< 12 February	14 February >

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

The result was redirect to List of Home Improvement characters. Cirt (talk) 08:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson (Home Improvement)[edit]

Delete. Absolutely non-notable and nothing more than TV trivia. George Pelltier (talk) 05:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge important character in a long running prime time sitcom. RMHED. 17:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Home Improvement characters. Everything valuable is already on that page. There seems to be no need for a separate article, unless some one has more information than can conveniently fit there.Cool3 (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go with redirect to List of Home Improvement characters, even though none of the content either in this article or that list is sourced. I'd recommend that folks start supplying reliable sources that verify the information about, and establish the notability of, these Home Improvement characters if they want the material to remain. Deor (talk) 02:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Had this been a sourced article with a critical discussion of the character (which, by the way, is as "major" as Al, Jill, or the Taylor children), I would have recommended a "keep." But this "in-universe" article is not appropriate for Wikipedia. B.Wind (talk) 03:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge whatever can best be included in the Wilson section of the main article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monster Rancher monsters[edit]

Game-cruft which is entirely in-universe information, and unreferenced. It also describes minor characters, which goes against the notability criteria. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Recurring monsters from a rather long series of games and a TV show. In concept it's a proper character list and has the same basis to be included as the lists of Pokemon. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 05:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Query — what happened to the merger proposal for this? I would argue for a procedural close for sake of actually going through the merger proposal there, but, for the sake of this AFD I will say smerge any verifiable material to Monster Rancher, at least until we know what is verifiable and what isn't (hint: a lot it seems to be original research—stuff we cannot keep here; however we must be certain that is isn't. MuZemike 07:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article looks fine to me. A merge is the same as delete. There is no way to move over all a reasonable bit of that into the main article. Whenever people say Merge, it always ends in delete anyway. Dream Focus 16:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge doesn't necessarily mean merge all content. When a selective merge is performed, yes it can be anywhere from a 1-99% merge, so a 5% keep could be considered a delete I guess, but some information is still kept. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To go further than Kratos some Keep are Pyrrhic victory for those who supported the Keep. Worst example is a Manga article lacking review can have its content verifiability contested or even deleted as without review you may prove the manga exist but you can hardly prove that the content in term of the plot and characters isn't utter bullshit. Yes that very back-handed but i assure you that you will have the utmost difficulty to prove the content. --KrebMarkt 20:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why it is within the Anime/Manga project scope ? I noticed that the parent-article is not within our scope. --KrebMarkt 21:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a Monster Rancher anime series (and a manga too I think) where a lot these characters appear. All the MR articles seem to be horribly maintained, which is most likely why it's not categorized and stuff. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That one will need one ad-hoc task force to put it back to shape. At least this one is reasonable number of article wise. I'm inclined to keep, trim the OR, cross-source between games and anime and add citations from RS reviews telling how much the monsters are an important part and/or great part of the games and anime. Yea, i will vote keep if people can bring 3 or more of those citations, enough materials to start a reinforced concrete quality reception section at the bottom of the list. --KrebMarkt 07:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contra the nominator's assertion, these are not "minor characters" but the main point of the series: the monsters that are ranched. Given the mechanics of gameplay is focused on working with these characters, and a quick scan of searches validates the series article's assertion of popularity and, more importantly, well-reviewed, I am entirely confident that enough quotes can be extracted from reviews to establish that the monsters themselves are an encyclopedic topic. Needs massive cleanup, OR-pruning, and hella better sourcing, but a clear keep and remand to the video games wikiproject. Bad quality is not a reason to delete -- it's a reason to clean it up. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cough...I was lazy WP:NOEFFORT ;) There are a bunch of review about the games most positive (The Neo is so-so), i was just too lazy to look for exact citations mentioning the monsters or the monster related gameplay. --KrebMarkt 20:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I'll trust Quasirandom's above comment that this is well-reviewed. If this can be cleaned up and all original research removed, then deletion is not really the right course of action for this. MuZemike 19:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve - These are not minor characters and this is a sufficiently successfully franchise that finding sources shouldn't be a problem. It just needs a lot of work. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Junior Football League[edit]

Hoax article. The ((db-vandalism)) tag was added by Bhockey10 (talk · contribs), and it was removed from the article and prodded by Sjakkalle (talk · contribs). An IP de-prodded the article so I have brought it to AfD. A Google search for the football league and its founder, Harry Rowman, returns only Wikipedia. This club is either a hoax or a non-notable club that fails WP:ORG. Cunard (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoaxilicious! The lack of proof and the SPA contribution notwithstanding, this is an elaborate fantasy. I think it's cool that all but one of the 10 teams has won the Rowman Cup over the last 10 seasons-- Tucson Vipers, if you were real, I'd be betting on you to make it this year! Mandsford (talk) 02:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Daniel Case (talk) 04:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete THIS IS A HOAX! nothing in this article exists (execpt for the cities the fake teams are in). I don't know WHY this wasn't a speedy delete case! Batant Hoax!--Bhockey10 (talk) 04:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My finger was itching to speedy delete it when I saw the speedy tag, but I'm afraid the content was not patently ridiculous. Anyway, there is no evidence that this league exists. Sanction the creator for wasting time in creating the article, and more time for forcing this AFD discussion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hoax. — neuro^(talk) 13:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

conclusion I think we all agree this is a hoax article, if an admin sees this page: let's close this discussion and get this filth off wikipedia.--Bhockey10 (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Rose Kelly[edit]

Non-notable... lots of prose (including a fair number of redlinks) but nothing that jumps out to qualify under WP:MUSIC. Tabercil (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. According to the IMDB (the one source given that could have established her notability), most of her movie roles are uncredited. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If big dreams counted....but they don't.Vartanza (talk) 23:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 08:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Briskfox[edit]

I can't work out if this is notable or not from the references because I can't read Greek or Turkish. A few days back a speedy tag was removed so I let it run hoping something would happen to it. Nothing did. I'm bringing it here for a verdict. Since I am not sure about the article and company I'd better state that this is a neutral nomination simply to get an answer! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I also can't read Greek or Turkish, but I can see that the reference that's in the Greek alphabet points to a home page, rather than to a specific article, and that the references in the Latin alphabet don't mention the subject. Any notable "major international publisher and conference company" would certainly get plenty of hits from a Google search in the Latin alphabet, but this gets nothing. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

note that people keep removing the AfD banner from the article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wasn't able to find anything either. Of the references given in the article, the first two are not links to specific articles, but the front pages of online newspapers. Neither had any search results for BriskFox or likely transliterations, and I couldn't find anywhere obvious on the company's site indicating their Greek or Turkish name to search for. (The third ref, as Phil Bridger mentions above, is completely irrelevant to the company's notability.) —Korath (Talk) 14:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, non-notable if it even exists. Edward321 (talk) 15:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a "major" publisher would have a web presence. This does not. It's an ad, at best. J L G 4 1 0 4 02:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. BryanG (talk) 22:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Florida State Fair[edit]

Article provides little to no context, and little to no content. Article had been submitted for Speedy deletion, but another contributor removed the tag.

Also worthy of noting that a search on Google only brings up promotional pages, and no secondary source. Deenoe 22:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --Deenoe 22:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep - being a short article is not a reason for deletion. The leading sentance "The Florida State Fair is an annual State fair held at the Florida State Fairgrounds in Tampa, Florida." supplies enough context to identify its subject (the deletion criteria it was originally nominated for). A state fair with an attendance of over 400,000 people will pass the notability guideline once work on expansion begins. Note the article was nominated for deletion 10 minutes after it was created. Did you bother to search google news rather than just google?--kelapstick (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawal --Deenoe 22:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 08:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall MG30DFX[edit]

Delete nothing to indicate that this product is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Marshall Amplification.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd suggest mergeing if there were actually any content to merge, but there isn't. JulesH (talk) 07:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Is it not better to just PROD these? Curious. §FreeRangeFrog 19:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly how I'd have approached it. JulesH (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's nothing to merge, and I'm not sure that the title would be a worthwhile redirect. B.Wind (talk) 04:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLACKOUT (improv)[edit]

Lack of notability, no reliable sources. Reads like blatant advertising Beagel (talk) 19:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete Agree, advertising. One of the two "references" is to a self posted advert.Vulture19 (talk) 00:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks very self-promotional, without even looking at the references. The fact the group's name is capitalized throughout the entire article is a tell-tale sign of WP:COI at the very least. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Nothing on the internet except a few show announcements.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Comedysportz since it is a troupe that performs at that theater in Chicago. SMSpivey (talk) 06:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 00:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pulickaparampil[edit]

Contested prod. Article is a family history/genealogy. No reliable sources provided, none found. I am hard-pressed to see how this family is notable. TN X Man 18:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability established for family or any of its members. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not assert notability. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, no external sources. LK (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NNVulture19 (talk) 00:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability, a quick search indicates the same. — neuro^(talk) 13:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Family is not famous, therefore not deserving of an article. Belongs on a family tree website. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No support for deletion in this AFD, this should not prevent a decision on merging/redirecting being agreed by consensus on the talk page if individual notability cannot be established. Davewild (talk) 08:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Rocky Start[edit]

Delete - no independent reliable sources indicate that this individual episode has any notability beyond the series. Attempts to deal with the various episode articles have been unsuccessful because of unsubstantiated and unsustainable claims of individual notability for every single episode. Otto4711 (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unless single episodes of all shows are to be deleted, the article is as at least as coherent as any other, and there are a few things in the article that indicate how it is different from other episodes.Vulture19 (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of other articles has absolutely no bearing on the existence of this article, as each article on Wikipedia must meet our policies and guidelines on its own. Our policies and guidelines require that there be reliable sources that are independent of the subject in order to meet our notability guideline. Do you know of any such sources which would justify the retention of this article? If so, please list them here. We are not required to delete every article for every individual television episode in order to delete this one. That is not how AFD works. Otto4711 (talk) 10:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are not required to delete any articles for individual television episodes, in fact the WP:EPISODE#Dealing with problem articlesepisode guideline recommends against it. Any verifiable episode title is a potential redirect, so at worst we should turn the article into a redirect, even if there is nothing worth merging. Bringing episode articles to AfD is a waste of time. DHowell (talk) 05:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, writing episode articles without sources, and then gnashing one's teeth at AFD rather than helping to send the message that episode articles need sources just like every other article is a waste of time. If the result of this AFD is redirect then fine, redirect the article. But to !vote keep on an article that is bereft of reliable sources demonstrates that those in favor of keeping either don't know or don't care about our policies and guidelines and result in an overall weakening of the project. Otto4711 (talk) 16:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are over 165,000 pages in Category:All articles lacking sources. Why the focus on episode articles? Why don't you find one of the articles lacking sources that you can find sources for and start improving them? It's not that we don't know or don't care about policies and guidelines, it's that we believe your hyperenforcement of these policies and guidelines hinders us "from improving or maintaining Wikipedia". Ignoring certain interpretations of policies and guidelines in such a case is policy; extreme rule enforcement is actually what results in a "weakening of the project". DHowell (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you're suggesting that no articles can be brought to AFD unless all articles are brought to AFD? Point me to where it says that editors are somehow constrained from bringing articles that have no independent notability to AFD unless they bring all such articles to AFD. And excuse me, but this is not about me, and even if it were, even a cursory stroll through my edit history would show the hundreds of articles for which I have found sources and expanded accordingly. Let's focus on the nomination and not the nominator, shall we? Or by focusing on me are you acknowledging the lack of notability of this individual episode after all? Otto4711 (talk) 10:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and then consider whether to Merge into a suitable article or list of episodes. Such should be the default way to deal with these, and it does not take AfD. Of course, the decision may be against merging, as it apparently was. Myself, I'd tend to merge, but the people working with the articles should decide. Attempts to establish a policy that articles like this should be deleted have repeatedly failed to obtain consensus, and merge attempts tend to fail because content almost always gets removed to less than a base minimum. Trying to establish a policy for merging with retention of full content might have better success. This nomination is an attempt to KeepTryingVariousForumsUntilYouGetYourWay. It's just as bad as repeatedly nominating in the hope that by chance, onedecision will be for deletion. . I note there is very little plot discussion, & it seems to be cut off in the middle of a sentence; I think a good deal more should be added, but that's for the article talk p. too. There also are 3rd party references. DGG (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, thanks once again for your assumption of good faith regarding the reason that I put this up for nomination. Always so nice to be accused of skullduggery. BTW, exactly which of the listed sources discuss this particular episode (as opposed to discussing the series as a whole) in a significant fashion as required by WP:N? Or are you finally such an extreme inclusionist that actual policies and guidelines don't figure into your desire to keep anything and everything? Otto4711 (talk) 19:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can the nom provide links to his asertion that "attempts to deal with the various episode articles have been unsuccessful because of unsubstantiated and unsustainable claims of individual notability for every single episode"? Links that show claims to have been "unsubstantiated and unsustainable"? And if that were the case, were these other articles kept for some other reason than being "unsubstantiated and unsustainable"? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the article history. Now, can you provide any reliable sources that offer significant coverage of this particular episode as required by WP:N? No? Oh. Otto4711 (talk) 01:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC) ::::[reply]

Which ones? Your assertion "attempts to deal with the various episode articles have been unsuccessful because of unsubstantiated and unsustainable claims of individual notability for every single episode" seems a rather broad WP:WAX brush with which to paint this one AfD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask again: Can you provide any reliable sources that offer significant coverage of this particular episode as required by WP:N? This is a very simple question, which can be answered in three ways. Either "yes, here are the sources", "no, I have no sources" or dodging the question entirely, which amounts to admitting that you have no sources. Given your continued failure to offer sources and to divert attention away from it, I take it that your answer is number three. Otto4711 (talk) 16:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you will not answer my reasonable question and immediately demand I answer a different one of yours, it is obvious who is "dodging" a question. Editors were working on the article. Without discussion, you deleted all their work and set a redirect. When these editors returned the article and continued to work toward its improvement, you immediately and without discussion sent it to AfD in violation of Policy. The ultimate improvement of Wikipedia is everyone's goal, and tossing articles to the ash heap AS THEY ARE BEING EDITED, acts as a disservice to editors trying to do just that. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So then, you are unable to offer any reliable sources that are significantly about this individual episode. Got it. Otto4711 (talk) 10:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Guideline allows a seperate article when addition of this information into the parent article would overburden. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:N, individual episodes must have reliable sources that establish their notability independent of the series. Per WP:EPISODE the progression is Series article, then season article if there is sourcing, then episode articles if and only if there are independent reliable sources that significantly cover the specific episodes. In the absence of such sources, notability is not established. There is no exception to WP:N based on the length of the series article, and unverifiable information should not be added to the series article either. Otto4711 (talk) 01:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N is a guideline. there are ALWAYS exceptions to guideline. Alternatives that improve Wikipedia are encouraged by the caveat that opens every page of guideline. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, which part of the requirement of reliable sources allows for an exception for articles for which there are no reliable sources? Otto4711 (talk) 10:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per Michael, DGG, and Otto4711. Ikip (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I proposed the article for deletion. You may want to, you know, read the AFD one more time. You do realize that "strong keep" doesn't actually mean anything, right? It's not like an admin is going to look at your comment and go, "well, he can offer no sources that support the notability of this individual episode, but Ikip feels real strong about it so let's ignore the lack of sources!" Otto4711 (talk) 01:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment With respects toward your the concern for notability, wouldn't it have been prudent to have tagged the article for such and discussed its needs on its talk page? Your initial attention to the article was to set it as a redirect without discussion. When that was reverted, you sent it immediately to AfD. Since our goal here is to improve wikipedia, how about letting folks adress the untagged issues? If they do not satisfy your concerns, it can always be tossed back into the ash bin. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before I redirect or nominate an article I always search for sources that might establish the notability of the subject. If no such sources appear to exist, then I redirect it or nominate it. Re this article, no sources that significantly cover this individual episode appear to exist. Is discussing the non-existence of sources on the talk page going to make such sources suddenly come into existence? Of course not. Now, the possibility certainly exists that I have somehow managed to overlook sources, I don't claim to be infallible. During the course of this AFD, those in favor of keeping the article are certainly free to locate such sources and bring them to the attention of the community. If such sources are located before the close of the AFD, then great, my bad. If not, then the article should be deleted. Should such sources become available in the future, there are processes for recreating the article. Otto4711 (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without any discussion on the talk page?? Without even a courtesy tag which would have given editors notice that you felt it did not meet guidelines? Without giving due consideration that would have allowed others to at least try (as they began to after your failed Redirect), rather than forcing a mad scramble? With respects, once the Redirect was overturned was removed by those editors involved in improving the article, your immediately tossing it undiscused into an AfD does not quite feel right... as if you did not want anyone to even try to bring it into line. And if an article is deleted, how might someone even know it existed, unless they knew beforehand? And why then force someone to figure out how to get something they never even knew once existed recreated if it could have simply have been corrected before it was tossed into the trashbin? Doesn't a tag for concerns and allowing it to then be addressed better serve the project? Even with there being no NO DEADLINE for this to be done? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before you clutch your bosom and reach for the smelling salts, can you indicate which reliable sources out there offer significant coverage of this individual episode? Otto4711 (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful. Not helpful, and quite colorful. You still have not answered the cogent question. Deletion Policy (not guideline) indicates that unless an article meet the criteria for speedy deletion, discussions about possible improvements or concerns about an article be undertaken on the artice's talk page. Further, Policy (not guideline) indicates that in these discussions, alternatives to deletion be considered and discussed. Policy (not guideline) also indicates that an article that seems lacking be suitably tagged for guideline concerns to allow editors to address and discuss the issued before it being sent to deletion. You failed to follow these Policies in your wish to enforce an interpretation of guideline. Even if it is found that this article fails guideline, you did not follow the protocols set by Policy, and continue to pointedly ignore questions about your violation of policy. You made a decision to redirect and when this was overturned immediately made a decision to delete. All without discussion on an article that was actively in the process of being improved by others. There were involved editors with whom this could have been discussed per POLICY. Are you above policy? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So then, I take it the answer to my question is that you are unable to provide any reliable sources that establish the notability of this individual episode. Otto4711 (talk) 10:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and decide whether to merge elsewhere. The talk page is currently a redlink, and this appears to be the entirety of his discussion with the editor who reverted his redirect. The "discuss" part of bold, revert, discuss does not mean "immediately bring to AfD"; AfD is not part of our dispute resolution process. DHowell (talk) 05:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So I take it that you have heretofore unrevealed reliable sources that offer significant coverage of this individual episode? What are they? Either produce them or stop being such a process queen. Whether I did or didn't discuss this on the talk page, on the street corner outside my house or on Meet the Press, the point still stands that there are no reliable sources that significantly cover this individual episode.

