< 21 February	23 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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 (the article was about a gamer and contained no assertion of notability). —David Eppstein (talk) 02:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ThePepperFlavor[edit]

Badly written article about a non-notable subject Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 04:27, 22 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. If Wikipedia was paper, the ink on the previous nomination would still be wet. Let's at least wait a few months before the next nomination (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malaka Dewapriya[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Submitting and losing at open short film festivals isn't really notable; having looked at the earlier nomination, I don't see how this survived.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Malaka_Dewapriya_(2nd_nomination)

Yes, the Sri Lankan paper did cover this. They'd also cover the winner of a local art show or anything of that sort that has local interest but that fails to provide any notability.

The worst part of this article is the overt self-promotion and hunger for fame when there isn't any. User:HumanFrailty 23:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete User:HumanFrailty 23:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. This was nominated only a week after the previous AfD closed as a keep. Consensus can change, but not that quickly. Even without the previous AfD notability is pretty obvious. The Sunday Times is a national newspaper in a country with a population of over 20 million, so it can't be dismissed as only covering items of local interest. Along with the other sources in the article it demonstrates that the subject clearly passes the notability guidelines. Any issues with the article content can be fixed by editing. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - If the nominator did not feel that the previous AFD was closed properly, then WP:DRV is the venue for contesting it. I see no new information in the nomination that would warrant a return trip to AFD only one week after the previous had been closed. -- Whpq (talk) 13:47, 25 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 02:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Monarchist Party[edit]

Either a WP:HOAX or just something that flunks WP:N. Only source is a community college professor's homepage that is currently a dead link. THF (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --MichiganCharms (talk) 23:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Probably not a hoax as the supposed founder is a real person who supports monarchy [1], but I'm not finding any reliable sources for this political party that aren't quoting from a previous version of this article. Baileypalblue (talk) 02:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that this particular organization, founded in 1999, is not notable. It's probably not a hoax, but as being real, it would fall under the "so what" category. Not surprisingly, there have been similar organizations before 1999, sometimes founded for fun, sometimes to make a point, but never taken very seriously. To my knowledge, no monarachist group has actually fielded a candidate for public office-- I guess it wouldn't make sense for one of them to run for President. Mandsford (talk) 13:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while not a hoax, it is not notable, either. Bearian (talk) 01:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Sol[edit]

Possible hoax (or at least partial-hoax). An earlier editor tagged it as such [2], but tag was quickly removed by an anon. No evidence of claims in article whatsoever. Ghits: pretty much nil: "Amanda Sol" +NASA, Amanda Teresa Sol. Fails WP:V. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 22:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related article:

Similar to above - no evidence of notability. Ghits: "Cornelius Davis" +"Broadway", "Cornelius Patrick Davis". Note that the 2nd result of the "Cornelius Davis + Broadway" Google search above is a Youtube video of what certainly appears to be a school play, not Broadway (I'm not linking directly to it as not to feed this, if it is a hoax). --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 22:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both for the reasons above. Also note that Amanda Sol gets no hits for this person in gscholar or gbook, a bit unexpected for a notable NASA physicist. Also, the creator of those two articles also created Coming of the Age on the same day, about a band which also gets no ghits. Strong circumstantial evidence these were all drive-by vandalisms.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think AbsolutDan and Fabrictramp are right on target. Passes neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO. Zero hits on Google Scholar and Google News. Possibly a hoax. Found this Amanda Sol through a Google search.--Eric Yurken (talk) 16:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - A likely hoax as even non-notable physicists would have some presence on the Google Scholar. Completely unverifiable even if it isn't a hoax. Davis fails verifiability in the same spectacular fashion. -- Whpq (talk) 13:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly under WP:SNOW - The top results on Google today for both articles are the Wikipedia articles themselves and MySpace pages. Still neither verifiable nor reliably sourced. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 13:58, 25 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 - after reading and per note below this is a clear Speedy G3 - Peripitus (Talk) 02:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kevined[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang — ERcheck (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary; Wiktionary or Urban Dictionary are probably better places to put this content. Wandering Courier (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and as neologism. andy (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Looks like a bit of gentle not-quite-personal-attack ribbing. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nominator is correct. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per above, just kevin this article on out of here. Mandsford (talk) 13:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 06:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Speedy) Delete. I still believe this is "blatant and obvious misinformation" and hence eligible for ((db-g3)) . WWGB (talk) 10:21, 24 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. Actually, both this and the men's list would probably be best served just by having a sortable table on List of the verified oldest people but in the absence of that, even though there's a lot of duplication, there doesn't appear to be an overwhelming need to delete this. Black Kite 10:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of the verified oldest women[edit]

~~Seems to be another list that violates WP:NOT; specifically, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information".~~ As I discuss on the talk page, this is essentially the same thing as List of the verified oldest people, except with the 10 males removed and 10 females added. I don't particularly agree with the List of the verified oldest men, but at least I see how it's a substantially different list and the intersection of "male" and "supercentenarian" is a non-trivial aspect. Since the majority of supercentenarians are women, however, I feel that this is a trivial intersection. Cheers, CP 22:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep,I do not agree with your nomination reason. WP:NOT does state Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information but this is not an indiscriminate collection that that is random or haphazard.This is a well organized list. I don't see the logic behind keeping the list of the verified oldest men and deleting this article. Do I sense a bit of sexism?Smallman12q (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 90% of supercentenarians are women and 92 out of the 100 women on this list are already on list of the verified oldest people. To the contrary, the list of the verified oldest men article only lists 10 men who are on list of the verified oldest people and are under-represented. A list of 10 men does not give a proper demographic view on the maximum age spans possible for men. Secondly, you should not throw accusations at other members. This is a place to discuss the article. SiameseTurtle (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Yup, I'm a sexist. I'm also a racist because we have a List of African American astronauts but I haven't created a List of Caucasian astronauts and a committed anti-Christian because I haven't put any effort into creating a List of Christian Christianity scholars even though we've got a List of Muslim Christianity scholars. Seriously though, it's trivial because the vast (90%) majority of oldest people are women, thus this list is nearly indistinguishable from List of the verified oldest people. Please remain civil in all discussions and avoid using personal attacks. Comment on the contributions, not the contributor. Cheers, CP 23:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't meant as an attack, rather as humor WP:Humor(something a number of wikipedians apparently lack) I simply believe that the list should be kept, that is all.Smallman12q (talk) 00:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I don't find being called a sexist funny, especially when there's no indication at all that it's a joke. Are you going to defend "humour [...] something a number of Wikipedians apparently lack" as an ironic joke? Doesn't matter. In any case, I have changed the argument slightly. Cheers, CP 01:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" is not an indiscriminate criterion for deletion. Policy prohibits specific things, not a blanket of whatever you or any editor, personally, "feels" to be indiscriminate. Please find an policy-based argument that actually supports your nomination. Uncle G (talk) 23:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The policy-based rationale may have been phrased poorly, but its spirit is there. I have rephrased the question in my response to Smallman12q, hopefully that will be enough. Cheers, CP 23:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Smallman12q. EagleFan (talk) 00:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Smallman12 and Uncle G's excellent article. Ikip (talk) 01:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It appears the main point for deletion is that the womens' list is indistinguishable from List of the verified oldest people. Fourteen women are listed here that are not on the oldest list and the ranking is entirely unique. That distinguishes it enough for me. TFBCT1 (talk) 01:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually it's just 8. SiameseTurtle (talk) 09:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How can it possibly be "entirely unique" when 92 out of 100 names are listed in the same order on another page? DerbyCountyinNZ 04:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

