< 11 April 13 April >
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 speedy delete. PhilKnight (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hydraulic geoengineering[edit]

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

Neologism, per WP:DEL#REASON. The few sites that mention this term are mostly Wikipedia mirrors, or blog posts by authors of the article.[1] The article should be deleted and any usable material it contains should be merged into the relevant articles. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment after move by AJL: Delete as before. No changes to the article.[2] Topic is still original research. -Atmoz (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now ready for redirect to hydraulic engineering. Andrewjlockley (talk) 14:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hold your horsies, this is barely relevant to 99% of hydraulic engineering. Maybe its scope should be changed to "Proposed large projects in [discipline]" or something like that, but I can't see any single discipline to which this applies. Some hydraulic engineering, some environmental engineering, and some completely speculative local projects (such as Australia's). I'm not sure if I can find a good term for it. Maybe "proposed massive projects in engineering"? Awickert (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've userfied it. I'll find something to do with the text later. sPEEDY CLOSE.
Text now at large-scale hydraulic engineering projects and water oxygenation. I've left the AfD template on the redirect page but I'm not sure I did right. If people think it is better they might want to redirect to hydraulic engineering or geoengineering instead, but I think the current one is best. Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Seems like it needs a new home. Any ideas for a new name? Large-scale hydraulic engineering? Hydraulic engineering (large scale)? Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We need a new page, to be called Geoengineering_projects, with an overview of all geoengineering projects. Projects should be sortable by type (which could include hydraulic). Until we have such an overview, I suggest we leave this page as is. --Sam.carana (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interested parties can store the information as a user sandbox page if they are serious about developing a valid home for the content. Most seems copied from your blog post mentioned above. Vsmith (talk) 02:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atmoz, are you saying that the new article should be removed as well? I think that large-scale hydraulic engineering projects should probably be changed to proposed large-scale hydraulic engineering projects, but it seems like a valid category to me to list off these projects. Awickert (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has changed in the article. And nothing will change. That's AJLs MO. Throw up the smokescreen, and maybe people won't realize you haven't actually done anything. Of the references I checked, none were actually supporting their claims. AJL does this a lot. KDP reports the same above. Repeat: nothing has changed except the title. -Atmoz (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The title was the reason for deletion under WP:NEO. The text has been split up, with the bulk of it ending up under a title which I believe Awickert suggested. I acutally wrote very little of this article. Feel free to tag and banner the destination articles if you don't like them. Andrewjlockley (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For comparison: AJL Article, Article now, diff. Clearly showing that the article hasn't changed substantially since it was written by AJL. -Atmoz (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The geoengineering part is dubious, but the projects themselves do seem to exist. Remove the "geoengineering" bit from it? It seems to be only in the lede. And then keep geoeng in the see also? I believe that this would work. Awickert (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See geoeng article if you need a def. These projects do fit the definition, but the term wasn't invented when these projects were proposed. I don't mind re-titling the article, which is what I did, but geoeng still deserves a mention. Anyway, such a minor pt. is not relevant to AfD. The article needs a new AfD if you think it should go. I'll banner if for cleanup. Andrewjlockley (talk) 19:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I got pissed off with AJL pratting around moving the thing that was destined to die and losing the talk pages, so I've deleted it William M. Connolley (talk) 19:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aight, let's go from here. It seems the big deal was the title and the geoeng not being supported. Although it may fall under geoeng now, there isn't a RS that says so, so we should just simplify it and remove that part for now. Therefore, from reading the comments, I disagree with AJL and believe the "minor" geoeng bit was the only part relevant to AfD. Remove that, and there's a halfway-decent article about some wild proposed projects. I therefore propose to restore the content and the associated talk page, with geoeng statements stripped except for a see also, at "Proposed large-scale_hydraulic_engineering_projects". Awickert (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SupportAndrewjlockley (talk) 20:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Human nose#Different nose types. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ski-slope nose[edit]

Ski-slope nose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

What is this? It has context, but it lacks sense (if only that were a CSD). Ipatrol (talk) 23:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete (CSD A7). — Gwalla | Talk 20:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keith O Reilly[edit]

Keith O Reilly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Assertion of notability, but nothing to back it up. Ipatrol (talk) 23:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy redirect to Waste heat#Anthropogenic heat. Nominator no longer calls for deletion. Mgm|(talk) 12:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropogenic heat[edit]

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

I proposed, but I don't think this article should be deleted, but constant redirects to waste heat have been inserted, so I think this is the best way to resolve matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewjlockley (talk • contribs) 22:19, April 12, 2009


N.B. I have built an appropriate re-direct landing section at Waste_heat#Anthropogenic_heat I still think the two topics should be separate articles, but I note the emerging consensus above and am satisfied that the current version of waste heat will not result in major confusion among readers or a factually inaccurate coverage of the topic. Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Procedural Keep (non-admin closure). No deletion rationale provided; WP:SNOW. I42 (talk) 22:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo! Answers[edit]

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

Delete. Maybe merge with the page Yahoo?

Keep. It meets notability. "If the product or service is notable, it can be broken out into its own article." CNN Money (second reference) describing it as "the second most popular Internet reference site" — after Wikipedia — should be enough. Novangelis (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. This shouldn't even be up for debate. It is notable in its own right, as the article is supported by several reliable secondary sources. Also, original nom failed to provide reasoning for deletion nomination. KhalfaniKhaldun 21:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong/Speedy Keep - Why are people persisting with this rubbish? It is notable because the website is as well known as this damn website. This page was originally nominated for deletion by an IP address looking to waste peoples time, and it seems they have succeeded. I'm all for free-speech, but just because it exists, it doesn't mean we need to debate stupid and nonsensical opinions. Alan16 talk 21:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 09:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disarrey[edit]

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

Band that doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Speedy declined. Black Kite 20:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Delete per CSD A1 by Nyttend; non-admin closure. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gemimered[edit]

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

See WP:MADEUP Ironholds (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as blatant nonsense. Looie496 (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 13:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Negative work time[edit]

Negative work time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Found this when patrolling the newpages log from the back. I'm not sure, this might be a neologism I've never heard this expression before and the only related link Google comes up with is this article. The lack of third party, non-trivial sources is making me think original research. - 2 ... says you, says me 20:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agile Molecule[edit]

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

Software company. Article created by user:Agilemolecule. Are they notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment: Doubtful notability. The article gives three sources, but at least the last one seems to be irrelevant. The 1998 paper by A.P.Lyubartsev, A.Laaksonen does mention DynaMix, but not Agile Molecule, as far as I can see. The paper is available at Lyubartsev's home page. (Not that a reference in one scientific paper would be a good source anyway.) --The very model of a minor general (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 delete. If anyone is willing to merge potentially useful content, drop me a not and I'll provide the contents. Tone 13:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elysian Space Navy[edit]