I don't at this time, but British sitcoms are not my area of expertise, and I don't have access to British public libraries that might have such sources. I am also not the editor who reverted your redirect—have you tried asking nicely instead of threatening deletion? I also note that there are four WikiProjects listed at Talk:The Green Green Grass, which may be in a better position to find sources than the average AfD contributor. I am amused by being called a "process queen" from someone who appears to file AfDs in order to demand reliable sources in 5 days, to satisfy your own extreme notions of "significance", or else. DHowell (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you acknowledge the lack of reliable sources and pin your faint hopes on the idea that maybe there are sources out there somewhere. See, that's not the standard for articles. "Significance" has nothing to do with my AFDs. Notability does. Unfortunately there are far too many editors like yourself who care nothing about improving the quality of the project and who want to keep everything, regardless of its lack of notability as supported by reliable sourcing. Otto4711 (talk) 10:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG .Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A bit of effort to track down one of the series references led me to an episode specific reference, which I included in the article; there's at least a reasonable chance that multiple such (presumably independent and reliable) sources exist. At any rate, there's certainly enough left to merge to a season/series list of episodes article, for which AfD is not needed--per DGG. Jclemens (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your supposed episode-specific reference comes from a website that describes itself as an "online reference and community website for fans of British comedy", which hardly sounds like it meets the requirements of WP:RS. Otto4711 (talk) 10:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a list of episodes article, as per the usual custom. Jtrainor (talk) 01:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A30 matriline[edit]

lacks notability , zero reliable 3rd party sources. Rtphokie (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's notable, and there are plenty of sources available from Google Scholar alone due to the fact that this group has been heavily studied. The article should be expanded and more references should added, but the article should not be deleted. Rlendog (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not sure why the two references already in the article wouldn't be considered reliable, they both look reasonable to me. JulesH (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tracking and identifying of these pods furthers the understanding of the species. There are a few books and numerous web resources available. The article needs some attention, is all.Vulture19 (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources appear reliable to me. It's of specialist interest, true, but it does seem notable within its field. Anaxial (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources seem fine. One of the advantages of not being paper is that specialist subjects can be covered in detail. Whales don't have to explode to be notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. Alexf^(talk) 18:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Fargue[edit]

French article about an Argentinian footballer, who is apparently responsible for Paris Saint-Germain F.C. not losing a single game while he played for them, despite the fact he was only added to that article this afternoon, [1] and has zero relevant ghits, and who has now retired to date various models and save the world economy Jac16888 ^Talk 18:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as HOAX: no evidence this person exists, article content appears to be nonsense, would be mentioned in reliable sources if he were real. Baileypalblue (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gael_"El_Nino"_Jacquot, created by the same SPA. Baileypalblue (talk) 19:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. The creator certainly never heard of Zinédine Zidane. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax. Lectonar (talk) 10:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. The article is obviously a hoax. --Badmotorfinger (talk) 17:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax. Giant Snowman 20:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 07:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Washer[edit]

Biography lacks any independent sources. It relies entirely on the subject himself to prove his own notability. Article was given time to improve, and remains inadequate. Rob (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject of the article doesn't seem to be noteworthy, and the article almost reads like a resume. On the other hand, HeartCry Missionary Society may meet notability guidelines, even though most of the google hits I saw didn't reach much beyond the missionary web rings.Vulture19 (talk) 00:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep – The article has one RS, and more should be added. His organization probably can establish notability, and sources probably can be found for it. But yes, it needs some re-writing and better sourcing. TheAE talk/sign 22:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the reliable source? The article cites Paul Washer's own writing in three cases, the HeartCry web site in two cases, and in one case it cites an event listing in the The Manhattan Mercury (basically an advertisement). If the Manhattan Mercury covered the event, or the mission, or Washer, that would count. But there's no actual coverage. As far as I can tell, everything that mentions him, comes from him. --Rob (talk) 01:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per Rob. Doesn't seem to be any RS differentiating him from any other evangelist. I'd like to think there's a place on Wikipedia for this person, but not right now. Spinach Monster (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a self-promoting minor sensation on the evangelism circuit with just about zero independent coverage. Someday, maybe. Not yet. J L G 4 1 0 4 02:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources, too much (apparent) self-promotion. B.Wind (talk) 04:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No assertion of notability. I did a quick google, and the best I got was this. doesn't quite cut it, unfortunately. yandman 08:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Altsoft[edit]

While the article is being created under WP guidelines (including an OTRS ticket to use the company's PR material), this is still a corporate advertisement. The company does not meet WP:CORP in any way; no indication of notability is given other than the mere existence of the entity. The ((underconstruction)) tag notwithstanding, this is a clear WP:CSD#A7, but pulling to AfD for consensus in recognition of the way the author is going about this. §FreeRangeFrog 17:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS is good; no comment about notability. Stifle (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the page named "Altsoft" has right to present in the Wikipedia. The article is informative and encyclopedic, it doesn't violate any copyright law and is not advertising and promotion of the company. Therewith the article is under construction.~~Aimonai~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aimonai (talk • contribs) 19:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC) — Aimonai (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - Promotional tone, no suggestion of any notability. . . Rcawsey (talk) 13:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oho, at last the guys published an article about themselves!!! I don't see any reason for article's deletion, although I use the Altsoft's product I didn't know some of the information about them. Didn't even know that it is possible to integrate Altsoft product with Gradual Switch. cool! 86.57.147.121 (talk) 21:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Non-admin speedy close of likely bad-faith nom. User:Horsenuked's only edits are to nominate this article for deletion. Please use your regular account if you want to nominate this. Mike R (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beverly Eckert[edit]

Fails WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BIO1E, WP:NOT#MEMORIAL and WP:BIO. Horsenuked (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beverly Eckert seems like a reasonable article. I'd like to know more about her, and this seems like a good way to put things together. She seems to have been an effective voice in Washington. She is all over Google, even without the current incident. I vote to keep KellyCoinGuy (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Like KellyCoinGuy says, she was newsworthy prior to the incident of 2/12/09. Nonpoint74 (talk) 17:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She seems to have been notable even before the crash for her advocacy. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 17:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Her activism pertaining to 9/11 terrorist attack against the USA, has made her notable based on wikipedia rules and regulations. Tommy Nero Sullivan (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and close. Newsworthy before the incident as an activist for Sept. 11 families, met with the President, specifically mentioned in Obama's press conference. -- Irixman ^{(t) (m)} 17:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enormo[edit]

Advertisement. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Corporate advert with no notability. §FreeRangeFrog 17:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly speedy delete as G11 - blatant advertising. KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Borderline advert, possible speedy A7 (web). -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
article was orginally created as Properazzi, and it was not considered for deletion. Why this change now? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:egarolera
- How about "it fell through the cracks?" -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As suggested above; it may have been missed before but it is primarily an advert. --Stormbay (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey S. Porter[edit]

Porter fails WP:1E as he was known exclusively for sending an email about his opinions to Barack Obama. and WP:NOT#NEWS because news coverage of the individual does not go beyond the context of the event. Tavix (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator -- WP:BLP1E applies. Ray (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E: not finding any evidence this person is notable beyond the email event. I agree that the notability of that event does not go beyond ordinary news coverage, otherwise a page move to an article about the event would be justified. Baileypalblue (talk) 18:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that WP:BLP1E clearly applies here.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A truly awful article, but that's not the point. It's hardly indiscriminate, it's verifiable, and it's a common sub-article (see other series). yandman 08:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Texas cast members[edit]

Indiscriminate and listcrufty article. This is a small, exclusive list of cast members. The list has no content beyond links to other articles, so would be better implemented as a (self-maintaining) category. Tavix (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or merge anything not mentioned in Texas (TV series) into that article. This is not indiscriminate info. It's a clearly defined topic, and easily verifiable. This information probably doesn't need to be in its own article, but that's just an issue of organization. (And a category is not a realistic option. TV cast categories are generally deleted as over-categorization.) Zagalejo^^^ 18:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Zagalego. Edward321 (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 13:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Initiation (Kung Fu: The Legend Continues)[edit]

The article contains no reliable references and I couldn't find any, so it is most likely unverifiable. Running AFD in case I happen to have overlooked any. Delete. (Not to mention the unworkable title) Mgm|^(talk) 00:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep consistent with treatment of other TV series. JJL (talk) 01:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR --Bejnar (talk) 07:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I had no difficulty finding reliable references. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When Colonel Warden says that, I generally vote keep. Do you have links C-dub? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added links to the talk page of the article, as I usually do. This is where this discussion should have taken place, per WP:BEFORE. As usual, we have the matter brought to AFD prematurely. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've added a findsources template to the talk page. None of the hits are actually reliable sources. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Los Angeles Times is a reliable source for this, for example, and there are numerous other US newspapers, as one would expect. Cue flashback...

Master Po: "Do you hear the grasshopper that is at your feet?"

Young Caine: [looking down and seeing the insect] "Old man, how is it that you hear these things?"

Master Po: "Young man, how is it that you do not?"

Colonel Warden (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ff m 16:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there do not appear to be reliable sources that establish the notability of this particular episode. The findsources template is keyed to find sources at the series level. While the series itself is probably notable (although the first several pages of Ghits don't strongly support that, as they are TV.com results and thus not considered reliable), this particular episode within the series is not. Notability does not automatically attach to every episode of a notable series. Otto4711 (talk) 18:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those search links are just the starting point because search phrases which are too exact don't work well. You then qualify with other keywords like "pilot" or "initiation" to get filtered hits and there's enough out there to establish notability for our purposes. For example, the book Television Series Revivals: Sequels Or Remakes of Cancelled Shows‎ talks of this pilot, as you would expect. Newspaper reviews are especially focussed upon the first episode too. Now I don't have time to go trawling through the hundreds of sources myself and it's not my job to teach you how to search. All we need to do here establish whether to press the delete button or not. And we don't need much in the way of sources to settle that. You clearly accept that there is a notable topic here - the overall series. All we're really doing here is discussing alternatives like merger or development of this article. Deletion is in no way sensible or helpful to our readership and so the wrong forum has been chosen has been chosen for this discussion which should be on the talk page for the articles in question. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While you may not have time to go through multiple sources, at the very least you could go through the one that you claim "talks of this pilot". A search of its contents turns up precisely three pages out of a 196-page book on which the series is mentioned. One of those pages is in the index. This wouldn't even support the notability of the series, much less the individual episodes within the series. The name of the episode, "Initiation", appears nowhere within the book. I assume in good faith that you did not lie when you said that this book talked of the pilot but rather made either an oversight or a faulty assumption. Now, while it's not my job to teach you what WP:N means, I'm happy to explain it again. A topic is presumed to be notable when independent reliable sources significantly cover the topic. Posting a link to a list of online mentions of the series in unreliable sources is not a legitimate argument in favor of the presumption of notability. There is no separate episode list for this series, nor per WP:EPISODE does such an episode list seem warranted, so we are not discussing a merge as there is no merge target. "Initiation (Kung Fu: The Legend Continues)" is an extremely unlikely search term and anyone who knows that this is an episode of the series is probably bright enough to figure out to search for the series. And actually, deletion would be very helpful to our readership because it would help to send a message that not every episode of every television series should have its own article and perhaps encourage them to do a little thinking before creating more such articles for more such non-notable episodes. Otto4711 (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTPAPER and over seven years of precedent for episode articles. It's an episode of a notable TV show, and a pilot episode. Most information in episode articles is verifiable from the episode itself. --Pixelface (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see your NOTPAPER and raise you WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTPLOT. Verifiability is not an issue here. Real-world information that is independent of the episode is the issue. Is there any? Do you have reliable sources for it? What are they? As for your link claiming "seven years of precedent", I seem to recall that Jimbo has in the intervening seven years repudiated his agreement with the idea that every episode of every series should have its own article, and even if he hasn't, Jimbo is not the end-all and be-all of encyclopedic content so appealing to his authority is far from persuasive. Far more recent precedent (November 2007 as just one of many examples) demonstrates that even if there were a consensus seven years ago in favor of articles for every episode, that consensus has changed. Otto4711 (talk) 20:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Pixelface, Colonel Warden. Edward321 (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I didn't realize it was the pilot. Sources exist.[2][3] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um yeah, see, the so-called "sources" you turned up are not substantively about the pilot episode itself, which you would probably have known if you'd actually bothered to look at a few of them. Some of your so-called "sources" are not even about this series, but are instead about a previous attempt to revive the Kung Fu franchise and have nothing to do with this episode or series at all. Typical of the "sources" that actually discuss the series is TIME magazine, which says of the series "Warner Bros. TV has lined up 142 stations to carry Kung Fu: The Legend Continues, with David Carradine back as a mystic martial artist..." and "Time Trax and Kung Fu, on the other hand, are made for only about $750,000". So, like every other so-called "source" offered up, nothing whatsoever about this episode specifically. Yet again, nothing has been offered that supports the idea that this specific episode is independently notable. Otto4711 (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

False positives are irrelevant. What matters is the hits which reference this pilot. These exist and so notability is established. Cue another flashback:

Young Caine: "Master? The man to whom you spoke, Lee-Yu? Is he a confused one?"

Master Po: "What is your view?"

Young Caine: "He is a beggar, like the rest. I can see he is greatly in need of food. But he does not eat."

Master Po: "He seeks to satisfy a stronger hunger."

Young Caine: "He values what is worthless." (Broken pieces of pottery, which Lee-Yu uses to decorate a monument he is making for a public area)

Master Po: "To you, to me, perhaps. Not worthless to him."

Young Caine: "Bits and pieces that cannot be put back together."

Master Po: "Not to understand a man’s purpose does not make him confused."