DeleteOver 90% overlap with another article makes this article of negligible value. DerbyCountyinNZ 02:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Keep - I can not see how this overlaps "90 %" with any other articles; in any case, it is a notable, verifiable, and useful list per WP:LIST. Bearian (talk) 04:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I wasn't going to bother with such a list because of the overlap, but it can also be argued that the RANKINGS are different. Thus this list may be useful as one can figure that person X may be the 90th-oldest person and 83rd-oldest woman. It may also be useful because one can calculate the average age of the 100 oldest women and 100 oldest men, and see what the difference is. My only qualm is that the list should make it apparent, at the top, that this is NOT a list of oldest persons (as the mens' list should do as well). Often, journalists confuse "oldest man" or "oldest woman" with "oldest person." Just two days ago an article on Walter Breuning named him the "oldest person in America" before realizing that the "oldest man in America" was just the 10th-oldest person.Ryoung122 10:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThe list largely replicates the oldest persons lists. I used to see the need for female-only lists, but the demographic fact that 90 per cent of supercentenarians are women makes any women-only list largely redundant. Besides, when one looks at lists, the focus is usually on the top of the list, not the bottom. And the only unique information found here is at the very bottom. Also, as far as I am aware, while persons and males-only lists are compiled by gerontology groups, I am not aware that female-only lists are generally compiled. I may be wrong here. But this sounds like original research. Canada Jack (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't see how it can be considered original research when we use one source listing both women and men together and simply taking out those of the opposite sex. I also have not seen a male list compiled, and it's certainly not cited. SiameseTurtle (talk) 17:48, 26 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 rationalism. There might be an article to be written on this subject, but absolutely nothing here qualifies as such. Issues of OR and SYN, but mainly just a confused mess of random vaguely relevant statements. Redirected until someone can write a good article on the subject (and you know what, I might have a go this weekend). Black Kite 10:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rationalist movement[edit]

Neologism; few reliable source suggests that there is a systematic "rationalist" movement according to the article's definition, separete from secular humanism movement. It did say, however, it has nothing to do with the actual rationalist movement of modern philosophy (Descartes, Leibnitz, Spinoza). At the same time, it once contained a list putting Socrates, Malebranche and Einstein together as proponents of this "movement". Simply said, the article is OR and neologism, therefore it should be deleted. Wandering Courier (talk) 22:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, I do not agree with your reason for this nomination. I have added references to the article. It does have to do with the rationalist movement of modern philosophy (Descartes, Leibnitz, Spinoza)...at least according to Standford.Smallman12q (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Stanford encyclopaedia talks about continental rationalism, not this.
  To appreciate the confusion that underlies this article, one has to appreciate that User:Jon Awbrey had heavy involvement here, as well as in rationalism and rationalist movement, and editors have really made the ensuing mess worse rather than better. continental rationalism, which Awbrey had as a separate article (now to be seen here and in subsequent edits) has been history merged to rationalism, making it far less clear who wrote what and where.
  To see the dispute and the subsequent editing that spawned all of this confusion, I suggest that one reads Talk:Rationalism#Requested Move: Should Continental Rationalism be merged with the Rationalism article? before adding to the AFD discussion, and especially before muddying the waters further by conflating what editors intended this subject to be with continental rationalism. Such muddying is exactly what you have done with your edits to this article. Uncle G (talk) 00:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, this isn't exactly my field. Perhaps an expert should have a look.Smallman12q (talk) 00:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete and start over again with a less misleading title. I am not sure whether there is any real connection between the use of the term in the 21st century and in the 18th, but at most it's a claim to an older origin of a modern movement. I don't know what the better title will be--I cannot from the references find anything consistent. Normally I would say keep and edit, but the present article is such a confusion that it would be better to start over. DGG (talk) 01:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete content and redirect to rationalism. No need to separate "rationalism" from a "movement" of "rationalists", whatever that may amount to in a given context, be it "continental rationalism", or the "reason" side of the faith vs. reason debate, or another of the many uses of "rationalis_" that one may encounter. Understanding that the various uses of "rationalist" and "rationalism" are all over the map, there's no need for this article. The three sources presently given aren't reliable sources. The article explains nothing that an article on rationalism shouldn't be able to summarize for readers (if indeed it's possible to do that effectively in any location at all). ... Kenosis (talk) 02:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's trying to make something out of a collection of misuses of the word "rationalist". Srnec (talk) 03:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mild keep. This (the practice of explaining supernatural or miraculous events on a rational basis; OED def.1a, to The doctrine or belief that reason should be the only guiding principle in life, obviating the need for reliance on, or adherence to, any form of religious belief. - lb) is a different sense of the word than rationalism (The doctrine or theory that emphasizes the role of reason in knowledge, or claims that reason rather than sense experience is the foundation of certainty in knowledge. Freq. contrasted with empiricism. OED 2a.), as the choice of Voltaire and Newton, as opposed to Leibnitz, should make clear. The example of Rationalist Press shows that it is an actually existing sense, but it may be that this can be merged elsewhere in the spectrum from atheism to anticlericalism; Freethought should work. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The article certainly needs work, but it is far from being beyond improvement. The rationalism movement is an important part of the philosophical world and would be studied by anyone studying philosophy or philosophical history. To those who say the article should be deleted and started from scratch, there is nothing stopping you from deleting the main body text and re-writing it. In the mean time, the current article is still better than no article. Mojo-chan (talk) 18:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Rationalist movement" is indeed used to refer to this sort of popularized rationalism/secular humanism (search for "movement" here or here or here for example). And this sort of secular humanist rationalism is, at best, on the periphery of the traditional rationalism (ancient, modern, or continental) found in mainstream academic philosophy. So, "Rationalist movement" is a not OR, not a neologism, and it is manifestly a separate topic from the various sorts of academic (philosophical) rationalism. (PS: As a person with a PhD in real philosophy I intensely dislike this naive, lightweight "rationalist movement", but there's no denying that it is valid subject matter as an entry.) -- WikiPedant (talk) 04:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Sloane (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PERNOM Machete97 (talk) 13:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for linking me to some stuff some guy once wrote.--Sloane (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SYN. Stifle (talk) 10:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an issue that is useful in real life. Keep it and leave it as it is, adding it to a stub category for further expansion. Its sources show that this article is not WP:OR. Also per WikiPedant. Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 04:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perhaps calling it Rationalist or Rationalism would've been better. A way of thinking, and list when it was used throughout history. Or only notable uses of it, which have been noted in history, are listed, so perhaps Rationalist movement is best. Dream Focus 02:20, 27 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 WP:CSD#G12 by SchuminWeb. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fred M. Levin[edit]

This article appears to be a vanity article for an associate professor. The subject is not notable. Most of the facts in the article appear to be original research and find no confirmation in the references. It is not even clear if Fred Levin belongs to the faculty of the Feinberg's Psychiatry Department as he is not on their list [3]. Two of the references point to the home pages of professional societies and do not contain any mention of Fred M. Levin. The third one is to a promotional page for his book. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I've tagged the article for a G12 speedy, since, except for the last sentence, it's a copy/paste from a blurb on his publisher's page, and there's no noninfringing version to revert to. Deor (talk) 01:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:BIO & WP:N 118.107.192.22 (talk) 18:01, 27 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 speedied as A7. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Radiodo Show[edit]

Non-notable student radio show. Ghits: "The Radiodo Show". Fails WP:V. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 21:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RJ Racing[edit]

Non-notable. Amateur racing team in a low level racing league. Although they appear to have won some things, they are not in any major or professional racing series. Also, there appears to be a conflict of interest with the article's original author, User:Rjracing The359 (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N, WP:Athlete. Non notable. Letsdrinktea (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and this from a Big Racing Fan. "an amateur Racing Team" says it all. They have not (yet?) met any of the criteria of WP:Athlete (no, I dont believe SoCal Rookie of the Year award cuts it).