Elysian Space Navy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Entirely in-universe trivia and plot summary. Apparently, removing lists of make-believe orders of battle and damage counts as "gutting and destruction" -- if such trivia is so essential, probably the entirety of the article can be excised. "Real world" informaiton is grammatically incoherent speculation and original research. Beyond that, this article merely regurgitates a section of plot across two books; per previous AfDs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second battle of Hogwarts and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Hogwarts (2nd nomination), and AfD-less consensus for Battle of Yavin IV and Battle of Endor, this content is unnecessary. So, to sum up, this article fails WP:PLOT, WP:IINFO, WP:RS, WP:GNG. --EEMIV (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grounded but not limited to. You give no reason against the merge/redirect except IDONTLIKEIT.DGG (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is fiction, the Honorverse template provides the references. Debresser (talk) 10:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. If it will make the spa happier, we can call it snowball rather than speedy. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth R. Collins[edit]

Kenneth R. Collins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable KuroiShiroi (contribs) 19:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I believe the claim "Known for his legendary recruiting skills he is one of just a handful of Army recruiters who have successfully recruited in atleast three different states(Illinois,Texas,Indiana).", however unsourced that might be, disqualifies it as an A7, because it is an assertion of significance. The speedy decline was correct, in my opinion. Zipcode456 (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, there is something fishy there. Not enough for a RFCU though. First time I used the rollback all script, I knew it would come in handy some day.--Terrillja talk 21:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A7 is for articles that don't assert any significance or importance about the subject. An article can not be speedy deleted under A7 if there is an assertion of significance, which in this case, there is. If a totally non-notable individual was the subject of an article which had a credible, though unsourced claim of significance, it still could not be speedy deleted under A7 no matter how non-notable the person is.Zipcode456 (talk) 23:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because he recruited in 3 states? Maybe he recruited in 3 states because the Army needed more recruiters in a particular state at that time? It doesn't imply and sort of notability. From WP:N: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. " Recruiting in 3 states does not imply significant coverage. Or any coverage for that matter.--Terrillja talk 23:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However, A7 isn't based on the WP:N guidelines. It's based on a claim of significance, not on the implying of significant coverage. The "one of a handful" and "legendary" part of the sentence is a claim of significance. Zipcode456 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 09:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jodie Borle[edit]

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

Not Notable, does not achieve [WP:Music]]. 1 GNews hit and (as far as I can see) only where's, when's and 'how to buy's' on the 1560 gHits. A award is mentioned, but I do not believe it reaches the WP:Music level. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 18:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Award was from the Winnipeg 99.1 Cool FM radio station (I believe, please correct me if I am wrong). Which was the prior branding of CJGV-FM. IF it still exists, it would no longer have that name I am sure. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 19:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete (WP:SNOW). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shufty[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism KuroiShiroi (contribs) 18:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Tone 13:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Cannibal King[edit]

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

Unnotable non-existent book that is supposedly "rumored" to exist, but no actual reliable sources confirm. Prodded twice. First prod stated "no sources" and was removed by the article creator who added a link that doesn't source anything.[6][7] The second stated "WP:CBALL Wikipedia is not a repository for what might, could, or is rumored to happen" and was removed by my because of the previous prod.[8] Was also CSDed for lack of context but found to have enough. Non-existent book fails WP:V, WP:N, and WP:CRYSTAL. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 09:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC) This page should be brought back, I know of 5 people personally who would disagree that there's no cult following. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.72.140 (talk) 03:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raleigh Theodore Sakers[edit]

Raleigh Theodore Sakers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not sure what this would fall under - WP:BAND? Being the "angry old man" on two records and there being a bootleg of his ranting don't seem of particular noteworthiness, especially since there are no sources that I can find and no fansites to establish any sort of cult following. The clothing line named after him is only available on a Wiki-blacklisted sell-your-own-designs website.  Mbinebri  talk ← 18:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete under WP:BAND, WP:A7, WP:BIO, WP:N...the list goes on and on. Just purge it with fire already...Cheers. I'mperator 23:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But there is a huge cult following! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.12.164.252 (talk) 18:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am interested in Sakers ever since i listened to sublime, but the article was deleted. I'd be much obliged if you could bring the page back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.65.77.36 (talk) 01:38, 1 January 2012 (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 Speedy deleted G12 NAC. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GUI Automated Tests[edit]

GUI Automated Tests (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not appear to be notable TheDude2006 (talk) 18:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Tagged as a copyright violation. Alexius08 (talk) 22:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 09:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven and Earth (band)[edit]

Heaven and Earth (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

PROD was contested (actually, it was removed by an IP user with no explanations, too bad I can't simply add it back), so I'm taking it to AfD. This stub covers a band from the 1970s, which has released only one album. It is stated that a song by them was featured on several compilations, but I don't see it as a claim of notability. Victão Lopes I hear you... 18:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weapons technology in the Honorverse[edit]

Weapons technology in the Honorverse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Technology in the Honorverse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unreferenced plot summary for trivial elements of Honorverse universe. No indication of importance within the fictional texts, let alone the real world. Fail WP:GNG, WP:RS, WP:PLOT, WP:IINFO. --EEMIV (talk) 17:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It proves real-world relevance. Debresser (talk) 11:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus, defaulting to keep Jclemens (talk) 06:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Works Tour[edit]

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

Non-notable tour. Article consists only of a setlist and list of dates. Fails WP:NOTINHERITED Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 14:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 16:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is not inherited. It doesn't matter if it's a tour by the biggest band in the world or the band I was in in high school, the tour must stand on its own as notable, not have to rely on some exterior source. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 22:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm thinking we should ignore the rules for this, I'm fairly sure there's a ton of references out there, this will probably turn into a clean-up issue rather than a delete. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ignoring rules? The guidelines should apply to all articles, not the ones people like. Chief Wiggum is right on this. JamesBurns (talk) 02:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:IAR is a guideline that says if it helps the encyclopedia to ignore the rules then thats what we should do. I reckon this is a notable tour, its something that people will search for, and it will get expanded over time, so ignoring the rules is the way to go with this article. I'm concerned about what does make a tour notable if this one isn't - I appreciate that it's going to need references and a clean-up so it meets manual of style guidelines, but we do already have the Times review [10] that DHowell found and I think the subject is encyclopedic. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 03:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete (WP:SNOW). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dano (tv channel)[edit]

Dano (tv channel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Disputed prod. The explanation left by the person who nominated it for proposed deletion was "Hoax. No source supplied (external link is dead) and none found - see results of searches for Dano and Toonos and Danimation, and LocateTV searches for Dano and Toonos. No mention in List of television stations in the United Kingdom." Nancy talk 16:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep (WP:SNOW). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Headscarf controversy in Turkey[edit]

