs at J.O.N.A.S. shows that scripts and specific storylines are rumours at best right now. roux   01:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 03:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Broden Borg[edit]

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

    This is an article about a local government politician with no obvious notability Grahame (talk) 01:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7 J.delanoygabsadds 01:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jelly- Or Jam[edit]

    Jelly- Or Jam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Not encyclopedic TheXenocide (talk) 01:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was keep. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 01:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jett Blakk[edit]

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

    Self-promotional, non-notable, nominated for award that's probably not "substantial". COI issues. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry? How does Jett Blakk meet WP:PORNBIO? If you mean that Jett Blakk won the XBIZ award, the only reason that award is listed in Category:Adult movie awards is because the author of both articles created them on the same day - a COI at best, vandalism at worst. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The XBiz Award may be minor but the GayVN and Grabby Awards are significant porn industry awards. • Gene93k (talk) 08:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly as Gene93k says... GayVN is perhaps the leading award in this specific field. Tabercil (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that it's not true? The only "win" listed on the article is false: [56] - the others are simply nominations. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 13:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mar Omega[edit]

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

    Fails WP:BIO; little or no media coverage, no notability indicated, no 3rd party references. 4I7.4I7 10:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not sure If I am responding in the correct area as I am new to Wikipedia. Please help me to reformat the page so it is closer to the correct format. Mar Omega has had media coverage and I am trying very hard to obtain the rest of it. It is mainly is newspapers. Some 3rd party references I included were code one auto and Freak. I would like to keep this article from being deleted if possible, please give some more advice on how I could improve it. Mar Omega is not known "world wide" But he is decently known across the U.S. and very well known in the NJ/NY/PA as well as Tx/OK area.

    Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.250.23.67 (talk) 15:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mar Omega worked on the Iron-Man movie released in 2008, however the credit given was for the entire CNBC crew who worked on the scene. Because he didn't receive an individual credit in the Iron-Man movie, I will not use the fact that he worked on the movie as leverage for notability, but once again it is an example of his work seen world-wide.

    • It seems to me that you in fact are trying to use this claim as leverage for notability, else why bring it up? --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Being where Mar Omega has a growing cult following of 5000+ fans, and has been featured on national television, this article will adequately meet the standards of notability when these facts are updated. I will also include a more "list oriented" filmography and possibly a list of published works.

    This Wikipedia entry will be an ongoing work in progress until everyone here and the person it's being written about are completely satisfied.

    Thank you for your consideration Boiyer2 (talk) 02:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jeff Dunham. Mgm|(talk) 10:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Jeff Dunham puppets[edit]

    List of Jeff Dunham puppets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This topic is apparently too trivial to be covered in the main article, so it has been split out to sit forever. It doesn't establish any sort of notability and it is completely trivial. TTN (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 17:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The Physics of Meaning[edit]

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

    Article does not assert notability and I found no evidence of the band's notability in a quick search. Also it has existed in stub form for 3 years, so it seems unlikely anyone will ever expand it. ThaddeusB (talk) 01:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I am also nominating the following album page as not notable in its own right.

    The_Physics_of_Meaning_(album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    200 Po Vstrechnoy Tour[edit]

    200 Po Vstrechnoy Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Fails WP:V and WP:GNG. There is nothing that makes this concert tour any more notable than any other tour. No extensive media coverage. No references. Also nominating related tours below Nouse4aname (talk) 09:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Show Me Love Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Dangerous and Moving Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. Or at any rate no consensus to delete. Merges and moves can be worked out on the article talk page.  Sandstein  08:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    United States House of Representatives special elections in Illinois, 2009[edit]

    United States House of Representatives special elections in Illinois, 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    I previously (and prematurely) redirected this to Illinois's 5th congressional district special election, 2009. I should have instead proposed this AFD. This article is too speculative. Right now, there is only one likely election: for the 5th district, the seat held by Rahm Emanuel, who will be vacating it to become White House Chief of Staff. The other vacancies are much too speculative. —Markles 17:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep There is likely going to be more than one election and this is a repository for encyclopedic content on those possibilities.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would an article need a compliment? I would merge pertinent information into said articles. We don't even know that there will be any special elections aside from the 5th district. – Zntrip 04:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There is so much press about the speculation of whose districts might be up for election and so high a probability of having more than one that we should probably have an article now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. – Zntrip 01:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    Please see the subsequent discussion at Talk:United States House of Representatives special elections in Illinois, 2009#Remove speculation.—Markles 15:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 17:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Standard Parking[edit]