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 21:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Der letzte Patriot[edit]

Non-notable book, by a marginal author --Galassi (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like advertising. Non notable too Letsdrinktea (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No third-party notable sources indicating this is sufficiently important. Possible conflict of interest too. --Folantin (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete It is a notable, much discussed novel in Germany, it may not be "mainstream", but it is no less important than literary massproducts. Wikipedia goes there, where others do not go ... I thought. Hyperboreer 21:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete."Diese Seite existiert nicht" on the de Wikipedia (that's equivalent to "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name" on the en Wikipedia). Unavailable on Amazon.de; granted, a five star review there but from a total of two reviewers - hardly the signs of a "notable, much discussed novel". This makes it look like a pretty good read (though I note the contact mail link on there is hardly a disinterested party). WP:NB has guidelines - Der letzte Patriot doesn't appear to meet them. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete." My understanding is that a similar plug was previously deleted on the German wiki. And the author's own entry was deleted as well: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_J._Voigt --Galassi (talk) 01:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete I read this book and it was inspiring!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyperboreer (talk • contribs)

Comment Hyperboreer was the author of the article under discussion. Hyperboreer, you're welcome to comment on this page but please state if you are not a disinterested party. Tonywalton ^Talk 17:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperboreer, remember this is not a "vote", it is a discussion to obtain consensus: I say this since you have "voted" twice. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 03:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Opus33 (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Galassi's finds on de.wiki. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not currently sold by/on amazon.de (and you can usually get every crap there in various editions). de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/17._Februar_2009#Andreas_J._Voigt_.28SLA.29 (de.wiki's AFD for the author) mentions POV and lack of notability as well, and it resulted in three speedy deletes and salting. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This book is nazi stuff. It is published by Neuteutonia. Go to their webpage and get directed to an online shop. The T-shirt at the picture reads "GEGEN NAZIS ist kein Kampf zu gewinnen", roughly "AGAINST NAZIS all resistance is futile". Der letzte Patriot is not much discussed in Germany. Just like the book, this article is absolutely nonrelevant. Henning Blatt (talk) 18:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Gegen POV und fehlender Relevanz sind alle Kämpfe zu gewinnen", I'd have said (All struggles can prevail against POV and NN). This AfD isn't against the content of the work, it's attempting to determne whether it complies with enough guidelines of notability to remain here (which thus far it doesn't appear to). Though Mein Kampf is execrably-written and ideologically rather unsound it remains on Wikipedia as it is a bit notable. Tonywalton ^Talk 00:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment do I smell snow in the air? Tonywalton ^Talk 00:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Talent's 3rd studio album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Billy Talent's 3rd studio album

Per WP:HAMMER, mostly. Article based on speculation, unable to find reliable independent sources to verify the claims. — neuro^(talk) 21:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N and WP:NMG#Albums Letsdrinktea (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pretty common sense as to why, has already been explained. Wizardman 22:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:HAMMER TIME! Tavix (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , STOP.......Hammer time. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Riptide (band)[edit]

From the author: Just looking for somewhere to show the band's charity successes for example; http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/belper/belpernews/Band-gig-raises-900-charity/article-620681-detail/article.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/derby/content/articles/2008/03/20/unsigned_riptide_2008_feature.shtml

http://www.ukundiscovered.co.uk/chart.html

Brett Cecil[edit]

Non-notable minor league baseball player. Hasn't played a game in the majors. Wizardman 21:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO, WP:N Letsdrinktea (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to Toronto Blue Jays minor league players. We have articles were we can list minor league players by major league organization. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 00:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. ——Borgarde 05:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to Toronto Blue Jays minor league players. Kinston eagle (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Irishflowers (talk) 06:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge & Redirect to Toronto Blue Jays minor league players per NatureBoy and Kinston. Spanneraol (talk)

Right now I oppose a merge, seeing as how none of the rosters show this player that are on the page, so we can't even tell that he's playing in that farm system. Wizardman 04:17, 25 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 Seattle Mariners minor league players. MBisanz ^talk 21:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Mangini[edit]

Non-notable minor league/college baseball player. Hasn't played a game in the majors. Wizardman 20:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE, never having played above the minor league. No prejudice against re-creation if he makes it to the majors. Frank | talk 21:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable sports player, per nom and above. Letsdrinktea (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to Seattle Mariners minor league players. We have articles where we can list minor league players by major league organization. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 00:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. ——Borgarde 05:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to Seattle Mariners minor league players. We have articles where we can list minor league players by major league organization. Kinston eagle (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to Seattle Mariners minor league players per Nature Boy & Kinston. Spanneraol (talk) 01:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right now I oppose a merge, seeing as how none of the rosters show this player that are on the page, so we can't even tell that he's playing in that farm system. Wizardman 04:17, 25 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 21:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UCSD Shuttles[edit]

Not notable Cybercobra (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lets write articles about the school bus we ride, too! Letsdrinktea (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a bus schedule, not an encyclopedia article. Pastor Theo (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable, third-party sources that would help establish notability. Plus, it's payback time. Cheers, CP 22:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as subject is not encyclopedic. Rosiestep (talk) 02:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a campus bus schedule is not an encyclopedia article -- Whpq (talk) 13:58, 25 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. WP:N requires significant coverage in reliable third party sources to establish notability. As the discussion showed no such sources exist. Ruslik (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bahjat Muhyedeen[edit]

Scientist who does not appear to be notable per WP:PROF, possibly because "He disputes the current thinking that the mass and energy are inter convertible." The article is also replete of what I assume to be this scientist's original research, which purports to show that "the uncertainty of Heisenberg became invalid". Sandstein 20:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep with rewriting. Subject seems notable enough, and has been published in at least one journal. I think this article needs a chance to be reviewed by some experts in the field. Vulture19 (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless independent refs to the guys notability are added. Sgroupace (talk) 01:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Guy's main claim to fame is claiming most physicists from last century were wrong, yet he is just a chemist. Martin451 (talk) 02:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and edit. sharply, per undue weight. DGG (talk) 06:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on what grounds of notability? I see no third party coverage. Sandstein 06:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All articles are either published in obscure Iraqi journals or in the equally obscure European Journal of Scientific Research. The latter journal's website proudly proclaims that the journal ranks 43rd in Austria's top 50 journals (according to SCImago), if you look up the rankings, it actually ranks 52nd (I guess they just updated the site to 2007), out of a grand total of 56 journals.... (And why only Austria??). Anyway, his articles do not seem to be published in major journals. And given his claims to have "corrected" the most famous equation in history (E=mc2), if he were anything close to correct, we all would have heard of it. No evidence either that he meets WP:FRINGE. --Crusio (talk) 09:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Crusio above. All scientists publish papers, these are in less than prestigious publications. Fails WP:PROF. Parslad (talk) 13:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete his CV^H^H er... bio, says he's published 36 papers... yet some are listed as imply submitted, and a further more 14 are "in press" with no journal listed, and the rest... well ISI returns no hits for "Muhyedeen B*". Further google searching "Bahjat Muhyedeen" turns up no independent coverage of his controversial views. Article fails both WP:PROF and WP:FRINGE. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Crusio and Pete.Hurd summarize the problem well. Appears to be a fringe theorist with zero notability within his research area.--Eric Yurken (talk) 03:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable per WP:PROF. Dude's "research" is fringe theory junk. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no reliable sources, and clear fringe ideas: "He disputes the current thinking that the mass and energy[2] are inter convertible." Unless there's someone more familiar with the physics community that has heard of him, this should go.--Sloane (talk) 17:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —Sloane (talk) 19:08, 25 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 03:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frequenton-Photon[edit]

Appears to be WP:OR, but I'd appreciate a physicist's assessment. The most recent work cited is from 1933, and the article is written in an argumentative tone. Sandstein 20:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article needs reworking to fit an encyclopedia entry Letsdrinktea (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:OR Nonsense. Even if it was a theory at the beginning of the 20th century it does not warrant a page on its own. Martin451 (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it is not WP:OR, but it is the views of one man Bahjat Muhyedeen, which pretty much go against what is current scientific thinking.Martin451 (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, How is it OR? Needs a rewrite that is all.Smallman12q (talk) 00:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So point us to the RSs from which to re-write it. Sgroupace (talk) 01:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note most of this article seems a rip off of this scientific paper. Martin451 (talk) 00:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, Delete. EagleFan (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not quite OR because it has been published. But a totally non-notable fringe theory. No evidence that the scientific community has even bothered to look at it. (Also need to delete stuff from Bahjat Muhyedeen which has been used as coatrack for his theories.) -- Sgroupace (talk) 01:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sgroupace. Salih (talk) 07:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think Sgroupace has said it all. This bizarre article about an equally bizarre crackpot theory lacks reliable sources and notability. Reyk _YO! 12:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As Sgroupace says, a fringe theory of absolutely no notability. I can't find any evidence for it having been discussed in the scientific literature, other than in Bahjat Muhyedeen's own papers, and the only positive hits I can find on Google are those papers, this wikipedia page, and the page on Bahjat Muhyedeen. Scog (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fringe nonsense. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly a non-notable, fringe theory.--Sloane (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as synthesis and fringe nonsense. Stifle (talk) 10:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —Sloane (talk) 19:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What Lies Beneath (album)[edit]