Headscarf controversy in Turkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article's subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (see WP:N). It's content should be added to articles like Religion in Turkey, Islam in Turkey etc. Turkish Flame ☎ 16:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no any other articles in Wikipedia about "headscarf controversy in a country". This article should be merged into Religion in Turkey, Islam in Turkey etc. --Turkish Flame ☎ 14:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's because in most other countries, the headscarf issue is a minor controversy. In Turkey, it's considerably more prominent, as the ban on headscarves is in a predominately Muslim country. Turkey, if not the only, is the largest predominately Muslim country to have such a ban on headscarves. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tunisia, another muslim majority country, have a ban on headscarves. And it's only banned in public schools and government buildings in Turkey. --Turkish Flame ☎ 16:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:WAX. Just because there is no other article on other headscarf controversies, does not mean that there cannot be one for Turkey, especially as it is clearly notable, receiving mentions in many reliable sources such as newspapers and books. My knowledge of Turkey's ban, and my ignorance of Tunisia's ban, is just one example of which ban is more notable. If there are enough reliable sources about the Tunisian ban, there could be an article on that ban too. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete (WP:SNOW). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All-TIME 100 Greatest Novels[edit]

All-TIME 100 Greatest Novels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An article with no substantive content. Basically fails WP:DICDEF; all the article does is say that TIME made a list of novels. The actual list of novels has been removed repeatedly by editors claiming it fails WP:NOTREPOSITORY, and if the content of the list is trivial, what purpose can an article on the list itself serve? Chubbles (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 13:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Plater-Zyberk[edit]

Henry Plater-Zyberk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article fails both WP:Notability and WP:Notability (academics) on all counts. Furthermore, no non-trivial independent sources are provided or can be found. Colchicum (talk) 15:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a scholar within the Advanced Research and Assessment Group of the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom, his opinions are used by the British government to help in the formulating of defence policy. He is also a cited scholar, and even the Russian media cite him, such as Novaya Gazeta[22]. In addition to lecturing at the DA, he is also guest lectured at other institutions such as the Polish Defence Academy[23]. --Russavia Dialogue 16:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Far from every lousy scholar is notable for Wikipedia. I have read the article and even tried to find out more. But there are zillions of guest lecturers all over the world, and probably there are as many analysts in the British government. This is not a criterion of notability as per both common sense and WP:Notability (academics), which is fairly explicit. Where was this "cited scholar" cited? Several occasional mentions in the press don't make up notability. Most of his works listed in the article look like working papers of his academy, 10-20 pp long booklets. This certainly doesn't qualify as "he has published widely on his field of expertise". Moreover, simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1, and his cv doesn't even look impressive as to this particular field. And, after all, where are your independent reliable sources? From what I have seen it is evident that his notability is well below average, probably even lesser than mine. Colchicum (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources for his citation index, please. I am afraid that your claims are a bit misleading. He is not widely cited by any stretch of imagination. And these 20 works are not "major works", but short booklets published as working papers of his institute, with the following disclaimer: "the views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the UK Ministry of Defence". Here is a revealing exaple of one of these "major works": [24]. He might well have 2.000 of them and still be non-notable. Anyway, per our notability criteria the number of publications is rarely relevant. Colchicum (talk) 09:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The disclaimer means nothing at all. As the DA of the UK is a government institution, and is linked to the Britsh defence ministry, published academics views, and publications published by the Academy, may not reflect the official UK government policy. That is it the total extent to any disclaimer; nothing more, nothing less. --Russavia Dialogue 18:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete (WP:SNOW). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hayley maxwell[edit]

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

Does not seem sufficiently notable enough for inclusion. Article's author may have a conflict of interest. tempodivalse [☎] 15:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete (WP:CSD#A7). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Halo 3 Webcomics[edit]

Halo 3 Webcomics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability not asserted. Little, if any, reliable, third party sources mention this. tempodivalse [☎] 15:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 09:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deek hoi[edit]

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

Article with unclear notability. Only mentions of this I can find are blogs, youtube, and social networking sites, not reliable sources. tempodivalse [☎] 15:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete (WP:SNOW). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Find a Ground[edit]

Find a Ground (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article may not meet our notability standards as it is not mentioned in reliable, third party sources. Only external link provided is to the website in question. tempodivalse [☎] 15:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 09:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JMR[edit]

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

Musician with no evidence of notability and no third-party sources. Powers T 15:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) KuroiShiroi (contribs) 14:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's No Sympathy for the Dead[edit]

AfDs for this article:
There's No Sympathy for the Dead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable EP. Although it is an album by a notable artist, it does not meet the basic criteria at WP:N. Specifically, there is not significant coverage in reliable sources. Timmeh! 15:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note I'm withdrawing the nomination based on the sources provided by Dylan. Timmeh! 02:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 09:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bankrrota[edit]

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

Non-notable band with only demos recorded. Crashoffer12345 (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy redirect to Butters Stotch. word for word copy with no implication of notability. WP:BOLD redirect (non-admin closure) Terrillja talk 17:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Chaos (character)[edit]

Professor Chaos (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Entire article is taken nearly verbatim from small portion of a section from the Butters Stotch article and offers no new information; info is already expressed in main article, to where this article should be redirected SoSaysChappy (talk) 14:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Additions have improved notability claims. Organization he's involved in is notable as well. Article needs extensive additional work (non-admin closure) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Seif[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. Nothing indicates that he's done anything beyond being Zola Levitt's successor, and I'm not sure that that is enough for notability --GedUK  14:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep (WP:SNOW). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

E. Sampathkumar[edit]

E. Sampathkumar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'm sceptical someone who's real name remains a mystery can be notable enough for inclusion. He cedrtainly doesn't meet our general notability requirements, this being hte only thing I could find about him. And then he doesn't meet any of the other criteria laid down for academics Pattont/c 14:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

here is the Google scholar which i did not add there. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22E.+Sampathkumar%22&spell=1

--Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 12:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 06:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of R&B musicians[edit]

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

One of those unsourced lists that is better served as a category, half of these artists aren't even R&B, Delete Secret account 22:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per, WP:Fancruft: "use of this term may be regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil." See also WP:Cruftcruft: "[The definition cruft] complete and utter lack of any objective criteria leaves "cruft" in the eye of the beholder. Rather than being anything meaningfully nonencyclopedic, Cruft becomes any topic, subject or article that the beholder is uninterested in." Surely you have a more civil and more objective argument against this article? Ikip (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Perhaps you need to read what I wrote again. I never used the term fancruft (I note User:EsradekanGibbs has used "fancruft" in a number of article deletions which doesn't seem to bother you when he does otherwise you would have left comments). I used Listcruft which wikipedia defines as "indiscriminate or trivial lists", which is exactly what this list is. And I note many other editors below have also used that term, so I don't buy your uncivil claim. JamesBurns (talk) 03:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pattont/c 13:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --GedUK  13:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Lawrence Asuncion[edit]