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

    Article about a parking corporation that lacks substance and only seems to be a history of the company itself, without asserting true notability. Also, conflict of interest with User:Paulwarshauer starting the article, whose surname appears on the article at least 16 times (Ben's name). ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez Get to know me! / Talk to me!←at≈:→ 00:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (default keep). Most of this discussion was whether or not to merge this; this is the wrong venue for that discussion, which never reached a consensus, anyway. It is clear that delete is not the outcome of this discussion, ergo: no consensus. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 21:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Author Solutions[edit]

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

    Delete promotional article about nn "print-on-demand" publisher Mayalld (talk) 15:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Added comment: Speedy Keep AND Oppose merge. AuthorHouse and iUniverse are the names by which the company is most notable. Wikipedia naming conventions say those have to stay. And they are separate (for now anyway, companies may combine eventually), so can't really be merged. Leaving the article on the partent company certainly doesn't harm anything. DreamGuy (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Give me a break. You didn't have, for example, Barnes & Noble advertising your services on the shelves where they sold "how to write" books in every store. And if you haven't found off the scale notable press coverage you didn't try very hard. Google iUniverse or AuthorHouse. DreamGuy (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 00:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why wouldn't we? The companies are being merged in real life ( the iUniverse article even says its offices are being moved to those of AuthorHouse ), seems reasonable to merge the articles on Wikipedia. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    'Comment -- It absolutely DOES NOT fail WP:CORP, not by a long shot. I find it difficult to believe anyone could have looked into this at all with any amount of effort and seriously come to that conclusion. DreamGuy (talk) 14:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It owns both companies, both of which have articles, and both of which have demonstrated notability. The only way a merge would work is if all of them were merged, and then you'dhave to do extensive rewriting to make that article make sense. There is no compelling reason to merge (and certainly not to delete). DreamGuy (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 00:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    KoLmafia[edit]

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

    Though I love Kingdom of Loathing and all that Mafia (as it commonly called) does for it, it really does not pass the inclusion requirement. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 00:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 13:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ashley Vallance[edit]

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

    Having been tagged Notab from Dec 2007, with no references and only 278 Ghits, this actor would seem not to meet criteria for notability under WP:BIO Trident13 (talk) 07:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 21:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dee Rimbaud[edit]

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

    notability not established- all references lead back to the author, no references from credible publications. Mrathel (talk) 00:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    By that I meant that all searches that I did to find outside sources lead to articles originating from the subject or a related website. The two sources listed are both independent, but the websites hosting them are not notable poetry reviews.Mrathel (talk) 07:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 21:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    FS Passengers[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    FS Passengers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Previously nominated for deletion in May 2008 and failed to achieve consensus. The product clearly sells well, but I don't believe this inherently infers notability. The product needs to be covered by independent, reliable sources that indicate its notability. In the six months since the first nomination these have not been presented. While indeed, it's clear the product sells well. It just is not notable, I don't believe this is an entry that adds to wikipedia as an article on Flight simulation. Icemotoboy (talk) 02:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination stems from an apparent misunderstanding of the notability guideline precendence. WP:N trumps all others. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Marc Weidenbaum[edit]

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

    Unnotable editor at Viz Media. Fails WP:BIO. Declined speedy. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Only two "reports" and almost exclusively its just him talking up Viz rather than interviews about him as a person. Par for the course for any company higher up, to be the main voice in interviews, but that alone doesn't make them notable. As an editor, he has the additional criteria at WP:CREATIVE. Weidenbaum is not "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by his peers or successors" (outside of standard company reports, which is not the same thing). He is not known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique" nor has he "created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Nor has his "work" "won significant critical attention" and he hasn't won editing awards etc. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, yes, WP:CREATIVE does seem to apply (though that's not an additional requirement -- a subject can either fulfill the general requirements of WP:BIO or one of the more detailed ways of fulfilling them such as WP:CREATIVE, WP:ENTERTAINER, and so on). And going by that, you are right, the subject does not seem to pass that requirement. Delete or possibly redirect to Viz Media, the employer from which his asserted notability derives. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, we did, hence the discussion above. Half those results appear to possibly be a different person, and the rest are trivial mentions noting he is the editor of some of Viz's magazines; again, does not meet the requirements of neither Bio nor Entertainer. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I do not want to sound sarcastic but are we looking at the same search results as I provided? I see a lot more than half that mention the individual. And yes, some are just mentions but others would not be considered trivial. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 16:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, see the actual criteria. He doesn't meet them. He's an editor and the general mouth-piece for Viz at the moment. He is mentioned in these roles. And? He has been an editor a long time, but that doesn't make him notable. He is certainly no Yumi Hoashi, his predecessor, who was once "one of the ten most powerful people in the U.S. manga business." Can you find such accolades for Weidenbaum or anything about the man himself not just him promoting Viz or doing press releases? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 21:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Asia Economic Institute[edit]