Colonel Warden (talk) 10:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but have you actually read the general notability guideline? I have to think that you haven't, or that you don't understand it, based on your comment that a mere "reference" in a source serves to establish notability. Notability is established by "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Simply mentioning the episode does not equal "significant coverage". Notability is not established by simple "references". There are no sources that offer significant coverage of this particular episode, thus notability is not established. All your cutesy-poo quotes do not get past that fact. Let's see even one source that offers significant coverage of this individual episode. Otto4711 (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have sources which provide significant coverage, as discussed above. Your measure of significance seems to be more severe than mine and others - so it goes. The moral of the flashback is that we should not dismiss the fragmentary efforts of others lightly, since by perserverance a good result may be assembled. Deletion is not helpful in this. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have sources which provide significant coverage, as discussed above. I have repeatedly asked which of the sources provide significant coverage, and you have repeatedly failed to respond. The only source that you have discussed at any length actually contains no reference to this episode at all. I can only conclude that you are unable to identify any such sources, otherwise surely you would have specified them by now. I am not applying any standard of my own. I am applying the black letter of the notability guideline, which states that coverage must be more than trivial and that single-line mentions in larger sources are trivial. If you are unable to identify by name even a single source that offers significant coverage of this specific episode (not coverage of the series and not simply mentioning that the episode exists) then you are being intellectually dishonest arguing in favor of the article. Deletion is extremely helpful, because it not only removes an unsuitable article from the project but it encourages people not to waste time on articles on non-notable subjects.
So I'll ask again: what specific sources offer significant coverage of this particular episode? Do you have an answer to that question, or by your silence are you acknowledging that there are no such sources? Otto4711 (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm on it. Sheesh. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}`
Keep. Because of the interest generated by the return after 20 years of David Carradine and the King Fu Series to television, there was naturally a great deal of coverage that addressed that return and its pilot episode. A cursory search (Google News 1992,Google News 1993) shows many. Unfortunately, articles that were at one time available at news stands are now in pay-per-view archives or available in public libraries on microfiche. Naturally, this is why WP:NTEMP was written... to accept that what was once easily available might one day become more difficult. It is that assumption in good faith provided by the guideline, in that the return of the series to television recieved coverage some 17 years ago and that the pilot episode would have recieved a focus of this attention, that allows our presumption in good faith that notability could have at one time been easily met... even if more difficult as time goes on. So... in reading WP:NF.... since the pilot episode had a world-wide release, and because there is a safe presumption that the pilot received review by critics of that time, and since this episode is available on commercial DVD re-release more than 5 years after its initial airing, Its keep is locked in stone. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NTEMP states in relevant part "If a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic". This means that old sources are sufficient to establish notability, if those sources exist. This does not mean that a personal assumption about the existence of old sources is sufficient to satisfy WP:N. WP:NTEMP states that there is no need, once initial sources establish notability, for new sources to be generated. It does not mean that we may assume that sources exist but we just can't find them because they are old. The Google hits do not show sources that are substantially about the pilot episode specifically. They are about the series in general, or they are about the new trend in syndicated programming, or they are about the Carradine brothers, or in at least one instance they are about a Kung Fu magazine in which the word "continues" appears later in the article. This sort of sloppy research and faulty assumption-making is exactly why mere Google hits are not a valid method of determining notability. A search for "Hitler" and "rutabaga" turns up as many Ghits as your search. Have I now established a notable relationship between Hitler and rutabagas? No, no more than you've established that this individual television episode meets notability. WP:NF pertains to films. not television episodes, Even if it were about TV episodes, distribution of the pilot (along with at least two reviews by nationally-known critics, which have not been offered here) is simply one of a series of "attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist", not an indicator of notability in and of itself. The episode's release on DVD has absolutely no bearing on its notability and indeed home video release is not only not an indicator of notability, it isn't even one of those "attributes". Your "stone" is more like sand at high tide. Otto4711 (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I find it troubling that editors here spend so much time trying to delete other editors contributions, instead of trying to improve these articles. I imagine in the time it took the above editor to write the 330 word support for deletion, that editor could have added references. I can't imagine how much content this editor could have created, instead of attempting to delete 719 editors articles. Ikip (talk) 18:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above editor would merrily have added references to reliable sources that offer significant coverage of the individual episode, if they existed. They do not. Your personal sorrow over how editors choose to spend their time is irrelevant to the fact that the article does not and cannot meet our notability guidelines. Your effort to discredit my actions by linking to other AFDs is pathetic, but given that over 70% of them resulted in either deletion or redirection, it would appear that in the vast majority of cases I have been correct in making the nominations. Now, do you have any actual defense of this article, or are you planning on dissolving in tears while launching more personal attacks? Otto4711 (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to remind all to observe WP:CIVIL. That the sources no longer exist, and so cannot now be found, is why WP:NTEMP was written. To write "if they existed. They do not" ignores that BEFORE wiki and BEFORE the internet, they did. That you cannot find them because does not ment they did not exist then, even if the "do" not at this time. WP:NTEMP specifically recognizes this. The circumstances surrounding David carradine's and Kung Fu's return to the small screen would most definitely HAVE recieved coverage, despite clams that it "did not". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to remind you that WP:CIVIL cuts both ways and it seems odd for the person who launched an unprincipled personal attack to complain when his hostility is answered in kind. Unless you are prepared to offer documentation that was written at the time that WP:NTEMP was formulated, I will continue to believe that your interpretation of it is not correct because your interpretation is not supported by the simple language of the text. NTEMP states: If a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic, though subjects that do not meet the guideline at one point in time may do so as time passes and more sources come into existence. However, articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future. The key word there is IF. The article must pass WP:N first before WP:NTEMP comes into play. Nowhere does it say that NTEMP allows for the assumption of pre-existing sources. NTEMP states that old sources remain valid sources even if no new sources come into existence. It requires that topics met the general notability guideline. NTEMP answers the argument "no one's written about this event/person/place in 100 years so it's no longer notable". It does not allow "I think that this person/event/thing was notable before the Internet but I don't have the reliable sources that demonstrate it but there should be an article anyway". And you know, I agree with you that the revival of the series and the return of Carradine to the role would have received media coverage. Sources that discuss the series and the return support the notability of the series. I really do not understand where the disconnect is between the notability of the series and the notability of an individual episode of the series. If you are so sure that there simply must have been reliable sources specifically about this individual episode, then once you locate them you can take the article to WP:DRV and demonstrate the sourcing. But as it stands now, there is no such sourcing that has been offered here, and all this "Golly gee, I just know there's sources out there somewhere" balderdash does not get the article past WP:N. Otto4711 (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Kung Fu TV series is notable. This seems to me a reaasonable WP:FORK for length of the main article, and fully in keeping with the treatment of other TV series (e.g. see List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1) and similarly for the other seasons--every ep. gets a page). JJL (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:EPISODE, the guideline for creating articles is as follows: Series ---> Season, if reliable sources exist for the season --> Episode, if reliable sources exist for the episode. There are any number of TV series which have had their episode articles removed because the sourcing for the individual episodes does not exist. Re the MASH episodes, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't support keeping this article just because of those articles. A good example of this process in action: Ellen (TV series) --> List of Ellen episodes (which cites some sources but could be improved) --> The Puppy Episode, which is a clearly notable episode of the series, as supported by many reliable sources from books, newspapers, television interviews, etc. Otto4711 (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Err... I was not incivil. But thank you for inadvertantly supporting my keep opinion as you did above. In 1992, Wikipedia did not exist. If it had, this article would have passed the WP:N with flying colors. Safe as that presumption is, let's put it this way... as a bald assertion: In 1992 the pilot episode HAD significant coverage in significant sources independent of the subject... sources heralding the return of David Carradine and Kung Fu to the small screen and centering on how the pilot episode would tie together the return of a mystical Kung Fu master from the old west into a modern environment. Oops. There was no Wiki article in 1992 or 1993, so there was no need to save old newspapers and magazines about the an as-yet unwritten article. I had no thought to look into a crystal ball and discover that in 2009 someone who could not find articles written in newspapers or magazines in 1992 would then declare "I cannot find them so they do not exist" as an argument to delete a wiki article. I do not now, 17 years later, have to be forced to produce evidence to support my contention that 17 years ago someone wrote an article or 2 or 10 about this subject. I do not own a time machine, and cannot be compelled to build one to back up a logical statement. Conversely, in refuting my simple statement, it is up to you to prove that no one wrote about it 17 years ago... to prove that Carradine's return to television was not covered 17 years ago... to prove that Kung Fu's return to television was not covered 17 years ago... to prove that interest in how the old series would become the new series was not covered 17 years ago. Here is the complete and total text of WP:NTEMP: "If a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic, though subjects that do not meet the guideline at one point in time may do so as time passes and more sources come into existence. However, articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future." So, here's my simple assertion: In 1992 and 1993 the article met all requirements of the GNG. I explained why. Period. You assert that it did not. You explained why. Other editors can now decide the merits of our diametrically opposed opinions in light of guideline and current wiki practices. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er, yeah you were uncivil. Otto4711 (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to series article unless and until significant reliable-source coverage of this individual episode is located and cited. Several editors have looked for such sources and failed. The burden of proof is on those asserting that this episode received significant critical commentary to prove it, not on those who have tried and failed to find sources to prove that none exist. "Merely asserting that such sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially as time passes and actual proof does not surface." Jfire (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, I have access via my local library to the full text of the following articles:

Jonathan Storm (January 27, 1993). "STILL ALIVE AND KICKIN' DAVID CARRADINE IS BACK IN " KUNG FU " - 150 YEARS OLDER AND A LITTLE WISER". Philadelphia Inquirer.: Significant coverage of series, characters, actors, etc; no significant coverage of pilot episode.
JOHN STANLEY (January 24, 1993). "New Fu- David Carradine revives successful '70s series in ' Kung Fu : The Legend Continues '". SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE.: excellent coverage of Carradine and the Caine character, but the extent of coverage of the episode are these sentences: "The two-hour pilot, airing at 8 p.m. Wednesday on Channel 44, introduces Caradine in Toronto's modern-day Chinatown, where the citizens ask him to help fight a mysterious gangster. Also working on the case is Caine's long-lost son Peter (played by Chris Potter), a plainclothes detective. The two are reunited and agree to solve the mystery together."
Steven Cole Smith (January 27, 1993). "' Kung Fu ' gets one more kick". Fort Worth Star-Telegram.: No coverage of episode other than air date.
BARRY GARRON (January 24, 1993). "' Kung Fu ' returns with new twists David Carradine is back in series with updated appeal". The Kansas City Star.: Discusses the return of the franchise, Carradine, etc. Extent of episode coverage: "In the pilot Peter tries to pass himself off as a hitman to infiltrate a nest of criminals. Predictably the bad guys find him out. Still there are a few interesting twists along the way."

The relevance of the results falls of rapidly after these 4 articles. The conclusion I draw is that news articles of the era covered the series, the significance of the return of the franchise, Carradine's role, and the principal characters, but did not provide substantial coverage of the pilot episode itself. Thus the verifiable material provided by these sources is better suited for the main article. Jfire (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep then decide whether to merge on the talk page. The sources are clearly enough to avoid deletion, the only open issue is whether there is significant enough coverage for a separate article or whether information should merged into the main series article. A time-limited AfD is not the proper venue for this. DHowell (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vega machine[edit]

Barely/non-notable fringe concept. POV and source problems for at least eighteen months; it is evident no work at all has gone into fixing it. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I started working on this yesterday because it is in the oldest monthly category for POV problems. I don't have a strong opinion on if this qualifies as notable or not. But it is a little annoying to read the nomination claims "no work at all has gone into fixing it" when my start at fixing it presumptively is what brought up on the nominators watchlist or put it in their path in during RC patrol. I am not going to spend any effort on this while it is up for deletion, but if it survives it will not have POV problems within a week (at least as long as no one starts reverting my efforts)--BirgitteSB 03:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously, work needs to be done on this low quality article. But there's no deadline. I point out that "barely" notable subjects are notable, so there actually isn't any valid deletion reason given. DGG (talk) 04:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability has been demonstrated by the sources cited in the article. I'd much prefer that people didn't peddle such nonsense, but they do, so it's much better that we should have a WP:NPOV article here, in one of the places where people will look for information, than to leave the field clear for the quacks. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep. Dusti^SPEAK!! 16:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red Alert (album)[edit]

unsourced, no indication of notability, not a reasoable search term Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - OK it's unsourced, but hasn't been tagged as such. The "not a reasonable search term" is totally invalid argument, as it's a correctly disambiguated article title for a phrase which has many meanings. It should have been on the Red Alert dab page, to which I've now added it (yes, the page could usefully be tidied as the order of entries seems pretty random). There seems no good reason to delete this long-standing (2006) article. PamD (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Legitimate album by a legitimate act, thus a legitimate article topic. Should be able to pass WP:MUSIC if sources are found. This was one of the first articles I created, a couple of years ago, so I'll go back through it, clean it up & look for sources. Reviews at the very least should be able to turn up, but I'm headed out of town for a couple of days so I won't be able to find them right away. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Unsourced is not a reason to delete, it just means that you should either find some sources yourself or tag the article as appropriate for others to find sources. The album is a notable album from a notable group. As above, not a reasonable search term is a very invalid argument! This should never have been nominated in the first place. jenuk1985 (talk) 21:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a sourcing issue, not an AfD matter. — neuro^(talk) 13:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jotto. Should be a delete, really, but redirects are cheap. Mostly a duplicate of this article, and effectively the same game. Black Kite 13:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Four letter game[edit]

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

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

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

Contested prod, removed by author. Article is basically just the explanation of a made up game. Wiki is not for things made up in one day. Article also fails WP:RS and WP:N. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would also characterize this as failing WP:NOTHOWTO. KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete This is not a game I made up, or a game played by a handful of my friends. I've played it with people at UT, graduates from Dartmouth, and people from California (You've really never heard of the four letter game?). I know at the moment the article looks like a 'how to,' but that's not the intent; it isn't finished yet, and I'm trying to write the article as any other informative encyclopedia entry (similar to other games such as hangman). --SJakeK (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC) — SJakeK [reply]
Don't Delete! I'm a teacher's aid at an elementary school in Denton, Texas. We use this game to teach the third graders in our advanced classes how to use lateral thinking, also how to spell. --173.74.86.201 (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC) — 173.74.86.201 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete No, I'd never heard of it. Then again, have you heard of Slippery Ann, or Whot? Searching reveals Four Letter Game to have a few hits. Unfortunately, most of them seem to not be this game. Hangman. Now there's a game with a long history and very wide spread. More widespread than UT (UT? What it?), Dartmouth (presumably not the original one in Devon) and 'people from California' (1 person, 27 people, or 50% of the population?). I'm afraid I don't count the references as particularly reliable. The popculture games site is very new looking, and somewhat anonymous. Geocities for another is self-published stuff and only a last resort without further backing. The length and apparent complexity of the rules would seem to me to preclude the spread of this game beyond the bored intellectual class. (People who can use the word 'aeon' and mean it.) But it's current spread not future we need to address. Current looks limited. Future falls foul of Wikipedia policies. Peridon (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hope the poster above is a teacher's aide rather than aid. Mind you, they do have interactive whiteboards now.Peridon (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To answer your question on what 'UT' is, it's the University of Texas. It's not a game I simply made up off the spur of the moment; truth be told, I picked it up from my little sister (who, coincidentaly is also in an advanced elementary class -4th grade- but in the Plano, Texas school district. I can assure you that our teachers and teachers' aides can spell, but Denton's . . . I cannot vouch for them), and she explained it to me, so I'm not sure the claim that it's signficantly more complex than hangman or 'dots'- or too comlpex for the general public- is valid. I'm not too surprised that three of the five people here have never heard of it, but I am surprised that there are as few sites detailing the game as there are. Again, I'm asking for a few more days to finish collecting sources (more importantly, notable ones) and flush out the background; intially when the article was nominated for deletion (2-12-09), it was given a five day time frame to be 'cleaned up.' I'd say I should be able to finish compiling the article by then.--SJakeK (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources cited to back up the claims stated above. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a game I made up, or a game played by a handful of my friends. Sums it up. JuJube (talk) 08:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What specific resource are you guys looking for? If there is something in the explanation of the game you find to be completely fabricated or an obvious mistake please let everybody know. This is the explanation (with examples) of a game that requires you to think, and something I'm sure teachers would much rather have their students play rather than Pac-Man or some other game easily accessed on a cell phone. You personally may not want this game to "exist" on Wikipedia, but the game is real. I don't understand why somebody calls for the deletion of a page that offers an insightful and very well organized explanation of a game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbp3 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You might want to take a look at what is considered a reliable source. If you only assert the existence of the game, you are in fact asserting that it is not worthy of mention in Wikipedia, even if the game actually does exist. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found a few more sources, one of which is an online flash version of the game. Hopefully that adresses the 'made up in a day' and 'played by only my friends' concerns. As for reliability, I think I may have found a few more reliable sites, though again, I'm not sure what standard you're looking for, as this is a pop culture game, not some particle theory article, so there won't exactly be Ph.D.s publishing articles about the subject. I checked out the Wiki articles for dots and hangman and I'm looking for sources on par with those pages (sources that are generally '.com' and '.net' with few or no citations). --SJakeK (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Okay, so I did manage to find one reliable source in text- I have yet to link it- but I found three different versions of the game that can played on a computer as an example of how the game works and the rules for the game, which seems to be a common method of citation for 'pen and paper games' articles on Wiki. In addition, I found a book that details using it for instructional purposes, though at the moment I only have the site for it linked, but no call number. Past these ten or so references, I'm not sure what else to look for. --SJakeK (talk) 18:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, duplicate of Jotto. FYI, generic names such as "Four letter game" appear to be things made within one day. However, Jotto is a registered trademark of a commercially released game, and there's definatly references on how to best complete the game - in addition to the many variants that it produced. --Sigma 7 (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Merge/Redirect to Jotto. Jotto appears to be a legitamately notable form of the game. I question the value of some of the howto type information, but if anything beyond that can be found in this article, it may be appropriate to merge it. If there is a chance that users will search on this term looking for the game, then keeping as a redirect is appropriate regardless of merge taking place or not. I haven't done the reasearch to see if this might be the case or not, hence the 'weak'. -Verdatum (talk) 19:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Jotto; there is obviously a significant number of people playing this game who are unaware of its origins that a redirect would be not only appropriate, but substantially informative. DHowell (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not supported by a single reliable source; should any be found (not forums, not promotional sites, not blogs) supporting the existence of such a game with that name, then - and only then - would a redirect to Jotto be appropriate. B.Wind (talk) 04:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy suicide sports[edit]

Contested prod, removed by author. Article reads like an instruction guide; fails WP:NOTHOWTO. Also cites no sources, so it fails WP:RS and WP:OR as well. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a how to guide for a newly invented game variant. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article was tagged for deletion one hour after creation. Author is new (may be sockpuppet, but that's another issue) and requested help in the article's talk page. The article was never tagged beyond the AfD. A little gentle assistance may be of help to the author.Vulture19 (talk) 01:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No degree of notability. Lugnuts (talk) 09:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. References do not indicate any degree of notability for this concept. Most of them show no relation whatsoever. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as likely hoax/neo Secret ^account 23:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:BLP1E Madchester (talk) 05:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alfie Patten[edit]

This is one of many stories that will probably explode and then weeks later he'll have no presence outside of RAGING D:< interbutt forums. I say we wait and avoid making this page a battleground. Octane (talk) 14:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--this is really a single event, both according to WP and in real life. Poor kid. I mean the kid's kid. Drmies (talk) 15:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (at least for now). Right now this is a clear-cut case of WP:BLP1E. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is exactly the kind of person whose privacy WP:BLP1E is intended to protect. Baileypalblue (talk) 18:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He's neither the first nor the last 13-year-old to father a child, and there's nothing else notable about him besides the frenzy of press surrounding him (since he looks so young, making for provocative photos). White 720 (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BLP1E. --Aka042 (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete BLP1E, article on a minor, numerous issues with this. No way can this be kept. Majorly talk 22:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was speedy deleted by Orangemike as blatant advertising (CSD G11). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basis Instrument Contract[edit]

Self-promotion of theory which has received little if any independent notice. Also listed under AfD: BICs Markets and BICs 4 Derivatives. Rcawsey (talk) 14:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as per G11 Cheers Imperat§ r^(Talk) 14:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Blatant advertising: spam promoting somebody's patented investment scheme. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in the Discussion page of the article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Basis_Instrument_Contract:

All efforts have been to properly source and reference this article. If any portion is found objectionable, please simply state your concern in a polite and substantive manner and the issue will be addressed. The author appreciates that the concept is not widely known and arouse suspicion but please notice that credibility of the material is independently sourced and properly referenced using the WIPO website at http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?wo=2003107137. the World Intellectual Property Organization is the most authoritative body in the world on intellectual property matters. A review of the International Preliminary Examination report issued Oct 1, 2004 in the documents tab associated with the patent publication WO2003107137 show that all 273 claims made in the application are found admissible as New, involve an Inventive Step and are Industrially Applicable.