"According to Turunen the title is a "working title", so it may change." + "it is supposed to be released later this year" = Hammer time. Descíclope (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Descíclope (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. —Descíclope (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable future album, may be recreated later if notable enough.Letsdrinktea (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unreferenced WP:CRYSTAL. JamesBurns (talk) 03:17, 23 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. Cirt (talk) 10:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ManchVegasRollerGirls[edit]

Clearly promotional article about a roller derby organisation in the northeastern USA; no notability demonstrated. Declined speedy because the article claims that it's the first such organisation: that's a suitable ~~indication~~ assertion of importance in my eyes, but definitely not of notability. Nyttend (talk) 19:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I issued the first CSD notice based on the fact that calling something a league does not in fact make it a league. More so when it is only comprised of two teams. The article itself says that it isn't associated with the relevant association. This may be notable in 10 years time, but there is nothing in the article that even whispers notability. Being first at something does not make something inherently notable. I was the first and only WebHamster on Wikipedia, so does that mean I get to do an article on myself just on those grounds? I think not. --WebHamster 20:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It’s for Manchester NH, we can be seen here at www.manchvegasrollergirls.com Were in process of creating and maintain the page. Were the first team in NH to launch as in any state for roller derby teams are created and we were the first flowered by New Hampshire roller derby in second. What i don’t see is how within 30 seconds of creating and launching it gets flagged for removal. I noticed a few typos and hence is the one above that you mentioned in the league. You can look at other roller derby teams in nh such as new Hampshire roller derby who is the Nashua team in NH. They had the same issue with people flagging and wanting a removal. Sorry were not all perfect in wiki but were going to continue to update as needed. You all jump the gun way to quickly give people a chance to compose and get used to things before flagging and throwing hissy fits.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.24.249 (talk • contribs) 12:31, February 23, 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the originator of the article, who is no doubt also the above SPA IP editor, is the one having hissy fits, especially after their recent blocking. Regardless, this editor needs to learn to differentiate between an article's degree of notability and how well it is written. In this instance it is the notability of the subject that is in question and not the lack of gold star for spelling. It is quite feasible for an article to be flagged for deletion quite rapidly when it's blindingly obvious that the article's subject does not meet WP's notability requirements. The article's creator seems spectacularly ignorant of what is required to meet the notability standards of WP. --WebHamster 12:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. (As a side issue, according to the article's history, it was tagged 20 minutes after creation, which is a reasonable time to wait for some kind of assertion of notability to be added...) --Team1up (talk) 12:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hmmm. Compare the lead of New Hampshire Roller Derby and ManchVegasRollerGirls. They can't both be "the first women's amateur roller derby league in New Hampshire", and New Hampshire Roller Derby has sourced this information. That rather removes the assertion of importance from ManchVegasRollerGirls. --Bonadea (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Or at least its validity...they still assert it :-) Nyttend (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- The validity is within the business registration as posted in the links below. The Difference between Nh Roller Derby and Manchvegas roller girls.. is that at one time a about a year ago we were all one team under Manchvegas Roller girls. But due to conflict of intrest etc (that i don’t feel is appropriate or even relevant to post here) went on their way to form a league in Nashua.IMHO Nashua had to fight for the literally same reasons on here and no one else had any further issues. I don’t see why this can’t stay. It’s being added full of information and really people give us a chance Do your research on roller derby .. Check out New Hampshire Roller Derby our pages are practically the same yet they can keep there’s. The only thing that is missing is references that MVRG is working towards obtaining. --Team1up
  - It's those references that are the entire issue: we don't consider deleting your article simply because we hate you (which we don't). Without references, a Wikipedia article can't stand. Moreover, our standards say we can't keep something hoping that sources will appear — please read WP:CRYSTAL about this. It's nothing against you or against MVRG, but there just don't appear to be enough references to make the organisation notable. Nyttend (talk) 13:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Totally understood, were working on the refrences atm ,If you can give us some time on who we are we can surly provide something soon. --Team1up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.24.249 (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is this local paper articlem, but that's all I cold find. Not enough to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 14:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Itsy Productions[edit]

Article about an organization with little claim to notability. Was not quite a candidate for speedy deletion, as it does at least assert something (although something that I don't think is notable), so I'm bringing it here. According to the article, all that this "company" has done is participate in an online role-playing community and act as the moderator for an online role-playing game (not to be confused with the 1997 PlayStation game SaGa Frontier). Does not meet the guidelines in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, falls flat of WP:N. This sentence alone probably gives it away as obviously not notable: the rest of the staff on Itsy Produtions, which include his Mom, cousin Timothy, his Sister Ramona, and other long time trusted gamers -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 19:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Clearly NN, and a Google search returns zero results besides the WP entry. L337 kybldmstr (talk) 05:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete agree that it's clearly non-notable, WP isn't myspace. Someone another 10:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per extreme lack of independent verifiability. MuZemike 17:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waterpistol[edit]

Band has 3 albums, 1 EP all on very small indie labels, other than personal websites, i cannot find any second and third party sources to even prove this bands existed. No profie on Allmusic. etc. neon white talk 18:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article does not provide anything fulfilling WP:MUSIC or WP:N, and Google search gives me nothing, either. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 19:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion on keeping or deleting, but if article is not kept, redirect to water gun — water pistol already redirects there, so it would be a plausible redirect. Nyttend (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Nyttend on that. Baileypalblue (talk) 21:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then redirect: Fails WP:BAND, I agree with redirecting to water gun-- Darth Mike (join the dark side) 22:03, 22 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 redirect to Freedom_of_religion_in_Malaysia#Conversion_from_Islam. I can live with that logical merge. Content is under the re-direct for whomever wants to perform the actual merging of the content. StarM 21:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zulhaidi Omar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

We were here in June when it was a NAC keep, however other than some claims of possibly important precedent, there's no evidence whatsoever that being switched at birth and trying to change one's name provides notability. Until such time as it sets a precedent, there's no evidence of notability -- only crystal ball. StarM 18:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 18:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: appears to have had moderate to significant coverage at the time, but it does seem to be a BLP1E with no apparent follow-up. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 19:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Merge per Baileypalblue. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 21:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move to an article named something relating to the case rather than the person. For instance, that's what we did with Madeleine McCann, who herself was only notable through WP:ONEEVENT, but whose article was moved to Disappearance of Madeleine McCann, something that was of significant coverage and highly notable for Wikipedia. Looks to me like the same line of reasoning would apply here. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 19:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it would, if there was any evidence the case was notable. There isn't. Madeline McCann is a case that's had long-running news coverage and international attention, this isn't. StarM 20:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Freedom_of_religion_in_Malaysia#Conversion_from_Islam which already discusses similar cases. If a consensus develops to keep the article, it should be renamed to focus on the conversion incident, as Lilac Soul recommends, per WP:BLP1E. Note that there are several bio articles on non-notable subjects like this linked from Freedom_of_religion_in_Malaysia#Conversion_from_Islam and Apostasy_in_Islam#Apostasy_in_the_recent_past which should probably be renamed or merged. Baileypalblue (talk) 20:54, 22 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 03:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ballard Nuggets[edit]

Contested prod. An article about a five-a-side football team that only generates a few ghits on a fantasy football website (example). The author suggested here that the team used to be a real (non-virtual) cup winning team that won the FAI's charity 5-A-Side tournament, but no sources were offered or found to verify that, and even if they had, it's doubtful that they would pass WP:N, while the fantasy version definitely wouldn't. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 18:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - non-notable fantasy team with not one WP:RS should go. ww2censor (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, I'd even have qualified it as a WP:CSD candidate. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 19:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7 non-notable bunch of mates, at least one of whom has a computer. pablo_hablo. 20:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Camw (talk) 13:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely non-notable. Giant Snowman 13:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 1000000% non-notable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn --Dweller (talk) 14:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —ww2censor (talk) 17:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hugely non-notable. Eddie6705 (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD:A7. – Pee Jay 20:53, 23 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. Black Kite 10:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of populist parties[edit]

Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 17:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This 'article' is a complete mish-mash based on someone's personal judgment, with zero sources and no indication that the main contributor(s) would try to meet at least minimal criteria of quality and verifiability. As it stands, the article should best be deleted.