Mark Lawrence Asuncion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable sportsman. Oscarthecat (talk) 13:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Reading this entire page, the lines are pretty clearly defined even though it's a dayish early from when it can be reasonably closed, that notability has been established (and is still clearly growing--I count as many as 800~ active news stories circulating right now on Google News alone, and that's just English-language). The BLP1E doesn't apply, and won't as she's going on past the audtions obviously--it would be willful ignorance and made-up arguments to say she won't gain still more notability and WP:RS with even just one more performance on the television show. She's not a private person at this point for our purposes, and is also now getting ready to sign to produce her own album. It's completely reasonable to assume between the discussions and !voting here (about 85% in favor of keep, give or take, for the bean counters) that Susan Boyle passes our notability standards today. rootology (C)(T) 05:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: (This was just posted to my talk, in response to MickMacNee; consider it an expanded close reason for this AFD.)
First off, BLP is not a factor here in any level, to just clear that, and I'll explain why BLP1E is a false argument here. And again, feel free to DRV it. I fundamentally agreed more with the collective weight and opinions from the Keepers being more in line with our history, precedents, and principles, and ideas like this should be openly tolerated, since the presumption that "Internet notability" (what does that even mean?) is "less important" than "real world" notability--that's really what you and many Deleters here are arguing, no matter how it's dressed up--are naive attitudes.
The Internet IS the real world at this point, for better or worse, no matter how hard or vigorously some people like to poo poo the entire web 2.0 thing. It's nothing to do with our needlessly rigid, increasingly irrelevant--each month, it fades in social value as an internal concept--"Recentism" ideas. The press is faster now since it doesn't rely on the permanence of physical media to deliver news. Recentism because of this is a wholly subjective thing, with too many people valuing "physical" news in some vague way over "transient" news, with "transient" being the Internet. Again, what does that even mean? It's a nonsense argument. A well-maintained bit of data that is properly preserved in an open format will last theoretically forever. A newspaper will eventually rot away and crumble. But you see where this is all going?
It boils down to Deletionists vs. Inclusionists, and the foolish idea that an AFD or DRV is binding forever. I closed the AFD as I saw where it was heading, and where it had gone per policy. Consensus clearly supported Keeping already; I agreed that the Keepers had won the arguments and day--and not just by numbers, Wikidemon, Ched, the first few sentences by Stude62 (painfully true, AGF aside), Raven1977, and J Van Meter. BLP1E is absolutely a false argument here as Iakeb points out: her performance; the significance and separate reporting on her unique YouTube popularity after, and since then we have her being signed to a record label and when (in a week?) she performs again we'll have even more events/details. Each passing day there were more and more sources about Boyle visible online and in searches, so presumably as well in "old world" media like physical newspapers, of course. I closed based on what has come before, the opinions expressed, my interpretation of policy, the sourcing there (and growing--27 refs today, 21 when I closed), and the fact that 1) she's not a BLP1E, she's a BLP4E now unless she drops dead before her appearances on the actual show contests, and 2) every single time one of these social culture articles like hers gets AFD'd, if the person isn't really a BLP1E--like hers, they are virtual always a better article later as the sourcing really does not stop.
Many people like to AFD quick, hard, and fast, in the presumption that it will keep something "out" of WP longer. Nonsense--DRV is too smart to allow gaming like that in any pointless Deletionist vs Inclusionist content race. If something isn't a one-off or Deep Fancrust, sourcing will always build over time--it's inevitable, like the tides themselves. And like the tides themselves, the consensus backed by policy was pretty darn clear on the Boyle AFD: keep. Deleting Boyle today would also, in my personal opinion, be a completely pointless strategic move of no benefit to anyone. The day after her next appearance on the show, or the minute the media comes out with the information on the forthcoming album, it would sail through DRV so fast that people's heads would spin. Why nuke the article for a week (or two) then? It would be a pointless procedural exercise that would lead to rules-jockey admins fighting people trying to recreate it for the 10-14 days, and pointless things like ANI alerts. rootology (C)(T) 13:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Boyle[edit]

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

At this moment, she does not satisfy notability guidelines. Yes, she may have been noted by the media, but she is just "another auditionee" on a TV talent show. D.M.N. (talk) 12:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC) - nominator withdrew -- see below.[reply]

On behalf of the policy based merge and delete votes aleady given, and in light of the fact this has already run for 3 days, and in light of the fact that most keep votes do not mention a single policy, I have reversed your withdrawal as highly innappropriate. If this is reverted, then if necessary, I will procedurally renominate it myself. MickMacNee (talk) 15:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're applying rules arbitrary here. Wikipedia:Notability (people) clearly states that entertainers with a large fan base are notable. By arbitrarily not considering YouTube views you're conveniently rejecting a significant indication of fan following. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devijvers (talk • contribs) 18:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: I encourage everyone to look at this column on Ms. Boyle. She has progressed beyond fame for a single event. Her fame is in her biography and story now, and in that symbolism for the possibility of that despite age or looks. She isn't famous because she can sing - many can. She is famous for being who she is. Individuals with full bios who were killed on 9/11 are the same way. WP:BLP1E is about those from news stories. She is clearly beyond a news story. --\/\/slack (talk) 02:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Youtube does not establish notability. This has been repeated countless times. Antivenin 16:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, but the Times and the Telegraph combined do establish notability. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep She's famous and will be more so over time. On the news tonight. Scifiintel (talk) 02:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for YouTube, the awards that this clip recieved already should make it notable:


I oppose merging; I will do a little legwork and expand it, I just did a little... let some of the media catch up, the performance wasn't even 24 hours ago yet. While I always strive to maintain a NPOV, I must point out the sheer quality of her performance... standing ovation from the judges, the entire crowd, after just the first vocal left her lips. TR3ap3R.inc (talk) 16:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you mentioned yourself, you're not looking at this from a NPOV. Her performance must have been amazing, but that doesn't mean she deserves her own article in an encyclopedia. That would mean deleting it if she messes up her song one day. Antivenin 16:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep is NOT applicable here. There are enough people !voting for delete. Antivenin 16:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please refrain from !voting twice. Antivenin 16:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
they voted when it was a one sentence stub; read the reasoning. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, over 50,000 Ghits for Susan Boyle in the past 30 days. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 18:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added a ton more refs and related pages, including The Herald, Reddit, and CNET (news.com) R3ap3R.inc (talk) 18:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment its BLP1E as far as I can tell. Until she wins or finishes in the runner-up spot in the competition, this should be deleted. D.M.N. (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if she loses next round right away, she will have at least as much notability as Gary Brolsma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by R3ap3R.inc (talk • contribs) 19:28, 12 April 2009
I'm having trouble squaring that policy with people on this list. --\/\/slack (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, she has had one audition, she is no where near the final shows on TV, hence why BLP1E applies. D.M.N. (talk) 07:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of being contrary, I don't think this coverage is based on an event (otherwise she would be no more notable than any of the myriad of bad singers who audition for any of those shows). And I hate to pull out an other stuff, but William Hung, anyone? But, in any event, I see no need to rush through a delete. I believe she is notable at this point, but it will be easier to distinguish whether that notability is tied to a single event or not in the near future.   user:j    (aka justen)   19:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This makes sense. --\/\/slack (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's a Snow keep? R3ap3R.inc (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:Snow. Looie496 (talk) 20:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia will always get torpedoed by everyone for one reason or another, either it's "look at this garbage they've got floating around, idiots" or "they're deleting WHAT!? Frigging wikinazis..". Doesn't mean that we don't need to keep tinkering with things, but there will never, ever be a balance which suits the vast majority. This is a group discussion initiated by one editor after all, on a project which houses millions of articles ministered by thousands of people, so if the world says "look at what Wikipedia's doing" they've misunderstood what's going on here from the outset. Someoneanother 23:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to Britain's Got Talent - after thinking on it more, decided to change my view. Still feel it needs serious clean up first, clean up the copyvio, then what's left should be merged to the series article. If, after the series is over, it can be more clearly shown she is not just a 1E, then can revisit the idea of a standalone. -- -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fritzpoll (talk) 12:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 1[edit]