It is not simply an attempt at self promotion. In view of the present economic crisis, its content is notable importance.

AS SUCH THERE IS SIMPLY NO OBJECTIVE BASIS FOR DELETION.

Note further that under Wikipedia rules on citing oneself in No original research at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research, it is stated: "Citing oneself

This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our neutrality policy. See also Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest."

This article reflects results published in WIPO publication WO2003107137 with the highest level of reliability opinion provided.

Bics (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Obvious PR and no notability established via third-party sources at all. §FreeRangeFrog 17:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*"again do not delete" How do you guys define notability? Even the nber of google hits is respectable. The question is: is it content an encyclopedia user would trust? a WIPO establishes more credibility than 99% of what is on wikipedia now. The answer is yes, of course. What type of bias do you guys have? Bics (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Notable" is defined at WP:N. Basically, it means "has coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the originator of the concept". WIPO accepting a patent application on a topic does not mean it is notable, as they are only concerned whether the patent is legally sound: technical merit is not an issue. Patents are therefore considered self-published and not reliable sources for this purpose. JulesH (talk) 20:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only 26 non-wikipedia ghits, most of which are trivial mentions and the only one approaching the necessary level of detail is finance.mapsofworld.com/finance-theory/concepts/basis-instrument-contract.html (not linked because the site's blacklisted for some reason), which is still nowhere near reliable. No google news hits. Only one google books hit, which is a self-published book and therefore not a reliable source. There is no evidence that this concept is in use in any significant manner within the investment community, or that it is considered important by economists. JulesH (talk) 20:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. Alexf^(talk) 18:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gael "El Nino" Jacquot[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Gael "El Nino" Jacquot

French article about an Argentinian footballer, who is apparently rated higher than Maradona and yet google returns no hits. Plus he has apparently retired to work in porn. most likely hoax Jac16888 ^Talk 14:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I set out to translate, but filled it up with fact and who tags pretty quickly. The fact that there's no equivalent French article marks it out as a hoax. AnturiaethwrTalk 14:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and per Anturiaethwr. Drmies (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as HOAX; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Fargue, created by the same SPA. Baileypalblue (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Player of the Century, even above Pelé (not mentioned) and Diego Maradona? Please. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Probably a hoax, claims are outrageous. — neuro^(talk) 13:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, definitely a hoax. Lectonar (talk) 08:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. The article is obviously a hoax. --Badmotorfinger (talk) 17:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax. Giant Snowman 20:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BICs Markets[edit]

Self-promotion of new unnotable theory, no independent coverage Rcawsey (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED DELETION: Qualifying the book as non notable is personal and subjective opinion that is hard to justify. In view of the recent crisis, this book has become particularly relevant for the issues at the root of the crisis as well as the prescription to address it. The credibility of the book is independently sourced and properly referenced using the WIPO website at http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?wo=2003107137. the World Intellectual Property Organization is the most authoritative body in the world on intellectual property matters. A review of the International Preliminary Examination report issued Oct 1, 2004 in the documents tab associated with the patent publication WO2003107137 show that all 273 claims made in the application are found admissible as New, involve an Inventive Step and are Industrially Applicable.

It is not a "marketing campaign" but a mere recitation of independently sourced material of the highest credibility

Bics (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - self-advertising of non-notable theory. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11) as spam. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basis Instrument Contract. MuZemike 23:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - G11 added. — neuro^(talk) 13:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G11. Daniel Case (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:VSCT. Creator of the theory is citing his own non-notable book in an attempt to promote his own fringe theory. All four letters (the V, S, C, and T) are all there... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) ~ mazca ^t|c 01:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Canfield[edit]

Part of a rash of quasi notable motivational speakers whose pages serve as little more than a vehicle to self promote and sell books, courses, etc. I have pruned all the uncited material, found a whole slew of other stuff that needs to be cited or should go, and have done the maths on the 100 million books in 47 langauges and 124 titles to discover that means each title has sold 17158 copies. Not really best sellers, those. See Harry Potter for a best seller! Canfield's stuff is peanuts! Or, in my view this does not make the gentleman notable, just industrious. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--Fiddle Faddle, I'd love to agree with you, but the co-author of so many books (commercial drivel or not) seems notable enough. And if you redo the math, figuring that most of those books are probably sold in English, you'll come up with numbers a bit closer to Harry P. See, those sold 400 million copies, and that soup stuff sold 100 million--I propose that, more than likely, that's more books than most authors sell. The article is a bit of a mess, I grant you that readily, but the guy's notable enough. Drmies (talk) 15:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is assuming that we are not seeing over inflated figures. That is an uncited claim, and, on that basis, we may challenge and remove it unless a citation is found. Books such as these get "sold" by being part of the course materials for an auditorium full of the gullible. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, you're absolutely right--but my source for Potter was the Wikipedia article and for Canfield my source was you ;)--both impeccable! Seriously, this suggests notability, and then throw in this, the second of a long list of hits in this search (six hits from NYT Bestsellers lists on the very first page), and notability is there, it seems to me. What the article needs is a fluffing of those peacock feathers by an objective editor who'll stick a bunch of those references in. Drmies (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, I got Canfield's figures from the Canfield article. That has to be a better source than absolutely anywhere! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has an entry in Gale's Contemporary Author's, which is good enough for me. Zagalejo^^^ 18:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He also appears in iMDB.com. If someone who is credited with creation of the "Chicken Soup..." series is NN, who really is?Vulture19 (talk) 01:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meeting WP:AUTHOR (Quote: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews") despite the lowbrow unsophisticated audiences that he sullies (here read irony). With respects to User:Vulture19, we don't consider IMDB as sourcing notability, but it does lead one to a delightful parade of possibilities with even the most cursory of searches. Notability has been asserted and sourced. This AfD can be closed anytime and we can get to the task of addressing the nom's overly generous tagging of the article for cites. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:CREATIVE, point three. Notability asserted, sourced too. — neuro^(talk) 13:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BICs 4 Derivatives[edit]

Non-notable book; it may be that the claims made in the book are admissable, but the book itself has received little if any independent attention. Rcawsey (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This book is part of a marketing campaign using Wikipedia as a free web host; see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basis Instrument Contract. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, promotional article of a non-notable book. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED DELETION: Qualifying the book as non notable is personal and subjective opinion that is hard to justify. In view of the recent crisis, this book has become particularly relevant for the issues at the root of the crisis as well as the prescription to address it. The credibility of the book is independently sourced and properly referenced using the WIPO website at http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?wo=2003107137. the World Intellectual Property Organization is the most authoritative body in the world on intellectual property matters. A review of the International Preliminary Examination report issued Oct 1, 2004 in the documents tab associated with the patent publication WO2003107137 show that all 273 claims made in the application are found admissible as New, involve an Inventive Step and are Industrially Applicable.

It is not a "marketing campaign" but a mere recitation of independently sourced material of the highest credibility Bics (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bics (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Obvious PR and no notability established via third-party sources at all. §FreeRangeFrog 17:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, do not delete

in addition to all the info I provided above i just typed google on BICs 4 Derivatives which gave me 89,800 hits including articles from FITCH an industry leader and mathematica. how do you guys define notability by the way? Bics (talk) 18:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I got 26 hits typing "BICs 4 Derivatives" on Google. . . Rcawsey (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nonnotable and self-promotional, and I'd ask the author to please stop posting multiple "do not delete" votes. We know your position. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the author's information, here is where we define notability, for books anyway. I do not see any claim to notability in the article, and see no evidence that the book is notable by the criteria I have cited. Clear delete candidate. The Seeker 4 Talk 19:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - blatant spam; has tried this before, too. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11) as more spam. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basis Instrument Contract. MuZemike 23:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A PR piece written by a user with a conflict of interest, spam (perhaps G11), no notability. — neuro^(talk) 13:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't tell what this article is about. It's about a book about something. What is that "something"? I don't know. It says something about a patent. What was the invention? It doesn't say. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Barney[edit]

Delete as a WP:HOAX. already speedied once (A7), but article now contains a spurious claim to notability. Attempts to verify the claim have failed. Mayalld (talk) 14:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as hoax/vandalism, and COI to boot. Also search on Google to verify claims, nothing found. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 14:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as HOAX and salt. No such thing as the "European" or "World Outfishing Championships". Baileypalblue (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as bollocks unless the contributor can define "outfishing" and provide references. No such term found on Wikipedia or Google. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 19:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unable to find any verification whatsoever, likely hoax. — neuro^(talk) 13:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:NOTAGAIN; see WP:DRV –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 14:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GirlFriends (manga)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Unnotable manga series. Fails WP:BK and WP:N. No significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. Previous AfD closed as "no consensus" as admin felt uncomfortable closing it as a redirect/merge to the author article and confusion over the name, but there was no actual consensus to keep either. Discussion also went off track because of a similarly named series. Renominating to reach a clearer consensus to avoid continuing issues over article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Resistance 2. MBisanz ^talk 04:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fury: Resistance 2 Chimera[edit]

The article lists no reliable sources (the linked Wikia entry is itself unreferenced) and is horribly mistitled. The article on Resistance 2 doesn't mention it, which leads me to think it's a very minor character. Mgm|^(talk) 11:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't look hard enough; it is mentioned at Resistance_(series)#The_Chimera. I say redirect. --Izno (talk) 03:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The main article doesn't mention a "fury" or "furies". If it is at all proven, it deserves a redirect at the Fury dab page, not a link from a malformed title. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Erm? The main article doesn't have to mention it if the overall series article does... i.e., a redirect to the above mentioned series article and section seems appropriate. --Izno (talk) 14:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I said main article, I meant the overall series article. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Should be mentioned, but not have its own article
Delete According to the link (and from a cursory search on google) this is just a bog standard enemy/environmental hazard and totally unremarkable, if they really are worth noting at all I'd expect it to be within a single sentence. This doesn't need a standalone article any more than the mutant baby things from Haunting Ground or those nasty breathy Regenerators from Resident Evil 4. Someone another 17:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I vote for it to be redirected. The Fury is a legit chimera in the game. The storyline of Resistance 2 involves a handful of mentions about Fury's patrolling the water and how you should stay out. It does need to exist on Wikipedia, and having it's own page would be the best way to do it. Otherwise it should be added to a larger database of Chimera. Do not delete it please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.23.10 (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7 nonnotable, g11 advertising. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reed Security[edit]

Blatant advertising but someone removed the speedy tag. (I suspect it was the author after logging out, because he had already removed the speedy tag earlier, and the second removal occurred within minutes of my restoring it. Also, the IP address is located in Saskatoon, the location of the article's topic.) Note the name of the author. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carpe articulum[edit]

Non-notable neologism; does not appear to be referenced in reliable, third-party sources Gonzonoir (talk) 12:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - neologism. Rcawsey (talk) 14:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Relatively self-explanatory Latin phrase. So long as people keep talking about today's fast-paced life, we'll never be able to fix it. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete purposeful attempt to create a new buzz phrase using Wikipedia. See Will you help me propagate a new BUZZPHRASE? by "Jay S" who is most likely the same person as the article's contributor, Jschertzer. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 19:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Riley. I prodded it and was told that wouldn't work, so wikified it anyway, but I can't see that it's notable. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creatity[edit]

~~Article about a non-notable website masquerading as a dicdef.~~ Stifle (talk) 12:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete it's not even a dict-def, the page admits it's a made up name. ~~It's an advert pure and simple.~~ OK the advertising link has gone, it's still a made up word which google results show to be a common mispelling rather than anything notable --Blowdart | ^talk 12:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are so many pages in the net using this word. Somehow I cannot believe that all these occurrences are just type mistakes.

It looks to be used more in the EU or in India etc.

[4]

[5]

[6]

BTW. maybe you can explain me this one "Creatity–Not for creativity sake"

I understand that what is not in google does not exist, but if you take a look better you will see many articles with this word.

You can dig it up also in www.baidu.com , altavista, lycos, excite ...

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Abuelow (talk • contribs) 14:00, February 13, 2009

Delete Per WP:NEO. Extensive use of a neologism does not mean it is notable, notability for a neologism is established by multiple, third party and significant coverage, not by wide-spread use. I do not see any evidence of this neologism being notable by Wikipedia standards and therefore it should be deleted. The Seeker 4 Talk 15:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable neologism. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ditto, non-notable neologism and stealth spam. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a nonnotable neologism. MuZemike 18:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NEO. Tractops (talk) 06:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Casa Rosa[edit]

Seems to be completely non-notable (or at any rate, does nothing to establish its notability, and seems to be totally run-of-the-mill). It has several misleading links - including one from pink - and is totally unsourced. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 12:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Seems there are some mentions in Google books. [7] Seems to have some notability. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a historic structure in Old San Juan, Puerto Rico (albeit a minor one). I added some external links to the article, although it was difficult finding reliable sources, due to the rather generic name of the place, which means simply "pink house." •••Life of Riley (T–C) 21:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The sources that have been added to the article (WP:HEY) demonstrate notability. --Oakshade (talk) 02:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Based on the NPS travel itinerary, it appears to be a contributing property to San Juan National Historic Site. If it isn't, the fact that the NPS documents it is probably reason enough to demonstrate its notability. Besides, we have an article on John Mellencamp's song Pink Houses, which dates back to 1983. This building dates back to 1812, so it's got 171 years more notability. (OK, I digress.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Praxis MMT[edit]

Selfpromotion/advertising. Name of author suggests conflict of interest. Article on de: has been deleted already. See also m:User:COIBot/XWiki/praxismmt.com for spam report. EdBever (talk) 12:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (G11) as spam spam spam spam baked beans spam spam and spam. Also place on the spam blacklist. MuZemike 18:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arrow Karts[edit]

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

Company does not appear to meet WP:CORP. Few gnews hits exist, and apparently only in the context of Arrow Karts displaying in a trade show. This does not constitute significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. (The article is also tagged for COI, which I will note is NOT a reason for deletion.) Frank | talk 11:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - previous discussion was for a substantially different version of the article more than two years ago that consisted of a list of products with no refs; it was essentially a G11. I am not basing this nom on that previous one.