Some 'funny' examples:

Forza Italia (right-wing and berlusconist party of Italy)

Civic Democratic Party (oligarchic Czech right-wing nationalist-eurosceptic libertarian populism)

Socialist-Revolutionary Party (socialist, non-marxist, anarcho-socialist, agrarian populism)

Russia's Choice (oligarchic yeltsinist pan-slavist russian nationalist populism)

Democratic Choice of Russia

Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (ultranationalistic conservative semi-fascist totalitarian democrat populism)

Our Home is Russia (statist yeltsinist russian nationalist populism)

United Russia (a putinist version of Our Home is Russia)

Democratic Party of Russia (liberal populism, popular democrat)

People's Democratic Party/Social Democratic Party (Portugal) (originally reformist, social progressive social democratic popular democrat populism, now social conservative, social liberal humanistic version of christian democratic popular democrat populism)

Democratic Social Centre/People's Party (Portugal) (conservative centrist-christian democratic classical liberalist inspired by the European Cen tre parties, turned into socialy conservative more christian democratic eurosceptic populism with the leadership of Manuel Monteiro, and into ultraconservative, neoconservative and semi-christian democratic, conservative classical liberalist/libertarian conservative populism since the leadership of Paulo Portas)

Common Course (Anti-EU communist left-wing nationalist populism)

Progress Party (Norway) (libertarian conservative, anti-tax/regulation)

--Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 18:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR. Normally, we may just ask for sources (and hey, I agree with at least some on the list), but this is too controversial to be kept without strict adherence to WP:RS, much as we'd require of WP:BLP. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 19:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV list of parties the author accuses of being populist. Letsdrinktea (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - some parties belong to international organizations, such as the Liberal International or have some clear identification with each other, but that is not the case with populism. I notice that there are numerous articles similar to this one which are OR. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as OR. Rlendog (talk) 22:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not delete - Well if all of you want to help improve the article...it would be much better to the Encyclopedia then just deleting it. About the parties refered as examples of mistakes or abuses, at most the characterization may not be fully corect, but very close and just in need of sources, the case of the Civic democratic party and Forza Italia!, they weren't added by me, and inded the charaterization made by their adder was so rabid on both I had to make an effort to keep them neutral. And many others weren't added by me (I created the article), I simply edited to look more reasonable on this context. Based on this, there isn't really "someone's oppinion" guiding this, as in the ones I added I was following scholars, books and newspappers leads (like on the examples of the List of social democrats, people or parties just historically refered as being something can be refered on a wikipedia list as being so, if with needed warning) and so many users countributed that this is at most misguided and needing more sources than needing deletion. Waiting for countribution from your part, Lususromulus (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: I started adding sources to the article, so it wouldn't seem to be someones personal oppinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lususromulus (talk • contribs) 19:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent changes to the article show once again what's wrong with this article and your editing style here. Without giving any sources whatsoever, you introduce oxymorons like “People's Power Party (India) (semi-socialist mildly conservative and nationalist democratic populism)”. For another, even more nonsensical classification “Democratic Social Centre/People's Party (Portugal) (conservative centrist-christian democratic classical liberalist inspired by the European Cen tre parties, turned into socialy conservative more christian democratic eurosceptic populism with the leadership of Manuel Monteiro″ you've indeed added a source, which however says nothing of this 'ideological salad' it is supposed to 'prove'. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If we can create a reasonable definition of a populist party then we should not delete this list. NorthernThunder (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't really see any value to this article. It admits itself that the term 'populist' is difficult to define, and the cites it has chiefly appear to be merely descriptions of a politician or party as being 'populist', in a way that practically any successful politician or party could be described. They don't really qualify as defining a party as 'populist'. Aside for that, the majority of the article is waffly and WP:OR. The sentence "finding populist parties is a hard work, because we have to distinguish the connotations (both positive and negative) of populism and look for real trademarks of the populist ideology/political philosophy" is practically an up-front admission of original research in action. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. With the recent addition of citations by Lususromulus, I think the article can work. There are OR problems with some of the article, WP:SOFIXIT. Bondegezou (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, “[t]here are OR problems with some of the article” is not a right thing to say. The article is total OR with nonsensical classifications like 'socialist conservative' or 'classical liberal social liberal' introduced everywhere. This word salad has absolutely no encyclopedic value. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Many of the listed parties are not populist at all and moreover such a list, other than being OR and very controversial, is neither useful nor appropriate for Wikipedia. Delete it, please. --Checco (talk) 14:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then change the characterisations of the parties (added because of the various shades of populists that may exist)to more correct ones. And no one wrote "socialist conservative" (though this isn't impossile, study on Ferdinand Lassale's influence in socialist prussianism,ut I'm getting off the point), but the Janata Party had conservative, socialist and hindu nationalist fractions and that shoulde cleared to explain on its particular Popular Front for democracy form of populism. Oh, and yes, a politician may be populist in any party (like Jennings Bryan in the Democrats and Dubia in the Republicans but some parties are either populist since inception (Reform Party USA) or were turned into populist parties (Portuguese People's Party). And "finding populist parties is a hard work, because we have to distinguish the connotations (both positive and negative) of populism and look for real trademarks of the populist ideology/political philosophy" doesn't mean this list is OR, ut that this is oppen to discussion and any list of populist parties is not as certain as a list of Conservative or Socialist parties, so it is a warning to readers of the article into the still ongoing discussion on what is populism. And the hole List of populist parties#dificulties with identification section warns about this arguable condition, but the list should stay, at least with the least arguable exemples and maybe examples of texts who support the claim with other oneswho dispute it. Who thinks a less arguable discussion on what makesa party populist should be added to the Populism article as a subsection? And you are right aout PP, ut if you study the PP throughly you will see that ideological mishmash, ut the cites are more destined to prove claims of populism in each party and some specific nuances then the hole ideologic corpus of the parties (which would make it unecessarily huge). I limited the CDS-PP description to just eurosceptic populism with Monteiro (which is in the citacion 4) and to right-wing populism with Paulo Portas (refered in the respective citations). Lususromulus (talk) 13:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poorly defined enough to be limitless. ("populism not only doesn't have a very defined ideological corpus and history (it is more correctly a type of discourse or a non-ideological political philosophy). Populism generally involves advocating for the 'common man' or 'the people' over wealthy or entrenched interests") at this rate, we can find sources to include 90% of all political parties in democracies that ever existed. Liberal or conservative, they will all tell you they're for the common man. Consider the reverse, how many political parties "involve advocating for wealthy or entrenched interests over the common man or the people"? --GRuban (talk) 08:22, 27 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. "Useful" and "very important" are not valid reasons for keeping the article. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

North Weald Flyer[edit]

New bus route (started 6th Feb), does not show evidence of notability, a quick google search confirms this. Appears to be a replacement for route 55, recently deleted via Afd Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why dont we create an article for the buggy carriage route from Demopolis to Livingston? Letsdrinktea (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page is very important. Especially as it is a different kind of bus route being hail and ride and for being a flyer service. Why not delete pages to do with motorways, A-roads, train services or other forms or transport routes. People find infomation on bus routes interesting and very useful, just as useful as pages on motorway routes or train routes. Alex12341000 18:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So you say that the bus company reposted the route under a different title, on their website? Seriously...How are individual bus routes to be seen as notable without tons of coverage? We don't have articles on train services, etc., while motorways and many lesser roads are generally seen as notable because they get tons of coverage. USEFUL isn't a reason to keep, and I can't imagine any valid reasons. Nyttend (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bus routes are just as useful as motorways or train routes. If your going to delete it anyway, just delete it now to save all the aggrovation. The page took me ages to create but never mind. Also, there are loads of other pages about single bus routes, so delete them aswell.Alex12341000 20:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The above user has "voted" twice. Jenuk1985 | Talk 21:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Motorways, major roads and railways are permanent structures and services. Bus companies can last a long time. Bus routes, on the other hand, are rather transient. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a directory - or travel guide. I do find information on bus routes useful, as I sometimes have to get to rather obscure parts of the country, but I use local sources not Wikipedia for this. Some other of the routes posted by the creator of this article have in fact been short term routes and they and others might bear consideration for deletion too. Peridon (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: this is not a vote, but you still should not put Keep in bold on more than one post. Others should be Comment Peridon (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do not know about the UK, but most of the bus routes in NYC I am familiar with have been constant for many times the lifespan of Wikipedia. The bus I took to high school still runs there, though the route and timings have changed slightly. (& each time they change it, there's a public hearing & it's in the local papers). I think these services in general are of sufficient interest and geographic significance that all scheduled bus routes intended to be permanent should be considered notable. there will always be sources. DGG (talk) 03:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my area, I can think of one route that hasn't changed routeing or number (and/or operator) in the last 10 years (and even there I'm not so sure about the other end of the route). There are some classic unchanged routes in the UK. (This one isn't one of them.) UK bus operation is rather more fluid, perhaps. We possibly have a lot more proportionally than the USA does, too. Peridon (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete bus routes aren't notable. Secret ^account 14:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gox ltd[edit]