    Asia Economic Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    [I] have marked the article for deletion because it serves to advertise for AsiaEcon, which is NOT a nonprofit organization. 71.106.166.24 (talk · contribs) Copy of the relevant part of a longer discussion on the article's talk page concerning the veracity of the article and the organization. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 14:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    NorthShark[edit]

    The result was delete. Bduke (Discussion) 20:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Article written mainly as promotional, without adhering to WP:NPOV ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez Get to know me! / Talk to me!←at≈:→ 16:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete. No coverage, no products (on website or web), article copy is feeble attempt to change enough words from website to avoid copyvio, although the changes may have been more accidental than intent. Flowanda | Talk 23:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tom Filsinger[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Tom Filsinger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Nonnotable individual who published a very small press game and a vanity autobiography also apparently self-published. Individual fails WP:BIO standards for inclusion. First time through deletion discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Filsinger) people just said he was notable and that his games were notable but gave no evidence of either. Article has not been fixed in the years since then, and we've tightened up our rules on notability so they are a lot less ambiguous and at someone's whim. DreamGuy (talk) 16:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 13:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Shell Creation Group[edit]

    Shell Creation Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    The only purpose of this article appears to be a WP:Coatrack. Toddst1 (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Zoids: Chaotic Century. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Organoid[edit]

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

    This fictional topic does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 13:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Marcus Bowen[edit]

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

    Non-notable political consultant. The only assertions of notability are that he served on a presidential campaign committee, he was elected to serve on a local political committee, and he writes a column in a student newspaper at the University of Missouri. Unable to find third-party reliable sources that demonstrate notability by providing substantial coverage of this person (the references provided in the article only mention him in passing). SheepNotGoats (Talk) 19:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 13:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Scholes[edit]

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

    I can't find any reliable sources that shows notability. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER.Schuym1 (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 21:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Euclid (computer program)[edit]

    Euclid (computer program) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    I can't find any reliable sources that shows notability. Fails WP:NOTABILITY.Schuym1 (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your response. Was the product ever fully developed? I think saying it's no longer supported would be better than no longer developed. It wasn't clear to me reading the article whether the product was ever completed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 00:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Phil Tognetti[edit]

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

    Non-notable baseball player. He played one season in an independant league before retiring. He does not meet notability requirements. NatureBoyMD (talk) 23:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He's retired and most of the coverage seems pretty local. His college career seems fairly impressive, but that's not the focus of the article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The local-ness of the coverage is what puts me to a weak keep rather than a strong keep. As to the focus of the article, that's an editing issue. If his college career is in fact notable, then the article should be rewritten to reflect that.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 13:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Miss World 2010[edit]

    Miss World 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Nb667ahm5h (talk) 07:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's sort of what I'm talking about: Super Bowl XLV, the 2011 Super Bowl, has detailed information and - most importantly! - references. Future Olympic Games do as well. I know this event will occur, and I know that the information is likely to be accurate - but I can't see keeping it without sources. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The WP:SOFIXIT page exists for a reason. If an article is lacking sources, the first attempt to fix it should be to add them. If someone leaves the articles with WP:ARS it's probably referenced within two weeks or less. - Mgm|(talk) 20:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect, I attempted to do so - and noted the fact, above, when I was unable to find any that would seem to fit the requirements of our Reliable Sources policy. If they exist, I have yet to find them. Three additional links have been added since I commented, though I haven't had a chance to look into them; one is to a blog, which wouldn't typically be a WP:RS. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 21:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    More