Delete. I declined the speedy deletion because there was an assertion of notability, but the article fails WP:CORP, there also seems a strong conflict of interest present. Lectonar (talk) 12:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I admit there are significant issues with the promotional tone of the article, but I think that when a corporation builds the karts for notable sports events and even build one that eventually wins, it's reasonable to have an article on the topic. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but if so, such article(s) would appear in reliable sources - establishing notability - before an article would be appropriate here...right? Frank | talk 13:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ignoring the conflict of interest, the article still completely fails WP:CORP. Trusilver 15:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Trusilver. Templarion 善意 17:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 03:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hello. Although I am new to relatively new to Wiki, I find it a bit strange that this article has so many tags for verification etc.. Yet some other brand go karts like Tony Kart claim even greater things than what the Arrow does and has no references what so ever except for the thier own website. It seems a bit like double standards. I will admit though it does need some tidy uup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.130.16.12 (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— 115.130.16.12 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete - the need for WP:RS and WP:V outside of self referencing is an important issue - if there is a lack of the source material - it fails - if other arts have the same problem they need to go as well Satu Suro 04:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep - I found this quite helpful when I was doing some searching on karts. other brands seem to do exactly the same so if you delete this one, you should also delete the rest. When I phoned a local kart shop EG a real person they confirmed many of the points stated in this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.108.81 (talk) 07:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— 58.160.108.81 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete - (Yes, other stuff exists that might need to be cleaned up or deleted. However, that is not relevent to what should be done here.) Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Simply not notable without significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. None provided, none found. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article fails WP:CORP by a clear margin Murtoa (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Van Der Sluys[edit]

Delete. Vanity page, prod removed by author. Unreferenced and so unable to establish any notability. Fails WP:BIO. WWGB (talk) 11:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 11:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as complete vanispam. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- characterising this page as "a vanity page" and "vanispam" is way out of line. See WP:AGF and WP:BITE. Deletion discussions should be more respectful than this.
The article was referenced when I looked at it a few minutes ago, but I agree that it did still fall short of WP:BIO so I agree that it should be deleted.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The references were added after the nomination, but do not include any mention of the subject of the article. WWGB (talk) 11:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)Delete as non-notable, for walking all over the biographies for living persons policy and, with the pretty obvious vanity involved, demonstrating amiably what Wikipedia is not. one brave monkey 11:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article is unsalvageable, notability not remotely established even if everything in it is true.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 12:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can be easily convinced that the Youth Ambassador position or the award are notable distinctions. The real issue is the complete lack of sources (that aren't wiki mirrors) when I try to google a combination of any of these with the name. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's clear as non-notable article.--Artypants (talk) 14:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as mentioned above, I can't verify or confirm anything in this article. Should be deleted as being unverifiable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Unverifiable, non notable. Fails WP:BIO. — neuro^(talk) 13:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The originator of this article has made only five edits in Wikipedia — all directed at this article. In this situation there is the risk of WP:COI. There is certainly evidence of lack of understanding of Wikipedia and the need for demonstration of notability. Dolphin51 (talk) 12:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the points made by Dolphin51, Lankivell and WWGB contribute to a case for deletion - interestingly the name is not a publicly notable one in Western Australian media of the last few years - and the claimed character is west australian Satu Suro 05:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per CSD:G11. The correct action to take when an author removes a speedy tag from his own article is to replace the tag and leave them a ((drmspeedy)) warning. Stifle (talk) 12:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neveplast[edit]

Blatant advertising, speedily deleted, recreated by poster, persistently removing db tags with little or no explanation. Someone please salt this. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: 81.208.106.70 has deleted the AfD tag, which I suspect is a sockpuppet of Mikepostre8. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Shavonne Williams[edit]

Angelina Joli look-alike. Claims of notability but no evidence offered. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete it's a Vanity page, with no refs or evidence to show notability. Page does not even conform to Wiki style or close, so no editor of wiki has been involved in its creaton.--Artypants (talk) 13:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The best bit - References - "Private sources". Private sources???--Artypants (talk) 13:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable per our notability criteria. Aecis·(away) ^talk 23:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Private sources" sums it up. Junk this and try again with more public sources next time. JuJube (talk) 08:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know of Andrea Shavonne Williams on a personal level, not only on her wide-spread level. We were very serious at one point, though I'm not trying to cash in on her notability or fame. I want that noted. I just wanted to add that this article is accurate. I for one can verify the information that the creator of this article has provided is true and accurate. However her Birthday is Nov 1st, the creator neglected to mention that in his description of her, or maybe he didn't know the exact date. I can also add some more personal information to this article if needed. She is a humanitarian, semi-vegan, and her signature scent is Wild Musk and has been since I first met her in 1994. She has many great loves in her life, and the one that I know to be her first and foremost beyond anything else is her youngest brother Lance. However, I will not compromise her private life. Just because I have the pleasure of knowing her on a personal level, I would want to make it CLEARLY understood I would never try to add my name into an article about her due to the fact I feel that if she found out she would feel I was trying to cash in on her so to speak. She is an amazing person, despite her fame, and I would like the world to know that. Some people lose their morals or forget their friends before they take off. She is not one of those persons. This is all I have to add at this time.—Preceding unsigned comment that originally was used to remove all other editors comments was added by Eric19945 (talk • contribs) 09:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artypants (talk • contribs) [reply]

As to the persons who remarked on my earier comments and edits to the original editiors publication: I have not openly stated my idenidy due to the fact that I do not wish to look like a fame seeker by telling what I know of her life, nor have her look at me in that light if she was to come across the article. I was just posting what I know of her on a personal level to the authors original work. My name is Eric, however I will give no other information about myself on this public forum.

(((And in responce to User:JuJube|JuJube, I don't think I need to reveal my entire Idenity to help confirm what I know of her life!))) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric19945 (talk • contribs)

Perhaps not, but you need to reveal some sources, preferably online ones or books that confirm what you're talking about. JuJube (talk) 05:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Have done a search with various parameters. Being on Myspace and Facebook, and having youtube videos might show she exists, but does not confer not confirm any notability. And no.... she does not look like Angelina Jolie. While Cleanup could easily adreses the article format, that will not address the inherent problems with WP:BLP. And yes, it does seem the author knows all about her... but no one else does. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Speech synthesis. MBisanz ^talk 04:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TextAloud[edit]

Was CSD'ed (incorrectly) by Graymornings, then PROD'ed by FlyingToaster (which the original author declined), so now I am bring it here - there is no assertion of notability within the article. Just PR pieces in the news, and I can't find anything asserting notability on a good scour of the web, either. — neuro^(talk) 08:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Imrpvove the article. I post this on their own forum site so that Ken or Jim might improve it. --Samlaptop85213 (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable software, corporate spam. §FreeRangeFrog 02:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but improve - Just passing through and noticed this. I think it's a rather important piece of accessibility software for visually impaired people. I've actually been hearing of TextAloud increasingly recently as I'm part of a disability accessibility forum at work. At the very least it should be mentioned on Speech synthesis. I don't know enough about it to improve the entry, but I know of no other text-to-speech programmes by name. Mabalu (talk) 03:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of school pranks. MBisanz ^talk 12:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Corner[edit]

Notability questionable Habanero-tan (talk) 07:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, no notability, not encyclopedic content. --BsayUSD [Talk]π[contribs] 16:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of school pranks. The article does have a source from Ubeat Magazine. --J.Mundo (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Henrietta Hughes[edit]

Does not meet notability requirements Óðinn (talk) 07:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete falls in the category WP:ONEEVENT. It doesn't seem likely that she will accomplish the status of Joe the plumber as the author suggests. --DFS454 (talk) 12:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E. Subject is not notable for anything except her encounter with the President. If she does something else in the future to warrant encyclopedic notability, an article on her can be written then; but it's premature to have such an article now. Baileypalblue (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BIO, WP:BLP1E. Not notable - her encounter with the president is irrelevant. — neuro^(talk) 13:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am the creator of the article; I now agree with the above editors regarding deletion. In addition to the arguments above, evidence has come up recently suggesting that her difficult financial situation predated the crisis, which makes it difficult to even merge and redirect to another article (about the economic crisis or its effects on people in the U.S.).--Senortypant (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Pretty[edit]

Contested Prod. Taking it here to see if anyone can find something establishing notability for this individual. Is a presence on YouTube and Myspace enough to justify the inclusion of this article? I cannot find any reliable sources to back the assertion of notability here. Steamroller Assault (talk) 07:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I PROD'ed it just because it wasn't eligible for CSD. This is a vanity page, nothing more. A cursory search returns nothing verifiable that could establish notability. §FreeRangeFrog 07:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom - no hint of notability. Majorclanger (talk) 14:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are certainly cases where internet notability is enough to justify inclusion, but not in this case. fuzzy510 (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wish this young man the best in his career, but Wikipedia is not the place to promote it. At the moment he seems to be too thin on notability to merit coverage in Wikipedia. Note that of the three external links provided, two of them are links to his own website, and the third is to his model agency. Also, as nearly all of the contributions to this article are made by one single-purpose account, it seems almost certain that the contributor is the subject himself. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 22:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that we should wish the young man luck, but that doesn't mean we should house a page for him. Not notable, no meaningful sources Tractops (talk) 06:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Does not meet notability guidelines for entertainers. Article appears largely promotional for a person trying to break into the field. — ERcheck (talk) 01:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable fails WP:ENTERTAINER. BigDunc^Talk 23:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Foundry model . MBisanz ^talk 12:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pure-play semiconductor foundry[edit]

Article consists of definition of term + two lists of top 10 foundries in 2007 and 2004. Term is defined in Semiconductor fabrication plant in the second paragraph, so I changed the article to a redirect, which was reverted. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 07:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Foundry model and redirect there instead. It's not about the plant, but about the business. Dicklyon (talk) 07:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 12:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ángel Faretta[edit]

Notability assertions tied to subject's blog. Bdb484 (talk) 06:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This individual is notable per searches for sources. Here is a book review from La Nación and an interview from the same newspaper. Cunard (talk) 07:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources found by Cunard would seem to get the subject over the notability bar. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abkhazia Institute[edit]

no suggestion of notability Oo7565 (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's referenced by several news articles[8], but they're mostly in Russian so I'm unable to read them. I haven't formed an opinion on notability yet. Pburka (talk) 17:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Those all just look like passing references, as does the only Google hit for the subject's name in Russian. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any reliable third-party sources. Óðinn (talk) 07:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dig In (Black Guns)[edit]

Non notable EP. No allmusic entry. Nothing of note on Google. No independent sources. JoannaMinogue (talk) 09:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: did not chart. No independent 3rd party sources WP:NALBUMS. JamesBurns (talk) 09:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google search reveals that the band's site and Wikipedia are the only two places talking about the album. Not notable. fuzzy510 (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sonawane[edit]

This article is unsourced and makes no claim of notability for this family name. Contested prod, had been tagged for notability since October 2007. Jfire (talk) 07:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It could get out of control if we allow articles for every surname on earth. --Bobak (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia has many thousands of articles on surnames. See, e.g., Category:Indian family names and its parent Category:Indian surnames for the surnames of India alone. I have no opinion about the notability of this particular surname. •••Life of Riley (talk) 00:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 08:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 04:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Swift[edit]

This former child actress with minor TV and film roles appears to fail WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:BIO; no significant coverage in reliable sources is cited and I could not locate any. Jfire (talk) 07:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No substantial reliable sources found apart from the IMDB site. She does not have a cult following, no major roles or contributed anything unique to the entertainment industry. --DFS454 (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Her appearance in Audrey Rose (film) does appear to be major, but she's completely unverifiable on the web. I think that since she's from the pre-web era, we might have better luck if someone could search paper archives or LexisNexis (currently don't have access myself) - Mgm|^(talk) 14:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I understand Mgm's position, I'm going to put the onus of proof on the article's creators and vote delete until its proved otherwise. --Bobak (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- reserving judgment at the moment, but I can produce references for her existence and her appearance in Audrey Rose via web link, if you'll accept any of these: [9] [10] [11]. They aren't ideal references but they might be the best we'll get online.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 02:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The first reference is unreliable, the second one questionable (but I'd be happy if I was proven wrong). The third one seems acceptable and even shows her importance to the plot. One important role does not an article make, but it's a possible stub and might be expandable. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. On further reflection I agree with MgM.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she did star in these programmes though she's not active much now (if at all), she was main cast of Audrey Rose film. I think she should be in the Wiki as some of the films she starred in are.--Artypants (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Artypants, as she had made several movie appearanced over a 17 year time span. Also, the Internet movie Database offers a decent amount of information on her, and is a reliable source. When any person is mentioned in any wikipedia article, it's always better to have their name link to further information about them. By not doing so, it just potentially causes many wiki users to run into a dead end. Even though this information on her is minimal, it's better than no information at all. While reading wiki articles, I find there to be nothing more irritating than coming across a name that interests me, and not being able to click on it for more information.--Steve406sbc (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Laurie Ferguson. MBisanz ^talk 04:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maureen Walsh[edit]

Fails WP:POLITICIAN; no significant coverage in reliable sources for this city councillor. Jfire (talk) 07:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Until she had a more established career in politics, I would suggest simply merging this article into her notable husband: Laurie Ferguson. This article is short enough to be a section in that article. --Bobak (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pizzioli[edit]

Subjective article about an obscure recipe. Google returns at least one restaurant that serves this dish, but little else. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 05:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Note the quote at the end: "These are all varients in my own home." Not something made up in school, but I think we should treat something made up at home (surely original research!) the same way. Nyttend (talk) 06:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nyttend. fuzzy510 (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Googled 'pizzioli' no related hits. Additionally, no sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SJakeK (talk • contribs) 00:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 04:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baku-Gazakh motorway minibus crash[edit]

Per WP:NOTNEWS. It's very unfortunate that children died, but we can't create an article for every idiot driver that slams into a loaded truck. VartanM (talk) 05:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; we can't even create an article for even the more deadly ones. Nyttend (talk) 06:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A country's most fatal road accident is sufficient for notability. In terms of deaths, i don;t know how many it takes, but this is a large enough number to be substantial. In terms of sources, the International Her. Tribune is enough to show wider than national interest--and national interest would have been sufficient. Even if it's not one's own country. I think the trivializing language of the nomination is unfortunate. If someone kills enough people, it's notable--and are you absolutely certain it's his fault? BLP applies here also. And of course we can create an article for the more deadly ones, we're not paper. DGG (talk) 06:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What if a new accident happened and become countries most deadly? VartanM (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bad faith nomination. I'll look for more info. --Brand спойт 09:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOT#NEWS, single event with limited news coverage, and I do not see wider than national interest, a very short snippet in the IHT does not equate with international interest. Tragic accident, but accidents of this type happen everyday around the world. Afroghost (talk) 13:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Not everything that is reported in the news is encyclopedic. Deor (talk) 17:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The death of 14 people in a bus crash is tragic, but most motor vehicle accidents don't merit their own article. This was created after the news broke, which is not unusual, and it's a case of WP:RECENT. When one thinks about all the transportation accidents -- buses, planes, trains, boats -- that have had 14 or more fatalities over the years, most of them would not rate their own article whether in 2007 or 1977. Mandsford (talk) 02:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, I'm amazed. The article was not challenged for two years. I'm not an adherent of martyrology, but there are some exceptions. Fatalities in many crashes indeed exceed 14, but for that particular country it's a landmark. And we have Category:2007 road accidents, don't we? --Brand спойт 08:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the article nowhere shows that this accident was a "landmark" for Azerbaijan. Was there any lasting impact, any changes in safety regulations or a political response. I cannot see anything in this article that indicates that this article satisfies the requirement from WP:NOT#NEWS considers the historical notability of persons and events. You are right that there are other articles on road accidents. Some of them should be deleted too, as they do not demonstrate historical notability. Some of them do that, and we should keep in them. In any case, this is the deletion discussion for this particular article, not for any other articles. Furthermore, the article was already challenged in October last year (by the nominator of this deletion discussion) as one can see on the articles talk page. Nothing happened, so I am assumning that the article does demonstrate historical significance because this accident had no historical significance. Afroghost (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually unaware of the article's talk and Vartan did not notify me. --Brand спойт 21:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, as saddening as it is that children died, sooner or later there is going to be another accident with a higher death toll and then another and another. We can't create articles every time an accident happens. My suggestion is to move the article to wikinews where its more appropriate. VartanM (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per DGG. — neuro^(talk) 13:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 14 people is a signifigant number, especially in the history of this nation. Remember we are not WP:PAPER. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks as if this will be kept. That said, several of the keep arguments seem to be based on the idea that this was the worst disaster in the history of Azerbaijan. The article said only that this had been the largest number of deaths in a bua accident since 1997, one of those stats that the news media likes to toss out, as if deaths were RBIs. Generally, accidents of this magnitude are covered outside of the local news only for the first couple of days after the event, even in the United States. Part of this is that this hour's CNN Breaking News will soon be replaced by some different CNN Breaking News. The reason that we have Category:2007 road accidents is because people tend to write articles like this as soon as they hear the news. If people really wanted an article for every road accident in history, we would have a large group of articles in Category:1957 road accidents as well. Mandsford (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An infobox may improve the stuff, I'll compile. --Brand спойт 20:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It seems to have no genuine notability. If something significant had changed as a result of the accident, such as a new piece of legislation, or someone notable had died, or the dead and injured were part of some notable group or ethnic minority (resulting in serious impact on that group or minority) then maybe it would have notability. But not as things stand now. Meowy 18:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swoopo[edit]

Does not, I believe, meet our current notability standards. Here's why... The Register and the Freaknomics column on the NY Times, both easily WP:RS compliant for tech-related news--check. But--Look closer at the Ayres column used from the NY Times as a source: There's not much material there, and can be arguably called trivial coverage. Look again at the "Reuters" source, here--it's a press release FROM Swoopo. Not RS or of any value for our notability standards. Looking over the article's current other sources at the time of this AFD: Crunchgear doesn't appear to be RS. "Rupert's blog", written by an economics student, doesn't meet RS standards. Metafilter isn't RS (Boing Boing, it's nearest major counterpart, sure, since people source to it in the media, it has notable authors who are often "tech" and new media experts) but Metafilter? It's Slashdot Lite. Coding Horror? Not RS. The rest is all Swoopo-sourced. I think a delete could be in order based on the present sourcing. rootology (C)(T) 04:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nick-D (talk) 05:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There is the Register, and the possibility that it has a lot of users. Mostly I'd like to see it stay so readers can see how stupid it would be to "bid" there. I like to think our main job is educating readers. NJGW (talk) 05:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep though the NYT article is short, I consider it significant coverage. DGG (talk) 05:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's a blog post, not an article. Nick-D (talk) 06:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of reputable news sources do blogs that are arguably news sources now--ABC News, CNN, etc. My concern there was the breadth/amount of coverage, not the "blog" label, which is honestly losing most meaning these days in this regard. I'd honestly (and this is as the nom for this) consider Freaknomics a reliable source in general. rootology (C)(T) 06:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wholehartedly agree. Blogs should only be discounted as sources when the author or provenance is unknown. Their relation to the newspaper make it reliable. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I suspect there must be reliable sources given the what the website does. Some consumer group awareness forum?? Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are about 4.5 million results when you google "Swoopo". There are many sites and forums which discuss what they're doing. I believe this makes it notable.
- News articles that discuss Swoopo:
- Although forums don't meet the satisfy criteria for notability, it shows that Swoopo has been receiving quite a lot of attention. There are even websites dedicated to servicing Swoopo customers and enthusiasts: This one is collection of tips and tricks to win Swoopo auctions: http://www.howtowinswoopoauctions.com/ and this one is a site that actually scripts for users generate swoopo clones: http://www.swoopoclone.com/. Arjun G. Menon (talk · mail) 13:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To me at least, this article passes WP:WEB, but just BARELY. Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and MgM.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Arjun. I believe Swoopo has even had TV ad spots but I could be wrong. Kagetto (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A very close scrape past WP:WEB for me, but it seems to achieve it. In my mind it is too close to warrant deletion - defaulting to keep. — neuro^(talk) 13:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Anything wrong with this article can be fixed, completely removing it though is not a solution.Everett3 (talk) 03:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multi million dollar international company that sparks frequent discussion about its business model. This will be the topic of many business school lectures and in case law as lines are drawn between auctions and gambling. This site is getting a lot more attention than what we are seeing with blog coverage. BaShildy (talk) 23:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NYT gives it push over WP:WEB IMHO Vartanza (talk) 03:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The NYT article, plus the connection to the dollar auction and Martin Shubik, seem to give this company notability. It's true that some web forums are mentioned (like Metafilter) but they are cited only for their opinions, not to support any factual claims. EdJohnston (talk) 22:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mashed Potatoes (album)[edit]