No sources other than own website. Ghits don't look too great. Fails WP:CORP. Fails WP:V. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 15:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SPS, WP:N and WP:WEB Letsdrinktea (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above! -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 19:54, 22 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 & a liberal sprinkling of salt Nancy ^talk 17:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil of the north[edit]

Prod was declined. Student sport teams generally fail WP:NOTE criteria. There is zero coverage found on search. Player descriptions indicate this was written as a prank -- and could possibly be WP:G10 speedied as a BLP violation. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:CSD#A7, so tagged - no indication that this disbanded student team was notable, no need for AfD. JohnCD (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Has already been speedy deleted twice. (Speedily!) University team in existence for three years. Article is student rubbish. Non notable. Is it possible to prevent a resurgence of the article? Peridon (talk) 15:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for mentioning those previous deletions -- I had failed to check the alternative capitalization. — CactusWriter | ^needles 16:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for closing admin- because of the multiple recreations and subsequent speedies, it is requested that this title be SALTED — CactusWriter | ^needles 16:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Non notable. DeMoN2009 16:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Thorne[edit]

After doing some basic cleanup on the page, what we're left with seems to be a promotional piece for a non-notable author. While there are several citations, the only readily-verifiable one (the imls.gov one) is for a mentor of the subject, which makes no mention of the subject. The next closest one is only a listing of a radio station; it does not provide necessary info such as the program name, date, etc., and it's not clear that it was a notable appearance. I'm listing this as failing WP:V. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 14:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete there appears to be no copy of her books in a US/Canadian library, but that is not the same conclusive proof of non-=notability as an author as it would be for a book in english by a US or Canadian or UK author. DGG (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless better references can be provided quickly. Deb (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely unverifiable, bordering on possible hoax. A Google search finds a grand total of 1 mention of her Cronicas del Barrio (not counting the Wikipedia article); a WorldCat search finds nothing relevant. None of the other books mentioned in the article seem to exist either. Hardly indicative of "great success" in publishing. Hqb (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable author Letsdrinktea (talk) 17:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anoop sivanandan[edit]

Declined speedy; assertion of fame is there but subject does not appear to meet WP:BIO for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Searches do not reveal any hits, although I understand spelling may be an issue. If notability can be established, I would happily withdraw the nomination. (I did try several ways and came up with nothing.) Frank | talk 14:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - in fact, I'd have counted this as an A7 speedy. The only assertion of notability, that he is "famous for his creative ideas and skills" is such a vague generalisation it's not even worth considering. The fact he is described as an "architect, designer, cinemetographer, writer and also painter" makes me strongly suspect most or all of these things are spare-time hobbies. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 14:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I nearly did just that, but there's no harm in having an actual discussion for a few days. Lots of times these articles are recreated and speedied, wasting additional time and causing hard feelings; if we have a community discussion, we can get the matter decided. There may still be hard feelings, but at least there's consensus to point to. And sometimes the article is rescued, and sometimes surprises happen as well. (I was "sure" of what the outcome of that AfD would be.) Frank | talk 14:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources could be found. Miserably fails WP:BIO. Salih (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 17:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no proof of notability to back up claims Letsdrinktea (talk) 17:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any relevant sources, and frankly, even if sources were found to back up the claims in the stub, the subject would fail WP:BIO. Abecedare (talk) 08:14, 23 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.

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination). When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was Keep. The overwhelming consensus is that this list not be deleted. There is also support to split it, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion. Xasodfuih (talk) 07:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of physicians[edit]

As with list of lawyers this is a list which is too broad in scope and should be replaced by a set of categories Benefix (talk) 13:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Far too broad and nearly endless! Should be split into separate lists and/or categories. Computerjoe 's talk 13:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to split. Computerjoe 's talk 14:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - An article that needs to be split up does not meet criteria for deletion. If you don't like it as it is, improve it or split it up. There is no merit whatsoever to this proposal for deletion. Millstream3 (talk)
Keep, but split each section into a separate article. Agree that list is too long as it stands, but this is better dealt with by means other than deletion. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 14:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and split up. Hopefully, the consensus will be to split this into the various lists that were contemplated. Frankly, there are too few lists of physicians, too many lists of athletes. Screw the idea of "replacing" this with categories. A category would be a nice addition, I'm sure, but we don't have to choose between one or the other. Mandsford (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The basic assumption is that for every category of people, there should be a list. The additional information provided is helpful, whch is a reason for a list. I do not see why it is too long, at 27k. DGG (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Provides extra information that a category wouldn't provide. Letsdrinktea (talk) 17:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As it is or split up. Malick78 (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I might recommend giving this a new title, but otherwise the contents are encyclopedic and very interesting. Pastor Theo (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but the list as it stands looks encyclopædic, but is crying out for renaming. There's a "list of physicians" under "Doctors" in my local Yellow Pages; there's another (different) one in my brother's mobile phone (he's a doctor)… Tonywalton ^Talk 23:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - useful, not too long, list per WP:LIST. Bearian (talk) 04:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <^T·_C> 07:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Snowball? Computerjoe 's talk 19:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: the difference between this one and list of lawyers is the notes? Nerfari (talk) 20:16, 23 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 01:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Air Canada Flight 190[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article narrowly survived an AfD last year right after its creation, which in turn was right after the event itself. I feel that, while I generally hate the phrase, the article's creation and survival are down to WP:recentism. The article is a failure of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:AIRCRASH. There is no lasting effect, and all the injured were out of hospital the same day. I do however feel I should make sure people are aware I nominated this one the last time around, as well. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not surprisingly, all of the news sources are from the first few days after the incident. Basically, the plane ran into some severe turbulence, and there were some injuries that required medical attention, but not to the extent that an overnight hospital stay was required. Mandsford (talk) 14:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable airplane incident. Letsdrinktea (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This kind of violent CAT and computer failure is not common and warranted extensive government investigation as to why this happened. There is no WP:MUSTBEDEATHS clause for an article to pass WP:NOTABILITY which this article passes the core criteria of. --Oakshade (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No-one here has said there must be deaths, but we have pointed out that the lack of deaths or serious injuries means it misses one of the most common reasons why an air accident is considered notable. I've been behind nonfatal articles, such as the 2005 Logan Airport runway incursion and Adam Air Flight 172. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. - BillCJ (talk) 20:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. MilborneOne (talk) 20:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think that all of the deletion arguments thus far has been well said. Cheers, CP 22:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- This was an unusual event and is well documented. riffic (talk) 03:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia does not need an article on every bumpy ride someone had on some type of transport. No injuries serious enough to keep anyone in hospital overnight. When a city bus has a fender bender, passengers often rush to the hospital to try and document liability: should we have an article on every bus that bumps a car? A common as dirt event. Edison (talk) 03:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this minor incident has not changed the world of aviation in any way. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor incident. This incident does not even have an entry in the relevant aircraft article. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Aircraft turbulence is not a notable incident. No ramifications, no lasting implications related to the incident. It was a bumpy ride. I found myself saying "really, that's it?" while reading the article. Does not meet WP:AVIMOS#DENTNOTE. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The official investigation will be ongoing for at least another six months, more probably a year. The latest TSB report out is for a ballooning accident in the preceding summer. For whatever reasons, TSB no longer publishes updates on investigations while they are still in progress. The unexplained disengagement of the autopilot is definitely not a trivial matter. See ADIRU#Failures and directives for some similar mysterious disengagements that are gradually becoming clearer.LeadSongDog (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage... reliable independent sources... notability. Non-fatal and recent does not imply non-notable (e.g. US Airways Flight 1549). Current and potential detail is sufficient enough that it does not warrant the burden of merging into Air Canada, and should stand alone as its own article. Dl2000 (talk) 03:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a bigger difference from Flight 1549 from this one. The pilots of Flight 1549 rescued a downed plane away from the big buildings of New York, making a one in a million landing. The crew were honored by the President and before the Super Bowl, and news sources are still happening over an month after the incident. That's famous, but this (planes make an emergency landing everyday) isn't. Perfect example of WP:NOT#NEWS Delete Secret ^account 14:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails AIRCRASH, and delete is also supported by numerous other recent similar news incidents that have been listed at AfD and deleted. At some point (a point I believe has already been reached), enough similar AfDs are gone through that it's safe to say that community consensus has established a precedent. AKRadecki^Speaketh 02:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is anyone ever going to need this article? It's not major enough to warrant anyone really caring now, let alone in the future. It's superfluous. Merpin (talk) 12:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn (Non-admin closure) Pastor Theo (talk) 03:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time's Up![edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Time's Up!