Look, this is the current stance. If you would have actually read Wikipedia:Notability (people), particularly the entertainers section you would have read the following:
Actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities [who have] a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
To make your case for deletion you'll need to prove Susan Boyle does not have a significant "cult" following and a large fan base and with that I wish you luck.
You said it yourself. This woman's performance That's WP:ONEEVENT right there. Antivenin 00:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In terms of "one event", as I understand it, Ms. Boyle has been singing/performing from the age of 12--therefore there must be 35 years of events leading up to this particular event which made Ms. Boyle notable. Second, in terms of "we don't count YouTube views", well, then perhaps we should ban other indicators of popular/predominantly Western culture indicators, such as counts of Google matches in the English language. We can't ban one quantifiable indicator of cultural notability while indicating another quantifiable indicator is recommended for establishing notability. We're talking out of both sides of our mouths. PetersV       TALK 16:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please define what you mean by "closed early". When do you think its reasonable to close this AFD which clearly shows the majority of responses against deletion? BritishWatcher (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A small subset of disruptive editors seem it is fit to ignore common sense and are insistent that it continues to the end. This AfD has already been closed several times. Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its a disgrace that a few people because they dont like the outcome and majority view just try to continue this process until they get the outcome they want. It really is rather pathetic, she is clearly notable enough to justify an article. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question (and this isn't directed at any one individual editor, and I don't want to be a disruptive editor, but...). When claiming "ONEEVENT", are we referring to the performance? .. the non-typical reaction of the judges? .. the audience response? .. the 5 million YouTube hits? .. the Global coverage by ABC News, The Daily Telegraph, The Sun, the Daily Mirror, New York Daily News, and now UPI? .. the 2:1 odds that OLBG Sports is taking in relation to her possible success? .. the Ashton Crusher/Demi Moore twittering coverage? ...the meeting with the Sony BMG record company to discuss a recording deal? Exactly which "one event" are we discussing, or is this all considered one event? Just curious. — Ched :  ?  16:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try writing a separate article on any of those things that does not contain in its majority the details about audition on Britain's Got Talent, and you will see quite clearly that they are all what is clearly defined as 'the event', for the purposes of 'ONE EVENT'. If she went on to gain a recording contract, and sold a million records, then quite clearly you could write a separate article about her recording career, and the audition would be a mere paragraph of her article. Judging by the hair splitting (read: wikilawyering) going on in this Afd about what constitutes a notable 'event', John Hinckley, Jr. would have hundreds of articles about his life - but he doesn't, because he is the actual poster boy example of a person notable only for one event, in the very policy page that defines it, WP:BLP1E. MickMacNee (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 2[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion
All AfD discussions run for at least seven days. However, a closure earlier than seven days may take place if a reason given in either Wikipedia:Speedy keep or Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion applies.

For the record, I want this article kept. And I have re-opened it more than once.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well its a pointless waste of time keeping this process going for another 4 days when we all know what the outcome will be. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a waste of your time, don't read the page. Simple, yes?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its a waste of time because the person is clearly notable enough to qualify and we know what the outcome will be anyway. Keep wasting peoples time though thanks. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone read WP:POINT lately? Wikidemon (talk) 17:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to agree with Sarek on this (and I also agree the article should be kept.). I doubt there's any real reason not to follow procedure here. We do have some delete votes coming in, and there have been some drastic 11th hour changes in the past. I suspect it's better to follow our own guidelines, and avoid any potential fallout due to claims that something was railroaded through without proper respect to all editors given. — Ched :  ?  17:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you delete this? It's about a notable person and is completely factual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.218.57 (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main argument for deletion is that it's a "biography of a living person notable for only one event" (WP:BLP1E), and hence not suitable for inclusion. I disagree with that, but it's a legitimate argument to make here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's an idiotic rule, and totally arbitrary. Let me demonstrate: If the 4th planet from the Sun were to blow up right now, you could call that a single event. Yet at the same time, another person could look at it as multiple events, or a single event with multiple consequences that are inseparable from the first event. The same exact reasoning applies here. This so-called "single-event" is so significant that the fallout from it must be considered and thus it no longer qualifies as a "single event". The fact that we're dealing with a person and not a planet is of little consequence. SPEEDY KEEP -- itistoday (Talk) 18:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the criteria at WP:Speedy keep are you suggesting are satisfied here?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except it's not an idiotic rule (and I voted Keep as well). We are not talking about deleting articles about single events, but articles about people who are only known for a single event. For example, there's a big story in the UK at the moment (link) about a police officer who assaulted someone at the G20 demonstration. Is the demonstration notable? Yes - here's the article. Are the police officer or the demonstrator notable? No - even though they've been written about in multiple reliable sources, they themselves aren't notable except in the context of the demonstration, and so they would thus fail WP:BLP1E. Hope this makes it clear. Black Kite 18:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: when the time comes, we may want to consider having a 'crat close this one. Just a thought. — Ched :  ?  19:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone will only reopen it ;-) Seriously, look at all the support, how long does this really have to go on for? Jenuk1985 | Talk 19:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • April 19 I believe. — Ched :  ?  19:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that argument is that notability is not temproary... no... Mrs. Boyle is notable just becaudse she's notable. I can;t site a specific policy or guideline... but kjust take whatever rational make's William Hung notable and apply it to Mrs. Boyle.--Dr who1975 (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said a little further up in this discussion, notability is not temporary, but our ability to distinguish notability (i.e. the event versus the person) may be temporarily clouded. Hence why I agree with Animum that we should keep the article for now, subject to revisit the situation in a few weeks if Ms. Boyle decides to go back to living a quiet life with her cat. Somehow I doubt it given her talent, but we'll see.   user:j    (aka justen)   23:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. When I said, "[...] when we will have a clearer idea of how notable Ms. Boyle will end up being," I meant that our judgement may be clouded for the moment and that it would be wisest to revisit this after the hype dies down. I realize that "will end up being" is not the best phrasing in the world, but she's going to either become more notable or stay as notable as she is now. Notability cannot decrease (after something has been done, it's very hard indeed to take it back completely), but it can increase (Ms. Boyle might perform again, which would generate more coverage and sources, which in turn would make her more notable). (Note: After mulling it over, I refactored my first comment slightly.) —Animum (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point I'm getting at: She seems notable now, but we might be caught up in the hype and have misjudged, so it would be prudent to revisit this when we aren't as clouded. —Animum (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at WP:BLP1E, can you put your hand on your heart and say that Susan Boyle "essentially remains a low-profile individual"? If that is so, then you are correct, but I don't think you are. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Individuals like this are not what BLP1E is for. People who are primarily notable for one event can still be notable enough for biographical articles. See for example Chesley Sullenberger or Seung-Hui Cho. The first question to ask when checking if 1E applies is whether the sources cited primarily cover the event or the person. When the sources start writing biographical articles about a person, their shot at BLP1E is gone. The policy exists so that we don't extrapolate an article about a low-key person only because they're involved in an event, not to stop us from having a biography on an individual who is the subject of biographical articles in reliable sources. I'd also like to ask what the "event" is that everyone would like us to cover. Do you really want a Susan Boyle's appearance on Britain's Got Talent article, which is really the event that's generated all of the attention? Not to mention, per TimVickers above, that the idea of this person being "low-profile" at this point is hilarious. Oren0 (talk) 02:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sullenberger saved 155 lives. Seung-Hui Cho murdered 32 people. Boyle made Amanda Holden cry. The press has noted such biographical information as, she has a cat called Pebbles. They have not done for Sullengberger or Cho. By your interpretaion of notability and BLP1E, and your apparent yardstick of inclusion of the presnce/absence of 'biographical articles in reliable sources', this makes Boyle more deserving of a Wikipedia article than Sullenberger or Cho, patently a wrong conclusion. This sort of standard newspaper backstory does not mark out a person as being above the bar of being a BLP1E. MickMacNee (talk) 03:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure performances for her cat are very notable. :0 Lychosis T/C 02:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note however Notability is not temporary. If it was just a short burst of news reports about Boyle, then she's not notable. Since it's been more than news reports -- it's been essays, commentaries, etc. -- her notability is permanently established. --Boston (talk) 03:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a thought, Boyle could be argued to be notable for two events, firstly for the performance that was reported in the first wave of coverage about her, and secondly for the level of world-wide interest that her performance generated. Stories are now analysing this coverage and discussing this reaction and what it says about our society and its preoccupations (such as this). If this had just been a jaw-dropping performance, then perhaps BLP1E might apply, but it has gone beyond that now - the story is a story in itself. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Notability Guideline for People: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Do CNN or YouTube or any of the other global media covering the performance qualify as secondary source material? Wikipedia appears to define a secondary source as "a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere." If these other media sources qualify as secondary, Ms. Boyle's notability is arguably presumed. (Perhaps this points to a deficiency in the current definition of "secondary source".)