Not even an article about an unreleased album, this article is devoted to a series of recordings Smashing Pumpkins frontman Billy Corgan gave to friends as a gift. Fails WP:NALBUMS. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the only reference links to a bootleg tracklist. Non-notable limited release demo WP:NALBUMS. JamesBurns (talk) 05:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not an official album. Needs significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. None cited, none found. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above, no need to say more. --Deenoe 15:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The record is thoroughly reviewed by Allmusic, who calls it the "Holy Grail of Smashing Pumpkins collectibles". It exists and is significantly bootlegged; I see no reason to delete. NSR77 ^T 01:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Allmusic reviews bootlegs all the time (for some reason). We've discussed on the music project talk page that a review does not necessarily constitute notability. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps not, but as Allmusic reviews often do, they present relevant history and information pertaining to the album. The Mashed Potatoes review does just that. NSR77 ^T 05:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Searching pulls up no more reliable, third-party, mentions apart from the Allmusic review. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G7 – author request) by Jclemens. Non-admin closure. MuZemike 22:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Butterfly[edit]

Non-significant object (sounds like a gun in a videogame). Perhaps move into the appropriate game, however things like this are just... strange. K50 Dude R♥CKS! 04:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is pointless to have a badly written article about a single weapon without context, when the main article already links to a wikipage that covers it in detail. [12]. No information will be lost. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No context, no references, no RS, no citations in support of the claims to internet fame. This ought, at best, be present in a list of RE4 weapons (which would still be redundant and probably inferior to the link provided by MrKIA11). This article is simply out of place, purpose and quality here. MLauba (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You're right, it's a gun from a video game—Resident Evil 4. Considering we merged the entire weapons page into the main article a while back, we definitely aren't going to have a page on one particular weapon. No content worth merging into the game article. Pagra shtak 18:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really am sorry about the poor quality of this article, i just got into Wikipedia and I'm still a novice. Go ahead and delete both articles, and I will try to be a better article writer in the future. Thank you graciously for your input! signed: Kurtz69 2-13-09

Don't give up! Just familiarize yourself better with the basic Wikipedia stuff, such as The Five Pillars, Policies and guidelines, and the Manual of Style. Also look at our WikiProject's guidelines for commonly-accepted guidelines on video game-related articles. MuZemike 19:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Italic text

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Non-admin closure. Hnsampat (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sioux Falls, Iowa[edit]

Please bear with my perhaps long explanation: I hope it's not confusing. In short: a stub article about a nonexistent place. To be sure, it has multiple references, but (first off) it does not appear in Google Maps, and searching the GNIS reveals a "No Data Found" message. Ultimately, the sources for its existence are in error one way or another. The article was created because it is listed as the location for the Blood Run Site, a National Historic Landmark: look here to see it listed as "Sioux Falls". This server, and the National Park Service database behind it, can sometimes make errors of this sort — for example, the Site No. JF00-062 in Doniphan County, Kansas is accidentally listed as being in "Rulo, Kansas" on this page [the community in which it lies is always the word after the last comma, so the database produces results that say that it's in Rulo, Kansas], due to the site being so close to Rulo, Nebraska. As far as sources on the article: this speaks of a tight curfew in the community, but unless it's a municipality, it can't have a police force, and I can't imagine the GNIS or this Census Bureau map missing a municipality altogether. Moreover, this reference places the Five Ridge Prairie in Sioux Falls, but this article shows that the Five Ridge Prairie is located in Plymouth County, Iowa, which lies well south of Lyon County, Iowa, the alleged location of Sioux Falls, Iowa. This is inconsistent with this, the article's last reference, which places another site near Sioux Falls, Iowa but in Lyon County — and these are from the same webpage. Overall, it appears that this is a confusion for Sioux Falls, South Dakota, which is very close to to Lyon County, Iowa — created in good faith, not as a hoax, but clearly a mistake. Nyttend (talk) 04:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, mea culpa, I created the article upon being misinformed by the apparent mistake in the National Register Information System. I agree this should be deleted. doncram (talk) 04:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "National Register Information System", by the way, is the National Park Service database of which I was speaking. Nyttend (talk) 04:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AOLbyPhone[edit]

nn no sources, tagged as needing cleanup for approaching for over a year Oo7565 (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 04:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no deadline on cleanup. Articles are deleted if s search for sources fails to find them. Have you searched?DGG (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep A quick Google search reveals that sources exist. Somebody just needs to integrate them. fuzzy510 (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lack of defined WP:RS is a convincing position MBisanz ^talk 04:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Conference (MIAA)[edit]

Delete. Fails notability. Orrelly Man (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google search confirms notability: [13] and [14]. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A Google search confirms nothing. The article itself states that it is about a minor level schools league that exists in a single state only. Minor levels of competition do not meet the terms of WP:Notability. --Orrelly Man (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 03:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete since none of these sources provided by Pastor Theo discuss the actual conference. Drmies (talk) 04:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a horrid cut-and-paste mess, but the topic is notable. Bearian (talk) 22:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sports Movie (Parody)[edit]

Future film which has not started photography yet (article says cast not yet determined). No claim in article of meeting WP:N. Prod contested by IP user without comment. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With no cast determined and no indication it meets any of the other film guidelines. Also unverifiable through reliable sources. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnotable. -Zeus-^u_c 01:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
USERFY back to User:Ducksfan99. Let it be cast, begin principal filming, and then come back. Currently it is no more than a great idea and some hopes. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 03:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I weep that these idiots have probably inspired this fanfilm idea. No sources and notability, and it looks like an idea floated by amateur filmmakers. Nate • (chatter) 05:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 04:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic carroll[edit]

The subject of this article does not appear to meet WP:ATHLETE standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a stubby entry, but winning a medal in a notable sports event is notable. Sources are mentioned in these search results. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think that winning medals at a youth competition or the mickey-mouse Island Games confers any notability, and I can't find any evidence for the claim that the subject competed in World or European championships. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 03:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the Island Games then. As for the Youth Centennial Games. Since it was organized by the IOC, it could be consisting of only real young sportspeople or it could've been something to promote sports in which case almost anyone could've entered. His age alone is not a good reason to discount the event. We need to take into account whether the competition allowed everyone in or whether they selected competititors through qualifications and the like. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Lord Rees-Mogg. MBisanz ^talk 04:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Annunziata Rees-Mogg[edit]

AfDs for this article:

She fails WP:POLITICIAN as she hasn't "held international, national or first-level sub-national political office". She finished fourth in an election in 2005 and was the candidate for a couple of other things, but has never held public office. Note that this is the second nomination, the first nomination ended up as a delete over two years ago. Tavix (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I {prod}ed this a couple of weeks back due to failure of WP:POLITICIAN, and remain of that opinion - she gets an article when she's elected, or meets notability outside politics - not as just a candidate. -Saalstin (talk) 02:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 03:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge/redirect to the article on her far more noteworthy father. Grutness...wha? 00:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Rain Tapes[edit]

Fails notability per WP:NALBUMS. Collection of demo material that has never been released, of which in fact it is illegal to hold copies of. Article is a mix of OR and inventions. Subject is already covered in the Erotica article and the far superior Unreleased Madonna songs article. Main information for article comes from one source (Goldmine (magazine)) which can hardly be qualified as "significant independent coverage".Paul75 (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Not covered in this form in the Unreleased article. It would be nice if the Goldmine article were more extensively quoted, because it seems to be the main source of the detail in this article, and Goldmine (magazine) is a reasonably good source per WP:NALBUMS:
unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources.
Subject exists, and more information will probably become available in time. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note whether more information becomes available in time is immaterial. The article fails Wikipedia guidelines per WP:NALBUMS. This is an unreleased tape of demos. The only way it can be ever considered for an article is if it is officially released to the public by Madonna's record label. What little information we know about the tapes has been twisted over time anyway, with countless fakes all over the internet. Paul75 (talk) 01:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I actually created this article, but this was primarily to remove the content from the article on Unreleased Madonna songs, as the majority of the songs on the tapes are only demos of songs ultimately released, and therefore didn't belong on that page. The Tapes themselves are still notable in that they are probably the highest sought after material among fans, although perhaps a shortened version of the article could be merged with the article on the Erotica album. The info on the 'fake tapes' is not at all appropriate for wikipedia and should be removed regardless. JKW111 (talk) 02:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: maybe if it was a formal release there might be some merit in keeping it but it doesn't appear to have significant sources WP:NALBUMS. JamesBurns (talk) 07:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 03:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non notable demo, did not chart. A-Kartoffel (talk) 00:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Paul75 (talk) 11:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clubland Extreame Hardcore[edit]

Delete no sources, no indication of notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say redirect to Clubland (brand), but I think the spelling error in the title makes it a very unlikely search term so may as well just delete -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: article fails to establish notability WP:CORP. JamesBurns (talk) 07:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — neuro^(talk) 13:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ramse Mostoller[edit]

I Prod-ed Ramse Mostoller as not notable several days ago... It was deproded and suggested I take it to Afd if I wanted. I am not sure why. A short conversation ensued at User talk:Oo7565#Deprod of Ramse Mostoller. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 03:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:CREATIVE#Creative_professionals: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." There's plenty of significant well-known works to go around and costumes are a major part of any production. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, speedily--this clearly establishes that this designer is incredibly notable. What she needs (well, what the article needs) is a sympathetic and knowledgeable writer, who can stick the overwhelming plethora of articles and book mentions into the article. I have called upon the master, MQS of ARS, and perhaps he'll be able to do that. But regardless of the article, the person is notable, no doubt about it. Please check Google News, Google Books, and then close this AfD. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Drmies.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Does meet notability in this niche. §FreeRangeFrog 21:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Keep. Mgm says it all, as this person meets the notability inclusion requirements of WP:CREATIVE. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Khasgateshwara Temple[edit]

Delete no references, no indication that this house of worship is notable any more than a parish church. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The stub can go without remorse, but what made you think that parish churches may be non-notable? NVO (talk) 03:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Some people are convinced that the towns containing parish churches aren't notable; perish the thought. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Parish churches can be notable, but average parish churches can't be; it's only the abnormal ones that have enough coverage to be notable. No different for this temple: no evidence that it's any different from any other house of worship. Nyttend (talk) 04:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A Google search turns up nothing to support notability. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 07:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud testing[edit]

term "cloud+testing" does not exist outside of SOASTA (also nominated) and appears to have been created soley to promote this company. not notable, not verifiable wikivertisement that unfortunately doesn't appear to fit an existing CSD category. WikiScrubber (talk) 03:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sounds like a great start to a complicated topic. --Mr Accountable (talk) 06:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--article needs work, but topic seems plenty notable. Drmies (talk) 03:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - An article on a notable subject that needs help from an expert. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete G12 by User:PMDrive1061. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mykill miers[edit]

Non-notable music performer. The article appears to be a vanity page with too many unsubstantiated and unreferenced claims. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleting as a copyvio from here. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. AfD is not cleanup, as noted below; a massive need for a rewrite is according to no page valid grounds for deletion assuming other factors such as WP:N are met. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Human_rights_in_the_United_States[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Despite continual attempts to reach a solution, the entire article takes on a negative view and is full of anti-American bias, for example Health Care or Abu Garhib Prison Abuse. If we were to fix the article, a massive rewrite would have to occur. I am not requesting a deletion because of it, but rather because of the apparent futility to make any changes that would decrease the bias as Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a citizen of another country's Opinion. Rockstone35 (talk) 02:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree that POV is a problem for this article, but it's definitely a notable topic that deserves to be included. Other controversial topics are included (albeit with occasional protection); I think this one should be too. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking through the article's talk page, this seems like taking a content dispute to AfD. Dendlai (talk) 02:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - four nominations later, it's still notable and encyclopedic. See WP:SOFIXIT. Bearian (talk) 02:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'm known for my difficult blocks of vandals. Bearian (talk) 02:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- POV problems are not for AFD. The topic is notable and needs documented. Umbralcorax (talk) 04:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the wrong forum for POV discussions. Subject is clearly notable and necesarry. --J.Mundo (talk) 05:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and speedy close Content issues that involve POV are material for dispute resolution and rewriting. AFD is the wrong venue. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and start from the bottom is the only way to remove the article's POV problems. While it is true that AFD is not for cleanup, we must be more proactive in removing NPOV violations. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article doesn't need to be deleted to remove POV problems. It is practical to fix the POV problems, so WP:DELETION requires us to keep the article. JulesH (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These claims of POV are pretty weak-sauce. I actually bothered to read the article, and it was surprisingly neutral given the inherently inflammatory subject matter. The health care section could use a little work, but that is 1 section out of 45. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Also, this is an inappropriate venue for resolving editing disputes. AfD hero (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - POV issues are not a tangible reason for deletion. — neuro^(talk) 13:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is about human right in US and the subject of the article can be a subject of an article on wikipedia becuause User:Lucifero4

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

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

The result was speedy keep. nomination withdrawn. Mgm|^(talk) 13:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

City Hall (IRT Second Avenue Line)[edit]

Look at the last discussion on User talk:Chckmtechmp138. 175 of this editors articles have been deleted and the reasons are stated there. I believe this article falls under the same reasoning. Belasted (talk) 02:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:
   :168th Street (BMT Jamaica Line)
   :Sutphin Boulevard (BMT Jamaica Line)
   :Queens Boulevard (BMT Jamaica Line)
   :Metropolitan Avenue (BMT Jamaica Line)

Keep The AfD discussion of these, at WP:Articles for deletion/Court Street (BMT Fulton Street Line), resulted in a snow keep by Tone, followed by renaming of those of the articles that needed it, eg. from 52 Street (BMT Fifth Avenue Line)) to 52nd Street (BMT Fifth Avenue Line). the present AfD therefore does not seem reasonable. DGG (talk) 02:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please be specific in stating deletion rationale. The last discussion that you mentioned now points to a failed deletion request. NVO (talk) 03:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see any valid reason for deletion. --J.Mundo (talk) 05:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was wrong to nominate this. Should I delete this, or just let it stay here? Belasted (talk) 05:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In view of what you say, this debate should now be closed as a speedy keep -- withdrawn by nominator. You could close it yourself as a non-admin closure but I'm not always comfortable with those; I feel it's usually wisest to let the admins be the janitors.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Moytoy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Nancy Moytoy

Everything in this article is uncredible historical myth, and the article should be deleted. A reference notice has been up since November 2007 and none have been provided. And since the "information" within in it is not credible, none could be. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 02:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for prolonged lack of reliable sources. WillOakland (talk) 23:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and lack of reliable sources, and per nom's previous work at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moytoy I. Drmies (talk) 04:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This has hoax written all over it............and, in any case, no evidence of notability. Vartanza (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not thrilled to delete this, but I'm willing to go along with it. More than happy to userify or restore just as soon as a motivated editor and a couple of sources appear. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lootah family[edit]

Recommend deletion because fails WP:BIO. This page has no references and has been up since December 2006. It is frequently vandalized by IP editors, but without sources it is difficult to tell what is vandalism and what is not. It is an orphaned article having a single article link from the /* See also */ of the Al Hamiri family article. I note that the article is not a hoax, that S.S. Lootah Group is a significant employer in the United Arab Emirates, and that Haji Saeed Ahmed al-Lootah was a real person, with his philanthropy noted in the Dubai pharmacy college and Dubai Medical College for Girls articles. Nonetheless, this current article is unsubstantiated and general notability has not been shown for the family. --Bejnar (talk) 01:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice towards recreation with sources. Miami33139 (talk) 02:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From a quick search through google and google news it appears that this family is notable. Primary sources and blog posts indicate that they are associated with important businesses in UAE, and in a lot of news stories about other topics, various government officials with the last name "Lootah" were quoted. I think it's pretty clear that the reason why we don't have reliable sources is the language barrier. On one hand, it's OK for articles to be imperfect to be improved later, and we must always be mindful of systematic bias. On the other hand verifiability is crucial. Considering all this I refrain from taking a definite position. AfD hero (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Consider that this is a WP:BIO case, it may be better to have nothing at all until someone with the appropriate language skills can recreate it. Is there an Arabic noticeboard to find existing Wikipedians that might volunteer to do that? Miami33139 (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sweetcron[edit]