Request for sources has been in since Aug '07 and "wikyfi" has been in since Oct '08. Not encyclopedic and looks like self promotion

Keep: It's not a very good article, but the organization is amply notable: see Google News results for "time's up"+environment+"new york". Lots of heavy-hitter news sources there. They need adding to the article (which I can do, if this survives AfD), but it shouldn't be binned. Gonzonoir (talk) 11:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Multiple references such as the New York Times - Christian Science Monitor - Seattle Times and other 3rd party - creditable and reliable sources, as shown here.[4] I'll start adding references over the next week. Any and all are welcomed to participate. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but scrap all bits of the article that don't relate to notable events, and remove all the peacock terms from what's left. If necessary, reduce to a stub. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 14:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Much of this article should be scrapped but still keep-worthy. Letsdrinktea (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After reading your comments it looks like improving is better than deleting. I might have been a bit rash in calling for complete removal. Can I remove the AfD or is that bad form?

- If you simply state you're withdrawing the AfD, someone will close it for you. Don't delete the AfD entirely because it needs to stay as a reference. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the info. I am withdrawing my request for deletion.Cptnono (talk) 19:20, 23 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 speedily deleted as CSD A3, as it was nothing but an external link. No prejudice against recreation, blah blah. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extraordinary fees[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Take it to [5]. Carbon Rodney 10:13, 22 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. The nominator is encouraged to take note of WP:BEFORE. non-admin closure by Skomorokh 23:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Teodorovich[edit]

If that's all the information we have on him, he doesn't need his own article. Carbon Rodney 09:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the two cited sources to see if they say more about him? That would seem like the place to start. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I'd like to clarify that my reason for deletion is not a lack of notability but rather insufficient information to warrant a full article: and I don't mean the wikipedia article is incomplete, I mean I searched for documents or biographies of this fellow and came up with nada. If someone can out google-fu me, I will gladly reverse my stance. --Carbon Rodney 13:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and hope to expand - I think Commissar for Food Supply in the first Bolshevik government is certainly a notable position, and this reference confirms it. I have access to a library which contains the first two books on the reference list, so I may be able to help expand the article.JohnCD (talk) 10:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even nominator admits he is notable and there are several sources listed. Edward321 (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Stubs are generally expected to have the potential to grow into full articles. This one looks like it does, especially the bit about being condemned for counter-revolutionary activities.
Strong keep, snowball keep Abuse of AfD, the nomination was put up 5 minutes after the article was created,[6][7] and the nominator then has the audacity to state "insufficient information to warrant a full article" I challenge the nominator to write an article in 5 minutes that has sufficient information to avoid zealous deletion. This is not the first time the nominator has done this, Flydubai was nominated 3 minutes after creation.[8] and I suspect the other 15 articles that the nominator has put up for deletion, which were deleted, are the same.Ikip (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this AfD nomination may have been ill-advised, but there is no need for such an intemperate and uncivil attack on the nominator. It may be perfectly possible to see after 5 minutes that an article is unsaveable. The Flydubai nomination you cite was over six months ago: the nominator's AfD record, which you list, is: out of 17 nominations, this one likely to be kept, Flydubai redirected, all the other 15 deleted (which means that other editors over five days' debate, and an administrator, agreed). That does not suggest overenthusiastic deletionism. Please AGF. JohnCD (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't putting an editors contributions up for deletion 5 minutes after they created the page, an uncivil attack? I agree with DGG, it was careless, and the editor should be warned. Ikip (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"But he did it first" is not much of an argument, especially when you're confusing carelessness with incivility. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing administrator Since this Afd was added, this article has expanded greatly. Ikip (talk) 15:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep Minister of a government department is always notable, and this information was there from the very start. An article created this recently should only be nominated when from the information presented it's reasonably clear the subject is not going to be notable. As many of the editors nominations for AfD and speedy are perfectly OK, I think this was carelessness. DGG (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC) DGG (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep Article is sourced, and subject is notable. --J.Mundo (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep The article meets WP:RS and WP:BIO standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:08, 22 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 speedily deleted as CSD A1, although A3 and G1 probably apply. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Management flaws[edit]

Doesn't make sense
Pointless
Not encyclopedic information
If it contains any relevant information, it doesn't require its own page -> please add to Management instead. Carbon Rodney 09:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing to merge, no meaningful, substantive content. pablo_hablo. 10:03, 22 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 06:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frank William[edit]

Nom and favor ...
...Del. (Although both ((Disambig)) and ((Hndis)) tags have been advocated for this list, i would hope its suitability as any kind of main-namespace pg can be settled without having to address that those red herrings.) I confess to preferring the deletion of all ((given name)) pages that don't offer a substantial discussion of the origin and meaning of the name itself, and regard their lists of examples as at best a neglible form of clutter, but i am not here to advocate for that position. Rather i want to make the case that even if lists of people sharing a given name serve an encyclopedic purpose, we can only harm the project by trying to host lists of people sharing a pair of given names. The US census bureau provides a wonderful list] of the given names that account for the most popularly named portion of the male population in 1990. These given names number 1219, and collectively are the (first) given names of a tad over 90% of males. If we were to cover all two-name combinations, such as Frank William, that consist of two of those names, we would add 1.4 million pages. For females, parents apparently are considerably less narrow-minded, and we could expect those 4275 names to provide titles for another 18 million pages. WP is not paper, but devoting resources to our current 2.8 million pages leaves us with lag and many neglected pages. Consider abt a tenfold size increase, not to mention what would be needed to start to provide for those with name combinations less popular than Cindie Ann and Audrie Marie.
I feel like i'm piling on, but i have to also reflect on the purpose of these pages. Are they not primarily a diffuse sort of vanity page, of the variety suggested in John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt?
--Jerzy•t 09:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for all the reasons given above. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) confirms that this does not meet the criteria for a disambig or hndis page, and 'Frank William' is not a given name - Frank is the given name. Boleyn2 (talk) 10:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is written like a page for the name itself and the people mentioned seem to be a sidenote. We already have articles for William and Frank, we don't need this. Letsdrinktea (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It does seem to be a page just for the sake of having a page. Fattonyni (talk) 22:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Those who have contributed here may wish to comment on the AfDs of theses similar pages: André Henri, Paulo Jorge, Marie Constant and Francis William. Boleyn2 (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment without recommendation - it appears that nom is basing this (and perhaps other) nominations, not on MOS:DAB (which is actually rather silent about this situation) but on WP:IDONTLIKEIT instead. If the nom wishes to nuke ((given name)) pages, he/she should start the discussion as to whether the mention of given names should not be mentioned at all in MOS:DAB; similarly, WP:ALLORNOTHING is being implied here, yet this is not a valid reason for either keeping or deleting an article, a redirect, or even a disambiguation page. In addition, nom "confesses to preferring the deletion of all ((given name)) pages that don't offer a substantial discussion of the origin and meaning of the name itself" - yet MOS:DAB discourages such a presentation in article space in the first place. At present I remain unconvinced one way or the other as I am unsure as to whether these people are referred to regularly as "Frank William" as opposed to simply "Frank". On the other hand, claiming that this is a vanity page denies good faith, which itself is a violation of one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia (two of them, actually). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:08, 26 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 advertising (WP:CSD#G11). The Tim Garland article was used as a starting point for the article, but does this does not appear to be the same person. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 09:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Garland USA[edit]