According to "Articles about people notable only for one event": "If the event is significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article for the person is sometimes appropriate. *** The historic significance of events should be indicated by the persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role. Transient press coverage of a story does not generally indicate an individual who would meet this exception, even if there are multiple independent and reliable secondary sources." Based on this discussion, another question is whether the performance itself is significant, perhaps with consideration of any inherent cultural statements and the significance of the series generally in pop culture. On the other hand, perhaps coverage has been transient, i.e., not sufficiently persistent.

Although the performance itself was very good, more importantly the media reaction and non-professional responses have been amazing. I recommend permitting the article to remain at least for a month or so, allowing editors to develop the article and provide interested viewers with information. After a while, persistence should be evident.--Rpclod (talk) 04:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • your condition a) and b) makes sense to me, although they seems to show how much our world is obsessed with commercial success over other things in life. condition c) on the other hand is not necessary; I think our debate here now is more about how notable or significant Susan Boyle is as a person in our time and our history based on what she have already done, and she doesn't have to "do something else" to achieve that. I bet by now the story of her life has already affected some people on this world. In a way the situation is more like "she may not deserve a WP entry at first, but as the media hype grow and the notability her story has already recieved, it is too late to delete the entry." 64.198.200.71 (talk) 04:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.198.200.71 (talk) 04:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She should satisfy notability guidelines. She is already signed in the last four days with Simon Cowell and Syco (a subsidiary of Sony Music). He scooped her up over the weekend. Her first album will be released world-wide later this year. She will be a singer with some renown. Her YouTube hits moved from 250,000 per the April 14th denoted hits to over 9,000,000 on one YouTube video alone with dozens of more videos of her performance available with thousands of hits (even millions and hundreds of thousands) on each individual one. Readers would be better served with access to her personal information, and the ability for editors to update her site from this one as she gains in popularity with the release of a CD rather than recreating this site from scratch in a few months. We keep sites for those events and persons in history who receive less than 9,000,000 hits of interest in three days. This seems the definition of some notoriety. I first watched her on FoxNews. She has also been on MSNBC (news outlet and internet sites), CNN, NBC, and ABC. She is already denoted on the website of the little town and in other places from the London Times, Kansas City Star, Undercover Music News, and 2,390,000 fan sites that have sprung up since 04/11/09 on this woman as of today 04/15/09. Editors have been busy. For reference, United States President Woodrow Wilson has had 4,530,000 sites denoting him and he has been dead fifty years before the internet began.

The idea that the merger and deletion votes would over-rule these reasons for keeping this article is inappropriate. Keep votes during this small time period demonstrate that this is not an non-controversial deletion, so proposed deletion process rules need not apply. Those who propose a merger could list it there, however, the cut and paste repairs would be more time consuming.

These articles referencing her from her city to Cowell or BGT to her own page are not written in the same language. Their articles do not cover the same information. The one on her is a better collection of her personally. The page does not need a redirect. The articles appear tagged appropriately. The articles do not appear to have copyright violations. It is not patent nonsense, rather historiography in nature. This does not appear to be a sandbox test run. It is blatantly not vandalism, recreated from deleted material, or by banned users. There appears to be no technical deletions needed and none of it appears to be dependent on a non-existent page or deleted page. So why kill her dream?slm1202000 (talk) 03:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Re-write has helped. X-Y's are not inherently notable for articles, but this one certainly is now. Many "delete" calls now changes. Strength of overwhelming Keep arguments and article is now significant (non-admin closure) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australia–Uruguay relations[edit]