Minor social networking-type website, general notability issues. One possibly-acceptable mention in English here. Merovingian (T, C) 18:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The mention in that PR article is rather week and since the takeover described involved Yongfook, it's not really independent. That said, an Ars Technica review and coverage by NETTUTS do show this isn't just a random piece of software. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First this is not a website but a software. Second, user Mgm has shown that sources are available to establish notability. --J.Mundo (talk) 05:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, leaning towards keep. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Gilmore[edit]

City level politician, fails WP:POLITICIAN. All references are either SELFPUB or local news stories. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This woman sits on the city council for Nashville, Tennessee, the state capital, and a city of over 600,000 people; it's not a random little municipality such as Monteagle, Tennessee. Per WP:POLITICIAN, "Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion [major local political figures who have received significant press coverage], as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city." Seems to me that she qualifies. Nyttend (talk) 04:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: She sits on the council along with 39 other city council members, possibly the third largest city council in the country. Simply being on the council does *not* meet WP:POLITICIAN. She doesn't qualify unless she is notable in some way. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on two grounds: first, from the position we can safely assume sources will be available for notability, and 2nd, they actually are. DGG (talk) 19:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See above - we cannot safely assume sources will be available for notability, and all the sources in the article are either SELFPUB or local in scope. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, WP:POLITICIAN does not say that local politicians cannot have articles; it only says that unlike state/provincial/federal legislators, local politicians aren't entitled to a presumption of inherent notability just on the basis of having held political office, if sources aren't actually present in the article. They can still be kept if valid sources are provided. I'm not going to offer any assessment as to whether the sources in this case are sufficient, however, because I'm not nearly knowledgeable enough about Nashville to make that sort of judgement. No !vote, just $0.02 for the pot. Bearcat (talk) 09:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. PhilKnight (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kougari Oval[edit]

Delete nothing to indicate that this is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of content beyond a basic definition. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being a crappy stub is a reason to expand - or at least try to - not for deletion before any attempts are made to do so. This is the home ground of one of Queensland's top rugby league clubs (the former club of the great Wally Lewis, no less). I've made a small start at improving the article. Grutness...wha? 00:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In general I agree with you about stubs, but there has to be a line somewhere. In this case, anyone trying to provide a larger article wouldn't have lost any useful information from a deletion. Anyone trying to write an article on the topic would've found the stub info. Stubs aren't supposed to be placeholders but short articles with some useful content. I voted to delete because I didn't consider it to be a reasonable stub. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair comments. Grutness...wha? 07:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep rewritten version. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and very tidy stub after improvements. Worth expanding, yes... but not worth deleting. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't know how it looked when it was nominated, but it's a keeper now. §FreeRangeFrog 02:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricanes (basketball)[edit]

Non-notable sports team, fails WP:ORG. This passage raises serious questions about WP:COI and WP:SPAM. --Dynaflow babble 01:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

passage has been removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdnic1 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete This non-professional sports team doesn't meet WP:ORG and the article clearly seems to have been set up to promote the club (part of the history section includes: '12/02/09 - The Hurricanes Wikipedia page has been unveiled.') Nick-D (talk) 02:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GROUP and WP:ATHLETE. WWGB (talk) 04:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The opposition to Knight probably is notable, but either can be covered under the Texas Tech Men's Basketball article, or under Knight himself. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Schaller[edit]

Delete unnotable professor, NYT article is probably notable but fails WP:1E and partly WP:INHERITED. Other references are not notable. prod remove by non-article creator -Zeus-^u_c 01:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--does not appear to be notable per WP:PROF. Google Scholar produces nothing exciting, just (three) publications by the man himself, which are cited a few times. This Knight letter is not much, and not enough. Drmies (talk) 04:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Associate professor, with 10 peer reviewed publications in well-known journals in Google Scholar. [15]The NYT article is a major story. He would be borderline notable without it on the basis of his published work,so this is sufficient. DGG (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Citation impact seems to be low, and no widely held books according to WorldCat. The opposition to the hiring of Bob Knight by Texas Tech generated some media coverage, but not enough to justify inclusion under WP:BIO.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete as blatant misinformation. Davewild (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tubby Engine[edit]

Glitches aren't really that notable. This glitch hasn't been the source of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Fails WP:V through a Google search for notability. No References. -- Darth Mike (join the dark side) 01:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Speedy Delete as a hoax. The screenshot is a photoshop, I can tell from the pixels and having seen a great many 'shops in my lifetime. A quick Google search [16]brings up one relevant page: the article itself. ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 14:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I have placed the hoax template on the page per above comment. No comment on AfD otherwise. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Appears to clearly be a hoax fuzzy510 (talk) 21:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G3) as blatant misinformation, which construes as pure vandalism. Yeah, the linked image is definitely a Photoshop–forgery. MuZemike 22:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. Clear photoshopping of the supposed screen shot: see that the pixels in the image on the left of the screen are larger than those contained in the image of Pikachu. Also the text in the area at the bottom has smaller pixels than either of them: text that detailed could only be produced on a 256-pixel wide screen, whereas the gameboy had a 160-pixel wide display. JulesH (talk) 07:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Blatant hoax, potentially G3. Adding db tag now. — neuro^(talk) 13:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Missouri Democratic primary, 2004. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Missouri primary, 2004[edit]

All information needed is found in Missouri Democratic primary, 2004. There is no need for two articles on the same primary. Muboshgu (talk) 01:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Duplication of a more relevant article. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Nothing wrong with the content itself, and the name itself doesn't seem a problem, so it would be a useful redirect without a problematic history. Nyttend (talk) 04:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But this title could refer to any primary to any reader, so redirecting doesn't solve the problem. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Pardon, what do you mean? I'm a little confused. Perhaps you mean essentially "it doesn't necessarily mean the Democratic primary"? If so, we could just make it a disambiguation page for the D primary, the R primary, and any other party primaries that have articles. Nyttend (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Based on the article histories, the article up for discussion is older than the one that is considered the main article. Since there is an overlap in time both these were edited, a history merge is not desirable, but since the content was obviously duplicated in the later article, a redirect to save the edit history is warranted. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Redirect, merge any non-overlapped info Vartanza (talk) 03:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zoom Player[edit]

non-notable commercial software. no sources. news.google.com shows two hits in Russian and Chinese, automated translation looks like these do not meet WP:RS or WP:N (fleeting mention) standards. Miami33139 (talk) 01:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have missed these ones in the archives [17]. RasterFaAye (talk) 01:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. [18] One paragraph in a download directory is not notable.
2. [19] one paragraph on download directory connected to a forum is not notable.
3. [20] Helpdesk questions on web boards are not notable.
4. [21] vulnerability reports are not notable.
5. [22] passing mention, and also not even the same product, but referring to a kids toy. If that kids toys had an article, it would fail too!
6. Blogs that review shareware in non-English languages are not notable.
7. Reprints of any of the above are not notable.

- That covers the top ten links in the Google archive link you provided. You need to start doing a little more leg-work to improve articles with actual references instead of contesting every PROD and forcing them all on AfD. Miami33139 (talk) 01:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Nothing particularly noteworthy, groundbreaking, or outstanding about this player.. it ain't no Winamp.. just another among hundreds. So why !vote keep you ask? Because the inclusionist in me doesn't want the nominator going through List of media players and prod'ing everything in sight based on this precedent without doing any "legwork" of his own to find references. So unless some consensus is reached on the inherent nobility of unremarkable media players I'm gonna go with Wikipedia:Other stuff exists.
- I've been going through dozens of lists of software, including List of media players, finding things that simply are not notable. Writing software is not unique. Getting it on a download site and having some blogs write about it is not notable. These things are not inherently notable and that is the point. Miami33139 (talk) 01:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Finding things that simply are not notable" - Until someone else finds reliable sources and then all of a sudden they are? As in the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xfce?? Instead of going through the lists and prod'ing things you deem non-notable why not go through the lists and try to prove that they are? Seems like a much more productive way to improve the encyclopedia. OlEnglish (talk) 02:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD debate on Xfce clearly shows that when the sources are provided I'll withdraw the nomination. Even in cases without sources, there are things obviously notable just lacking references and I've done some cleanup or source adding while going through the lists, for instance CD Player (Windows) was written poorly, and I cleaned it up, in other cases I have added references when I knew something about it. My process is not deletionist. This article, Zoom Player is not notable, never has been, and as an obsolete product, it never will be. This AfD is about this article but you are objecting for entirely different reasons than the validity of this article. If you would like to revive discussions to make a usable version of Wikipedia:Notability (software) I would be happy to work with you but vanity projects that end up on a handful of download libraries backed up by blog reviews aren't going to cut it. Miami33139 (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Nom You seem to be confusing verifiability and notability. If there are no reliable sources and none can be found, than that is the deciding issue. Notability only comes into play when things are actually verifiable. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Software without reliable sources and proof of notability = delete. Spiesr (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even though I liked it before discovering that VLC is the One True Way. - Eldereft (cont.) 03:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not most prevalent audio software, but well past notability threshhold. LotLE×talk 22:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please base that statement on our notability criteria, not personal feelings. Miami33139 (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. My feelings are more or less summarized by DGG; however, I do think that there is consensus in this Afd to keep the article, and that consensus does not plainly violate our policies/guidelines. While I might personally choose otherwise, keep is the appropriate close here. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Toubin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Unnotable person. Fails WP:BIO. First AfD closed as delete, with article creator immediately recreating the article and adding another local source and calling notable. Second AfD was more ambiguous. Over a year later, nothing has been added to the article but more local sources. Almost all sources are local newspapers (failing requirement to be independant for establishing notability) and self-published websites. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, article creator appears to be canvassing for keep remarks on this AfD.[23][24] -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editors previously engaged in this discussion have been notified - as it is a repeat three times over - and consensus already states that this article is notable. Bhaktivinode (talk) 01:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editors who previously said keep in the last discussion have been notified. You deliberately did not notify ALL previous editors, most of whom said delete in the last discussion. Nor has consensus stated that this is notable, considering the first AfD said delete and the last was much more along the lines of no consensus that blatant keep. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that has been noted. Bhaktivinode (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citation overview:

Austin American Statesman article - deadlinks so cannot verify what it says
Austin American Statesman slideshow which mentions that he and wife are last two members of a congregation and maintain the synagogue and cemetary
book by Myrna K. and Harvey Frommer which contains Toubin's reminisces
book by Hollace A. Weiner which contains Toubin's reminisces
self-published website for a documentary that contains a quote from Toubin. The documentary itself had limited release - one film festival and an airing on KEDT South Texas Public Broadcasting.
self-published website (by Blinn College) listing a scholarship in the name of his parents. Does not list subject's name at all
City of Brenham self-published website which deadlinks - supposedly talks about a park he funded
self-published website (Blinn College) listing their board of trustees; Toubin's name is only given in caption of a picture
article in local paper (Brenham Banner-Press) which mentions in half a sentence his reeleciton to a local board
3 self-published websites listing donors to various causes; Toubin's name is listed with others and no supporting text

Karanacs (talk) 16:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A "self published" exclusion would be a website or book by Leon Toubin to determine notability. These websites are no more self published than the New York Times is. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Bhaktivinode (talk) 01:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leon Toubin (2nd nomination). Bhaktivinode (talk) 01:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Comment While I was "notified", I would have commented anyhow because this article is on my watch list. A) Several articles from the Austin American-Statesman are used as sources -- and the Statesman isn't necessarily a small local news source. Regional, perhaps, but it is the daily newspaper of Austin the capital city of Texas and the 16th largest city in the US; in any case, according to its own Wikipedia entry, the Statesman has a weekday circulation of 173,527 and Sunday circulation of 215,984. B) His input was used in developing a documentary for PBS (on which he featured), and while thats not a great fete, it certainly establishes some notariaty. --Nsaum75 (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Collectonian and I have had disagreements concerning notability since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temple Freda back in 2007. The articles Collectonian has presently listed for deletion need to be reviewed by 3rd party editors. Bhaktivinode (talk) 02:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Experience has shown that such articles can be written for most local figures if sufficient research has been done. This is ann instance where 3rd parties have in fact done and published the research, making it usable here. A similar problem occurred in the past with many articles on Louisiana politicians. I was not happy with those, and I am not happy with these. it represents a change in the level of Wikipedia that I am not sure there is consensus for. As we go on, the availability of local sources in Google books will make the creation of these much easier.I think we need to face this problem at some point. Myself, I do not think the WP:GNG offers a useful guideline either in the positive or the negative direction. We need some real standard not depending on the accident of what happens to be available--of course we would still be bound by WP:V, but it is met in this case & in the ones I am mentioning. Personally, I have no fixed position about how inclusive the local figures standard should be, except it should be a real standard. I !voted merge at the last AfD, and I continue to think such compromises the best solution. DGG (talk) 02:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The PBS documentary, the text published by Dartmouth College, and the Austin American Statesman article on Leon Toubin are three reliable sources that clearly attribute notability to the subject. Bhaktivinode (talk) 03:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep per notability asserted and substantially sourced. This is history here folks... not a car wash in Deluth. Categorizing publications prominent in their area as non-notable is contrary to WP:CSB. Each time the article has been revived, it has come back better and better. There will be no need for a 4th AfD... unless Leon has become the subject of a later nom's WP:UGH. No one canvased me. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CSB is neither a policy nor a guideline, so it is not a valid argument. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unaware of anything stating that only policies and guidelines can be used as valid arguments at AfD. While CSB my not be the most relevant here, the point that the labeling some of these sources as not being notable when they are significant in their area is a problem and does relate to CSB as well as to the general definition of a RS. Hobit (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have agree with Hobit; This article, and many like it, use sources to which CSB is relevant. I would also include that the uniqueness of this individual should be taken into account. There are thousands of Churches and other Christian religious establishments in Texas and the mid-western United States -- many being maintained by small, aging congregations and each of great importance. However being that they are many in number, their collective historical value is not the same as those who strive to preserve something which is among the last of its kind. Obviously this may be different if we were discussing a small synagogue in New York or even Israel, but...we're not...we're discussing a land where historically there were not many practicing jews, and today even fewer remain today...most of what is left, is their legacy and buildings. --Nsaum75 (talk) 01:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While the article does contain some dubious referencing (Geocities for example), the idea that local sources are not independent is something that cannot be stated as a matter of fact. It's open for discussion. The main issue is that the majority of references point to the same source. A little more variety is required. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The Geocities cite mentioned above is the official cite of the Texas Jewish Historical Society. There are also three very reliable sources used in the "Jewish Texan historian" section. I will start to expand the article to address the issue of variety. Bhaktivinode (talk) 13:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject is a local man who happened to be interviewed for oral histories. Thousands of people are interviewed for oral histories (whether these be transcribed into a book or used as a documentary) each year, but we should not argue that all of these are notable, whether or not a local paper covered the event. None of the subject's other activities come close to meeting any inclusion criteria. Note also that Wikipedia:BIO specifically states that if a person is known only for one event (say, giving an oral history), that a specific article is not usually necessary. He could be mentioned instead in any article on the works that his interviews were published in. Karanacs (talk) 14:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I agree that being a source for oral histories is one event. Though there are other reasons for his notability, such as his role as caretaker of an historic synagogue. There are mulitple reliable sources to back up each event. Bhaktivinode (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being the caretaker of a historical synagogue deserves a mention in the synagogue article (which I see is already there), but is not a justification of notability. We don't have articles on the hundreds of thousands of people who take care of older religious buildings (or even buildings on the National Register of Historic Places). Karanacs (talk) 15:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a detailed review of the sources above. Essentially, most of the sources are self-published websites, many of which contain no information other than Toubin's name in a list of other people. At least one of the sources does not mention Toubin's name at all, but instead concern his parents. The documentary that he was quoted in received extremely limited viewing. Although I've not read the books nor seen the documentary, the descriptions of them make it seem that Toubin is simply quoted in them - there was no research into his life other than what he told them. He was also only one of a number of people interviewed for these endeavors, which implies that his individual recollections are not notable in and of themselves, only how they support the narrative the author is drawing from the broader memory base. Karanacs (talk) 16:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Concerning his role as caretaker of an historic synagogue, and his role as an oral historian, sources such as the Austin American Statesman, the Texas Jewish Historical Society, and PBS have verified his notability and they are reliable sources for such verification. Bhaktivinode (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see the Texas Jewish Historical Society ref - the only one that had been on the page talked about his mother. PBS has not verified his notability at all - they produced a documentary in which he was one of many people giving interviews. One of the Statesman links deadlinks, so I can't verify what it said; the other is a slideshow and talks about him in the caption of a picture of the synagogue. Karanacs (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I will add the Texas Jewish Historical Society information to the article. Bhaktivinode (talk) 17:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leon Toubin (2nd nomination), many editors, at least 5, cited the Austin American Statesman article as a reliable source that established the subjects notability. Presently the link to the 2007 news article is dead. I am looking for another copy as that article is directly relevant to this discussion as it was in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leon Toubin (2nd nomination). Bhaktivinode (talk) 17:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restatement Here's the problem: does someone have to do something notable to be notable, or does the mere fact of being discussed in good published sources suffice, even if what they discuss is not notable? If we deny articles to those who have been notable only for one single event, regardless of sourcing, shouldn't we deny notability to those who have been involved in no significant events at all? If someone becomes the subject of a major news or television story or documentary, documenting that person's unimportant life, does this make him important? The way we have it now, for anything but a person, 2RS=Notability. for a person, RS, no matter how many, about a single non-historic event do not make for notability, but the same sources if they talk about nothing much at all, make it an appropriate article? One or both of ONEEVENT or the General notability guidelines have to go--they are incompatible. (my own view is that both should go, as currently interpreted, they say nothing about encyclopedic suitability.) DGG (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply When a person takes on notable roles in society - in this case the role of oral historian, leader/caretaker of an historic shul, the last male member of his community, and other roles mentioned in the article - and these topics are commented on by multiple reliable sources, then yes, the subject is clearly notable. Such is the case with this subject and thus this article should be kept. Bhaktivinode (talk) 21:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Notability is when the media notice you and write about you. The other type of notability is the fastest, smartest and biggest that make up the Guinness World Records. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He plainly meets WP:GNG. Perhaps he was selected as a topic by these RS for random reasons. But there seems to be non-trivial coverage in RS. So keep. Hobit (talk) 22:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Bhaktivinode. IZAK (talk) 09:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus was to delete, however I will leave a redirect to List of bus routes in Essex as mentioned. Happy to userify if anyone wants the content. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Essex bus route 804[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable school bus route, previously nominated but failed because of confusing nomination. Renominating appropriate routes individually this time. jenuk1985 (talk) 00:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, inherently not notable. Punkmorten (talk) 09:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete This route can go. Spiesr (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge Inherently notable. Better alternatives to deletion need consideration per WP:BEFORE, e.g. merger to List of bus routes in Essex. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of noteability provided through third party sources. Merely existing does not make something noteable. Jtrainor (talk) 05:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Are we really writing articles on the routes of school buses now? Has it really come to this? Yeah, I can't wait until about a quarter of Wikipedia articles are on individual school bus routes in every district of every country on the planet. That'll improve the encyclopedia. -R. fiend (talk) 06:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wheatland Center, New York[edit]

These ~~six~~five articles are all about hamlets/neighborhoods of one small town in upstate New York: Wheatland, New York (pop. 5,149).