Australia–Uruguay relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Yet another in a line of unsourced, "X-Y relations" stubs. In this instance, Australia and Uguguay are a long way away from each other and don't seem to have any overlapping diplomatic interests. This topic does not pass any of the notability guidelines when one considers this topic on its own; yes, newspaper articles can be found that ministers from australia and uruguay have exchanged hearty handshakes and pleasantries together, but this diplomatic relationship is not one of verifiable notability. That something can be verfied does not make it independently notable. Bali ultimate (talk) 11:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read the links carefully and i disagree. Why don't you generate some content with those links and put that in the article rather than just throwing up a bunch of blue numbers?Bali ultimate (talk) 12:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually thats not a bad idea, I bet I could even make a DYK out of this. -Marcusmax(speak) 13:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete The article in it's current state does not talk about relations between Australia and Uruguay. Basically it just says that the countries have consulates in the other country, and that they're part of 2 common organizations. Hardly encyclopedic material. Most of the links given in the talk page are not independent of the subject, and those that are would probably come under WP:NOT#NEWS as non-notable news events. Antivenin 14:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Give the links another look down if i cannot use government sources and also news sources then what other sources would you consider as "independent" thanks -Marcusmax(speak) 14:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc. I don't think government sources are independent of the subject, as they aren't written from a NPOV. News sources are ideal, but the incidents covered by the news sources are not individually notable, though I might be wrong here. Antivenin 16:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for giving it another look over, one of my biggest weaknesses is sourcing but I think for now we have just enough to prove there is just enough to make this notable. I am going to add more into the economy section as I have found some article, and books on something called the "Uruguay table" that affected Australia pretty substantially. -Marcusmax(speak) 16:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. The rewritten article establishes notability pretty well. Antivenin 16:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please take a moment to look the article over as I have updated it. -Marcusmax(speak) 15:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article improved, revoking delete argument. WWGB (talk) 06:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked, reiterate delete. That things are verifiable don't make them subjects in and of themselves.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for cleaning it up a little I appreciate it, but the only real issue in this is the fishing incident, everything else is just basic facts. I am all for getting rid of a large chunk of these x-y stub articles but this one here is much better referenced and even has some context to it in comparison to the others. -Marcusmax(speak) 23:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But what exactly takes the fishing incident out of the realm of news and into that of an event with encyclopedic notability? Has anyone mentioned it since its immediate aftermath? Has it appeared in any latterly-published studies of Australia-Uruguay relations? - Biruitorul Talk 00:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks I appreciate it. -Marcusmax(speak) 00:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete (WP:SNOW). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruthless (Ace Hood album)[edit]

Ruthless (Ace Hood album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced speculation. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. PROD was removed. --GedUK  10:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm against a deletion. This article's sources can be improved. There are enough album articles that are not even sourced. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 21:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete (WP:CSD#G11, WP:CSD#G12). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goudy Pro Font[edit]

Goudy Pro Font (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'm not so sure if I'm wrong here, but this comes up as not notable in my eyes. It's very minimally source (fails WP:RS), and lacks an intro (fails WP:LEAD). Dylan620 Wishes you a Happy Easter! 10:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Transwiki. Based on the comments, there is an consensus to transwiki, as Wiktionary and Wikibooks are not interested, the third most popular option is Wikiversity. MBisanz talk 05:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ISO 639-1 language matrix[edit]

ISO 639-1 language matrix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is useful, but not encyclopedic. Maybe a transwiki to b: or v:, or meta? — This, that, and the other 10:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete due to WP:NOT and sourcing issues. MBisanz talk 05:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honorverse concepts and terminology[edit]

Honorverse concepts and terminology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced in-universe trivia and plot summary. No indication these ideas -- individually or as a whole -- are notable. Fails WP:GNG, WP:RS, WP:PLOT, WP:IINFO and WP:DICT. --EEMIV (talk) 09:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Of course it's referenceable. It will be trivial to reference this to primary sources and a handful of secondary sources (reviews and the like). Hobit (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the author of the series has published a universe encyclopedia that explains all these concepts in some depth. All of this can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, although those sources are not independent so cannot be used to establish notability. JulesH (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep (speedy). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of warez groups[edit]

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

Uhhh, article issues since January two-thousand-EIGHT? I don't think so, this article is a horrible non-encyclopedic shipwreck, poorly sourced, and complete total listcruft! DELETE. JBsupreme (talk) 07:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wang, Wallace (2004-10-25). Steal this File Sharing Book (1st ed.). San Francisco, California: No Starch Press. ISBN 978-1-59327-050-6.
  • Craig, Paul; Honick, Ron (April 2005). Burnett, Mark (ed.). Software Piracy Exposed. Rockland, Massachusetts: Syngress Publishing. ISBN 978-1-932266-98-6.
  • Piccard, Paul; Baskin, Brian; Edwards, Craig; Spillman, George (July 2005). Sachs, Marcus (ed.). Securing IM and P2P Applications for the Enterprise. foreword by Kevin Beaver (1st ed.). Rockland, Massachusetts: Syngress Publishing. ISBN 978-1-59749-017-7.
--Tothwolf (talk) 04:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go cry someone else a river Tothwolf, this list is horribly non-encyclopedic and the verifiability issues that it has cannot be resolved through the normal editing process. The groups which are verifiable and noteworthy should be able to sustain their own articles. Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for garbage like this. The books you refer to are great, and should be added into the main Warez article but have very little to do with this list. JBsupreme (talk) 05:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep as there is not a WP:SNOWballs chance in WP:HELL this will be deleted, this time. JBsupreme (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Damian McBride[edit]

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

This person appears to be only "notable" for one particular (albeit very amusing) scandal; they appear to have done little interesting otherwise... anyway, the only source material is news coverage of this one event. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 07:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert E. Aufuldish[edit]

Robert E. Aufuldish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable local politician Kevin (talk) 07:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable local politician who fails WP:POLITICIAN as the councils he has been elected to are too small to meet notability requirements. Valenciano (talk) 16:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was: Speedy delete per A9 Skier Dude (talk) 03:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thorn EP[edit]

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

I see no indication this is a notable band or album, one that satisfies WP:MUSIC. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Courtney penn[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE due to no Olympic Games or World Championships competition Habanero-tan (talk) 06:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obamacide[edit]

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

Contested Prod. Apparently fails WP:MUSIC and WP:RS. Also see Jesus Disciple and The Case for Christ (song). OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 06:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the song had almost 3,000 plays on MySpace and 15,830 views on YouTube. The trailer for it also received over 30,000. I'd say that's pretty good for an independent artist. The video has been posted all over the internet and the song/video were featured by Rock For Life on their website and also included on a Compilation they put out with 5,000 copies printed. - http://rockforlife.org/blog.php?id=2489DepravedWretch (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually, those numbers are really small, even for an independent artist. Powers T 15:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, numbers like this don't really prove much; see WP:BIGNUMBER. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B-places[edit]

B-places (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Promotional article about a non-notable website. I can find no coverage in reliable secondary sources. Reyk YO! 06:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Lake[edit]

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

Non-notable contestant which she didn't won The Apprentice. I'm questionable for usage of ONEEVENT. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 04:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Speedy spam --GedUK  14:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B-Reel[edit]

B-Reel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fairly spammish article about an obscure company. The article does assert notability, but I can't find anything substantial on Google. Reyk YO! 06:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Case for Christ (song)[edit]

The Case for Christ (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unremarkable single with no WP:RS. Also see Jesus Disciple and Obamacide. OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 06:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete due to insufficient sourcing. MBisanz talk 05:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Treecat[edit]

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

Entirely unreferenced in-universe trivia and plot summary. No assertion of notability. Google/Google Books searches yield only primary sources, wiki(a) and fan sites. Article and list fail WP:GNG, WP:RS, WP:PLOT, WP:IINFO. --EEMIV (talk) 05:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mianus (neighborhood)[edit]

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

No sources, and the notability and even existence of the topic are questionable. Much of the article's "notability" seems to arise from the place's (supposed) appearance on "Jackass", and as such the majority of the edits to the article are vandalism based on this. scooteytalk 05:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Tarek William Saab. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tarek Saab[edit]

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

Person of unnotable contestant he didn't won the show. I guess that fails ONEEVENT. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 04:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this article is about The Apprentice 5 contestant. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 14:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge - target for merge to be discussed on article talkpage. Certainly consensus to merge - the question is where. Can those in the know determine a suitable location (even if it's a brand-new article) during Talk on the article talkpage (non-admin closure) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Esla (Anglo-Saxon king)[edit]

Esla (Anglo-Saxon king) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. Individual is just a name in an old pedigree, between two other people who are nothing but names in the pedigree. There is no evidence that the person existed, let alone being an Anglo-Saxon king, and the scholarly consensus is that the whole pedigree was concocted. Agricolae (talk) 03:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Likewise, with the cited book (Reno) there are problems. First, all entries deal with Elesa, not Elsa. These, supposedly, are distinct individuals. Elsa is only named as father of Elesa, which doesn't count since notability is not inherited. It also should not pass without comment that the author's hypothesis is . . . , well . . . , "unique" would be a polite word. He is taking several people with distinct names and distinct pedigrees from distinct legends of distinct cultures and deciding they are all identical. This is WP:FRINGE, not WP:RS. Many web sites do name him, all repeating the same pedigree. They know him simply as father of Elesa and son of Gewis. However, it has been generally accepted among the scholarly community that this pedigree is a construct. Based on Sisam's reconstruction, the name Elsa arose in that pedigree through first a forgery (or scribal error) that transferred the name Aloc from the Bernicia royal pedigree to that of Wessex. Perhaps at the same time, the name changed from Aloc to Elesa consistent with the regional linguistic differences between Bernicia and Wessex. Finally, it was duplicated, giving Elsa and Elesa to establish an alliterative rhyming scheme to the descent. It is all fiction. No Elsa ever existed, and the best scholarship on the subject unambiguously rejects him. Even if he did exist, he is just a name in a pedigree, which does not provide notability. Agricolae (talk) 06:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep (WP:SNOW). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hata Model for Urban Areas[edit]

Hata Model for Urban Areas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I cannot find sources to back up this article and its half-gibberish statements. Ipatrol (talk) 01:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

which gave me, respectively, 237 and 755 hits. Or in other words, there's no shortage of possible sources if more are needed. This article has been around since 2006, and the "half-gibberish" comment may say more about the nomination than it does about the article. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. If an article has featured article status, as this one does, it probably should not be deleted unless it has first gone through a featured article review and been demoted; otherwise, we would be deleting an article considered to be one of the best in Wikipedia. Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Tritter[edit]

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

Michael Tritter is a minor Character who only appeared in 7 episodes of House MD. this charachter is sufficiently covered in List of House characters, and fails to be notable enough to have it's own article ... MistyWillows talk 01:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As sourced in the article, the fact that the character was nominated for an Emmy doesn't hurt the case for notability either. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The actor was nominated for an Emmy, not the character. and most the references are just fansite references, You can find as much for every contestant on America's Next Top Model, many of whom have had their articles deleted. Currently, there is an AfD for Katarzyna Dolinska, who do you think is more notable Michael Tritter or Katarzyna Dolinska? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misty Willows (talk • contribs) 02:56, 12 April 2009
Was there an actual argument there or are you just going to say WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and expect it sway me?Umbralcorax (talk) 03:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hunh. It was a featured article. I never even noticed that. Umbralcorax (talk) 04:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yu Yu Hakusho:Old Rivals,New Problems[edit]

Yu Yu Hakusho:Old Rivals,New Problems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable episode of a television series. Might be notable within the context of the series, but I do not believe it has real-world notability, so it would be more appropriate as part of the main article. I considered merging it to the main article and redirecting the current page to there, but 1) there is not really any content to merge, it's mostly just a two-line plot summary; and 2) the current title has incorrect spacing after the punctuation, making it a very unlikely search term, so there's no use having a redirect. Article creator contested the prod, which is why I'm bringing it to AfD. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

update Apparently this is not a regular episode of the series, but some other kind of DVD. Anyway, my rationale still holds: if there is anything to merge upwards then it can be merged, but the current naming is an unlikely search term so it should be deleted afterwards. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Boylestad[edit]

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

Subject requests deletion (OTRS 2009032610045579). No personal opinion. BJTalk 01:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I normally am not in favor of deleting stubs just because they are stubs but it is sounding from the discussion above that this article will end up a WP:Permastub--after all, the man is retired, so it seems doubtful more material will come in. The one good source for this page is written in detail about Boylestad's book, but mentions nothing about him as a person. The book, it is hard to dispute, is notable. I see a lot gained (esp. since he has requested deletion!) and little lost by deleting this page and creating a page for the book. Cazort (talk) 14:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But there's more than one book. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's so important how many notable books he's authored...as it is that there are sources covering him as an individual. I have seen many bio's of living persons deleted in cases where there was much more direct coverage than in this case. Especially, again, since this guy requested deletion, it seems outright cruel to argue to keep the page when people are deleting pages with more coverage left and right. Cazort (talk) 00:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's important that there's more than one book because, if there were only one book, we could suggest redirecting to an article about that book, but with more than one that doesn't make sense. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we couldn't cleanly redirect, but that doesn't make him any more notable as a person. The issue I'm most concerned with is that there there is extremely sparse material in reliable sources offering any sort of biographical information. Do you agree with my comment above that this will probably end up as a permastub, and just think it's ok to keep such an article? Or do you see some genuine potential for expansion here? Cazort (talk) 17:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any rational reason for deleting permastubs. They still contain some useful sourced information; why is it a problem that there isn't a large amount of information all in one place? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Europe and India, University professors teach only graduate courses at graduate centers. The meaning in the US is different - A full professor also teaches undergraduate and graduate courses. Many teach just the undergraduate classes. Teaching at a community college is as good as teaching the 1st 2 years of undergraduate classes. An institution in the US without graduate courses may be called as a university or a college may have graduate courses.

I do not know how emeritus professor is defined in a community college. I suggest contributors adding more stuff to this article. In summary, there is no difference whether someone is teaching KG classes or graduate classes. They all amount to some kind of teaching and this guy's teaching experince is well acounted. I'll stick to my vote - all roads go to Rome. --Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 01:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emeritus merely means retired; from the directory listing he was Full Professor. From the LC catalog, he was born in 1939. DGG (talk) 16:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.

--Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 09:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John K. Melvin[edit]

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

Biography of a living person that no one has been able to provide a verifiable reference for, even though it has been tagged for notability for 18 months. Trying to rectify this myself, I found that Google News had zero articles on this person. Edit history, and related info suggests main contributor may be subject himself. ike9898 (talk) 00:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy Interactive, Inc.[edit]

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

Spamy article created by the company. Only has a single notable award, from .net magazine which is the only reliable source for the article. BJTalk 00:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By pointing out this edit you are making an argument for WP:Semiprotection, not deletion. The fact that a page is used for blatant advertisement by special interests is never in itself grounds for deletion. Otherwise we'd be deleting the pages on all major corporations! Cazort (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More