According to the articles themselves, they consist primarily of excerpts from the book History of the Town of Wheatland: Scottsville, Mumford, Garbutt, Belcoda, Beulah, Wheatland Center by Carl F Schmidt (1953, reprinted 2002). One article claims that this book is in the public domain (here) while the others say it is used with permission (here, for example). But either way, just the editor's say-so isn't sufficient.

Additionally, as the articles themselves say:

The search for interesting or relevant information about today's Belcoda has, of this writing, turned up nothing. The search continues.

[A]s of this writing, interesting or relevant information about today's Beulah has proved elusive. The search goes on.

All of the industry that made Garbutt commercially significant has gone. A local excavating contractor may be found on Union Street and a small retail antiques business on the main road, but no other businesses or employers remain. The US Census Bureau does not maintain demographic data for Garbutt.

The US Census Bureau does not maintain demographic data for Mumford.

The area on the west side of Wheatland Center Road and between North and Scottsville-Mumford Roads once held houses and businesses. Today, there is nothing there but scrub land on the eastern side of the former gravel pit. The author of this article recalls, as a youth, farming the large field on the east side of Wheatland Center Road where once stood some of the buildings and businesses described here. Nothing of them remains.

I think that if anything in these articles is found to be salvageable, those bits should be merged into Wheatland, New York. But they mostly appear to be a combination of copyvio and OR. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 00:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —Dori (Talk • Contribs) 01:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I unlisted Scottsville, as it's an incorporated village (I don't understand how you can have an incorporated village inside an incorporated town, but that's irrelevant). I've put an ((cleanup-afd)) on it, partly due to the copyright status, and partly because it's not WP format). Dori (Talk • Contribs) 23:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Once notable, always notable, and all towns are notable. The fact that a book has been written about these places adds to their notability. Wikipedia is not just an encylopedia about things that exist today; articles about vanished communities are just as legitimate as those about communities existing today. -- Eastmain (talk) 01:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to be clear: this is not listing the town as a whole—that's notable. It's just the no-longer inhabited sections of it that I think could be merged. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 23:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The books identified as being in the public domain were confirmed as such by the publisher who did the reprints. This company's assertion of PD suffices. "Used with permission" is simply an acknowledgment of the publisher's cooperation. If it was a poor choice of words, then it can be struck without harm. If you can find a valid copyright, then and only then can you make the charge that this content constitutes a copyright violation.

Before incorporating the books' content, I specifically enquired via "helpme" whether this is acceptable and was specifically told that it is.

There is, to my knowledge, no valid reason for claiming that specific articles about these locations cannot exist on their own. They are neither too brief nor devoid of factual, historical, and current information.

In writing the articles I have contributed, I have found numerous boilerplate pages which have the same cookie-cutter statistical information from the same sources, and these appear not to be proposed for deletion.

Your imputation that there may be nothing salvageable in these articles is offensive and unwarranted. If there is a problem with informality, then make a complaint as such. Better to be informal than to be dull and uninformative. --Coosbane (talk) 01:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, your assertion of the company's assertion of PD does not suffice; that's WP's rule, not mine.

Is the ((helpme)) response you refer to this one? If so, did you (as requested) send proof to OTRS? If you did, then that just needs to be added to the articles and then we're fine (I believe). However, a 1953 book may be in a gray area, depending on whether or not the copyright was renewed by 1981, and whether or not anyone claimed copyright on the 2002 edition. But I'm not a lawyer, and I don't even try to comprehend all those annoying little details. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 02:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

It is not my assertion; it is the publisher's. What evidence of this is required and who requires it? It would be useful to new contributors if the procedure for this were to be spelled out clearly. --Coosbane (talk) 02:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should be able to find all or most of the info you need at PERMISSION. Until WP hears from the publisher, all they've got is your assertion about the publisher's assertion—which is why you were asked to send proof to OTRS before putting up the material. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 02:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Scottsville, no opinion on the others. Scottsville is a village (not a hamlet, there is a difference. That means it is automatically notable. It is a incorporated village. TJ Spyke 01:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've unlisted Scottsville, so I've indented this !vote. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 23:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup; locations are generally notable. The format is horrible; even if something is public domain (which it does appear to be; search [25] for History Wheatland), that doesn't mean we should leave "the original grammatical solecisms...unchanged". --NE2 02:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These aren't neighborhoods of a town in the normal way, as in New York a town is a (generally rural) area with a little bit of local government, somewhat like a civil township — see Administrative divisions of New York for more information. Communities in areas such as this are considered automatically notable. Moreover, as TJSpyke notes, Scottsville is a complete municipality, legally equal to Hempstead, population 56,000. Without a doubt these are notable, and even if the copyright issue were still a problem (note that "If you can find a valid copyright, then and only then can you make the charge that this content constitutes a copyright violation" is wrong; we assume that it's a copyvio unless otherwise noted), we could cut these down to stubs. Nyttend (talk) 04:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Bear in mind, though, that at least a couple of these are not communities. As noted above, these are part of an incorporated town (which has its own page, as it should). But if there are no buildings, no inhabitants, and no census bureau data, does it need its own page? Dori (Talk • Contribs) 23:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - inherently notable. Clean up and move on. Bearian (talk) 22:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Jclemens as an article created by a banned user in violation of their ban (CSD G5). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dare To Love Me[edit]

Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V. No source provided that filming has resumed. Ward3001 (talk) 00:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Ward3001 (talk) 00:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sources have been added, but there still aren't any sources that filming has begun. Still fails WP:CRYSTAL. Ward3001 (talk) 23:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep Filming "began" last year. This was confirmed and would have passed WP:NFF months ago. That it has been announced that filming has temporarily halted and will begin again is also sourced. But since this is an announcement that it will start up again in May, its kinda difficult to show it currently "filming" as that is now in the past, and the announcement of production continuing is in the future. This may be one of the "exceptions" of which the guidelines refer, where it both meets and does not meet NFF. If the article is retained now, it can always returen to AfD in 3 months if the announcements prove false. If it is deleted now, there'a gonna be a lot of work to reconstruct it after-the-fact. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't see any reason for an "exception". Production was halted and filming has not resumed. WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF still apply. And the concern "If it is deleted now, there'a gonna be a lot of work to reconstruct it after-the-fact" is nonsense. Simply create a subpage of your user page and archive the article there. Then if/when filming resumes, the article can be re-created within a matter of minutes. Ward3001 (talk) 00:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The film had begun shooting in various locations. The film had passed WP:NFF. The film before, during, and after the hiatus, had and continues to have coverage which overwhelms the GNG. But thank you very much for alerting that WP:NTEMP can be so easily disregarded.... as well as can the caveat that heads EVERY guideline, "...best treated with common sense and the occasional exception.", since it fails completely to either define "common sense" or explain what constitutes "an occasional exception". Thank you for your input. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - And thank you for reminding me to point out that WP:NTEMP does not apply to a film that has halted production and, since none of us can predict the future, may never resume production. As I have perused film pages on Wikipedia, I don't believe I have seen a single film (at least not a recently begun film) that has a page if filming was halted. Or does "common sense" tell us that someone can predict the future? Let's see what others think as this AfD proceeds. And if filming hasn't resumed a year or two from now and it still has coverage, please be my guest in restoring the article if it's deleted. Ward3001 (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would not even consider trying to bring this back, not against such strong opinion. Your have been most enlightening in pointing out my ineptitude in how improperly I was interpreting guideline. Out of curiosity, what is your personal definition of "common sense and the occasional exception", and what is your interpretation of why each guideline includes that caveat? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Without belaboring this point because this is not a personal talk page or chat room, I'll simply say that "common sense" tells most people that no one can predict the future. Now, if you wish to pursue further discussion of clairvoyance or precognition, please do so somewhere else. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 20:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you very much for letting me know that any opinion or input contrary to your own is not welcome at this AfD. I was not aware that you WP:OWNed it. My error. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please make any additional false insinuations on my or your talk page, as they are not relevant to this AfD. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 04:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see the issue here. Delete it per WP:CRYSTAL. MichaelQSchmidt's suggestion that it will be a lot of work to reconstruct after the fact is bollocks. If the sources ever get uncovered to show that the movie really is moving forward, any admin can resurrect the article. Hell, I'd be happy to do it. Trusilver 04:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Super, I'll be looking forward to your bringing the article back in a few weeks. Thank you for offering. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: First, the article was initially created by User:Valerie burns in violation of her block. Second, there is no reliable source for the resumption, and the claimed timeline in the article doesn't even make sense: put on hiatus in January, but resumption announce the previous December?—Kww(talk) 15:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was all ready redirected to London School Buses . Fait accompli. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 640[edit]

Non-notable school bus route, previously nominated but failed because of confusing nomination. Renominating appropriate routes individually this time. jenuk1985 (talk) 00:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The article has been merged which is a sensible alternative to deletion per WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural point with no vote attached. The articles on London bus routes nominated here have been merged into London School Buses. As this is not Redirects for discussion, I am unsure what the nominator's intention was - whether it was to delete the redirect or to delete London School Buses. I have asked for an explanation. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The merger has occurred since the nomination was made. I'd argue that the redirects should now be deleted, but I guess that's for another nomination. I'd ask that the author of the previous comment check facts before making such comments. jenuk1985 (talk) 10:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to London School Buses. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 632[edit]

Non-notable school bus route, previously nominated but failed because of confusing nomination. Renominating appropriate routes individually this time. jenuk1985 (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The article has been merged which is a sensible alternative to deletion per WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The merger has occurred since the nomination was made. I'd argue that the redirects should now be deleted, but I guess that's for another nomination. jenuk1985 (talk) 10:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to London School Buses. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 616[edit]

Non-notable school bus route, previously nominated but failed because of confusing nomination. Renominating appropriate routes individually this time. jenuk1985 (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I say that we merge all London school bus routes which are nominated for deletion into one article (i.e. London Buses routes 600 - 699)Spacevezon (talk) 08:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete. I can see a case for having articles on individual "real" bus routes, but we really don't need articles on every school bus, mobility bus, dial-a-ride service, taxi rank and all the rest of Transport for London's panoply of services. A brief "school bus routes in London" list would do fine. – iridescent 13:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The article has been merged which is a sensible alternative to deletion per WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The merger has occurred since the nomination was made. I'd argue that the redirects should now be deleted, but I guess that's for another nomination. jenuk1985 (talk) 10:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to London School Buses. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 611[edit]

Non-notable school bus route, previously nominated but failed because of confusing nomination. Renominating appropriate routes individually this time. jenuk1985 (talk) 00:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The article has been merged which is a sensible alternative to deletion per WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The merger has occurred since the nomination was made. I'd argue that the redirects should now be deleted, but I guess that's for another nomination. jenuk1985 (talk) 10:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to London School Buses. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 606[edit]

Non-notable school bus route, previously nominated but failed because of confusing nomination. Renominating appropriate routes individually this time. jenuk1985 (talk) 00:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The article has been merged which is a sensible alternative to deletion per WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The merger has occurred since the nomination was made. I'd argue that the redirects should now be deleted, but I guess that's for another nomination. jenuk1985 (talk) 10:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to London School Buses. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 605[edit]

Non-notable school bus route, previously nominated but failed because of confusing nomination. Renominating appropriate routes individually this time. jenuk1985 (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I say that we merge all London school bus routes which are nominated for deletion into one article (i.e. Lonodon Buses routes 600 - 699)Spacevezon (talk) 08:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The article has been merged which is a sensible alternative to deletion per WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The merger has occurred since the nomination was made. I'd argue that the redirects should now be deleted, but I guess that's for another nomination. jenuk1985 (talk) 10:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to London School Buses. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 603[edit]

Non-notable school bus route, previously nominated but failed because of confusing nomination. Renominating appropriate routes individually this time. jenuk1985 (talk) 00:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I say that we merge all London school bus routes which are nominated for deletion into one article (i.e. Lonodon Buses routes 600 - 699)Spacevezon (talk) 08:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was tried and was considered too many. --Oakshade (talk) 09:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The article has been merged which is a sensible alternative to deletion per WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The merger has occurred since the nomination was made. I'd argue that the redirects should now be deleted, but I guess that's for another nomination. jenuk1985 (talk) 10:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're valid and logical redirects. --Oakshade (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete - blanked by author. ... discospinster _talk 23:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OmegaRed[edit]

Appears to fail WP:MUSIC. Additionally, article written by subject, so large conflict of interest. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that it appears that way to me as well. Although the artist is in the mix and has received newspaper publicity (article in the Boston Globe) and award(s), there is a question as to who wrote the article and the motivation for writing it. If it's the artist himself who wrote the article on himself, then there's a conundrum in Wikipedia ethical terms. Notability is another general issue which is harder to resolve and weigh out. --- (Bob)

In the Dorchester, Massachusetts article, Robert Grant (or the person with the editor tag "User:Robertgrant1976") appears to have added himself as a notable person from Dorchester. Does this follow the same guidelines ? --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 15:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiklrsc (talk) 01:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: lacks widespread reliable 3rd party coverage WP:MUSICBIO. JamesBurns (talk) 05:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Jclemens (talk) 06:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC, no third party coverage. — neuro^(talk) 08:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I searched Google and couldn't find any independent coverage of this musician's work. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. Alexf^(talk) 18:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Dukes[edit]

Cannot find any reference to this person playing for the team indicated. Furthermore, the user that created the page used to have the username Dukes.Simon and indicated on the username change form that it was his real name (see here). I would suggest that it is likely that this article is a hoax unless reliable sources that I could not find exist. Camw (talk) 00:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Camw (talk) 01:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems like a WP:HOAX. There's no mention of any "Simon Dukes" here (although admittedly I'm not sure if that's the right page) but a search for " "Simon Dukes" + Terengganu " should return something, and that's not the case. The ref was also added to the team page, it will have to be removed. Actually I'd argue for a very speedy WP:CSD#G3 here. §FreeRangeFrog 00:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unverifiable. No mention of the word "dukes" anywhere on ganusoccer.net. Whilst only a fansite, it does appear to be active and routinely updated. No luck with Google either, which would be expected to churn up something. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 03:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not too many 15-year old professional footballers about. ~~If he does indeed play for the club (which cannot be verified) it is presumably only in the youth team and therefore not notable anyway~~ If a 15-year old Australian was playing fully professional football in a foreign country it would surely have garnered some press coverage somewhere in the world. The fact that it hasn't suggests either that he is only playing for the club's non-notable under-15 team or that in fact he isn't playing for the club at all -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines only say the league they're playing needs to be notable. Assuming he plays the youth team based on his age is discrimination and not backed up by sources. Instead of trying to discount notability, stick with the lack of sources. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the guideline says that the league has to be fully professional, which youth football for 15-year olds clearly isn't. And even if the guidelines did say that the league had to simply be notable, under-15 youth leagues aren't notable so he wouldn't pass anyway..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded my !vote above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as probable hoax. Giant Snowman 13:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to be a hoax, google search on 'Simon Dukes Terengganu' returns no relevant links. LK (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverifiable. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete!!! - I personally know Simon Dukes and that he started this hoax. His username was Dukes.Simon until he changed it. Wouldn't normally rat out friends, but my love of Wikipedia comes ahead of fraternal love. (Sorry Simon) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.51.110.216 (talk) 08:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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