Delete. Blatant self promotion for an insurance agent. I think this was already deleted, but has been recreated by the original contributor with the same name as the article. Speedy delete tags removed twice, one time suspect anon sock puppet. Sick of replacing delete tag so bringing it here for the record. Also see article Tim Garland same person, but plausible for music career notablility Dmol (talk) 08:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Just had a look at history page for Timgarland [9] , and user has a history of adding promotional items, many of which have already been deleted. Can these article names be blocked. --Dmol (talk) 08:43, 22 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 speedied as vandalism. This is just Carl Winslow with the name changed. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lyle Roussel[edit]

Possible hoax article. There is no such character named Lyle Roussel from Family Matters portrayed by Reginald VelJohnson. VelJohnson played a character named Carl Winslow, and no references could be found for a character named "Lyle Roussel" from the show. –Dream out loud (talk) 07:44, 22 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 (NAC) RMHED. 23:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alec Greven[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Alec Greven

This article is for the then nine-year-old author of 'How to Talk to Girls'. It can be argued that the article fails notability guidelines due to WP:BLP1E, the book is notable, but the coverage of the individual in sources purporting to establish notability are only in the context of the book. A possible course of action would be to merge any useful information into a book article and delete. AfD of failed (2nd'd) prod. I'll note that while I seconded the prod and nominated for AfD, my support for deletion is persuadable, because I can indeed see some arguments ("multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" under WP:Creative,etc...), but I don't find those arguments entirely convincing. Jo7hs2 (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move over redirect and rewrite to How to Talk to Girls. The book seems more notable than the author, at least at this point, and we don't need an article on both. So move it to the name of the book, and rewrite it so that it reflects primarily on the book, and secondarily on the author. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 19:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect All the information is somehow related to the book. No need for independent article just yet. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a bio article with a section on the book, and keep How to Talk to Girls as a redirect. What makes this subject noteworthy and thus secures notability for Alec Greven is the very fact that he authored the book at such a young age, and has attracted considerable media attention for having done so. Since the contents are all drawn from his life-experience, the notability of the book is secondary to and derives entirely from that of its author. Also note that I've added the article to Category:American child writers, which has a grand total of 16 articles -- a fairly elite group, I'd say. Cgingold (talk) 13:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Cgingold. Edward321 (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have to agree with Cgingold. He has gotten enough coverage from secondary sources to be notable, and he passes WP:BIO. The significance of writing a successful book at this age surpasses the significance of the actual book. FingersOnRoids 22:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Withdrawn: I was looking for a convincing argument to keep the article, since I was on the fence, but I was carrying out the natural extension of a failed prod. Cgingold (talk) has provided a convincing argument in noting that the book is drawn entirely from the life-experiences of the author, rather than being a pure work of fiction. As such, the author can be considered sufficiently notable that the article is on him. I am withdrawing my nomination, with the recommendation that a redirect be created at "How to Talk to Girls (Book)" or similar. I do not recommend the creation of a book article. Jo7hs2 (talk) 23:18, 22 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 01:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trasharella[edit]

The article lacks any secondary sources. There is no indication of notability. Looks to me to be just a self-produced film without any critiques or awards to its name. Dismas|^(talk) 07:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no widespread notability, Google mostly confined to blogs, no awards. JamesBurns (talk) 07:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: there do not appear to be multiple non-trivial mentions in notable third party publications. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rena Riffel is currently being speedied as an A7 so that suggests their work is not notbale. Looks like spam given there are external links to buy it.--DFS454 (talk) 10:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep might be not very notable or prominent, but its director and cast are not red-links, suggests there are some prominent people involved in the film. Therefore, some better argument is required to show its deletable non-notability in Wikipedia. Wandering Courier (talk) 22:34, 22 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 speedily deleted as CSD G4. Man, I'm deleting a lot of this junk tonight. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Prevuious decision was to delete. This is just recreation of previously deleted material, with objections not addressed. --Bejnar (talk) 06:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and previous (2006) discussion. Also, as the original Rolling Stone article was based on their subjective judgment of which guitarists were the "100 best" (rather than a survey or any other objective method), they maintain copyright on the list. Zetawoof_(ζ) 08:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a rather indiscriminate and non-notable list for a single issue Rolling Stones. WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G4 (Recreated page). ApprenticeFan (talk) 10:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. SMSpivey (talk) 10:13, 22 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. Evidently notable, and while the subject herself appears to have created the initial article, other editors have adjusted it to a neutral and suitable stub. Canley (talk) 07:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Tanner[edit]

Blatant autobiography. Is she notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Articles subject did indeed make one edit to this article before being warned off. Spammy material was quickly removed and sources were added. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 06:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 06:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 06:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems notable, lots of publications and award nominations. [10] WWGB (talk) 07:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are sources, and it is a fairly well written article Macromonkey (talk) 13:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are sources, signs of ntability, and no indication it is an autobiography. Edward321 (talk) 14:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to meet WP:N requirements. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Everything from search engine to sources suggests WP:N Vartanza (talk) 06:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Jane Tanner won the Children's Book of the Year Award: Picture Book award in 1989, sharing the award with Graeme Base, who is especially notable. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 06:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
snowball Beeblebrox (talk) 06:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Samp[edit]

Never played in the NFL. Played in the NFL Europe for one year, which was roughly the NFL's minor-league equivalent and is now defunct. Appears to be fail Wikipedia:BIO#Athletes/ Enigma^msg 05:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Successful in Division II, but not enough to establish notability; never played a down in NFL competition, [11], hence he fails WP:ATHLETE. Baileypalblue (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE Secret ^account 14:04, 24 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 speedily deleted as CSD G4. 'Sup, arm cannon. Same form, same issues, same result. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gun Arm[edit]

Unreferenced and stubby, consisting mostly of examples of fictional characters with gun arms. I don't think this is necessary or encyclopedic, and the fictional characters can have a mention of it on their own pages. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep "Unreferenced and stubby" SO ADD CONTENT TO THE ARTICLE YOURSELF. Per policyWP:PRESERVE "Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of removing, try to (examples)", Wikipedia:Notability "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself." Wikipedia:Deletion "When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page...If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion" WP:INTROTODELETE & WP:POTENTIAL "Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved." Nominators sole contribution to this article was the AfD. Did the nominator attempt to discuss the article on the talk page first, no. Did the nominator attempt to find any references, no. Did the nominator attempt to improve the article, no. Ikip (talk) 07:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as currently stands. Wikipedia is a not a list of loosely associated topics. The rest appears to be original research. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Studer[edit]

There are no Google hits for '"Mike Studer" "Institute for Rehabilitation and Wellness"', either using a web search or doing a news search. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Individual's company is Northwest Rehabilitation Associates, Inc. company webpage bio lists only local lecturing, not national or international. Unable to validate Notability via Google entries. ttonyb1 (talk) 05:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article doesnt even really claim notability. All scientists lecture globally at conferences. Parslad (talk) 16:57, 23 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 Timeline of notable computer viruses and worms. Consensus indicated not to retain due to weak definition, best option is to merge. MBisanz ^talk 06:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of trojan horses[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Declined a speedy which said "This article has multiple users, as found on the talk page at the bottom", whatever that means. Either way, this is a list of largely non-notable material, very few of these are actually bluelinked and I see no purpose in a list that's almost all red links. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 05:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per consensus at previous AFD. I don't think anything has changed. JulesH (talk) 09:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with a category, to prevent cruft like dates and platforms being added indiscriminately. Benefix (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm normally an inclusionist kind of guy, and this list has been around for over 3 years. OTOH, it's in very poor shape. I think that it's such a daunting undertaking, that people come, make a couple edits, see what an overwhelming chore this would be - and leave. Anything on the virus, malware, trojan, worm type of list is just going to require an absolutely massive amount of work to resemble any type of quality. I'm gonna hold off on my !vote here til I see a little more input from others on this one. — Ched (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First, I mean that the article has multiple issues ... that needed to be addressed. However, there were few active users, except for User:Ched Davis. First issue; the article has lots of generic detections, such as Generic!artemis. That shows a lack of understanding from users; generic detections are leveled toward detecting a broad range of threats; not necessarily trojans. Second; the list is very incomplete; there are way more trojans that the 40 some that were listed. Third, which vendor's detections are we relying on? I have seen numerous times in where "Vendor A" detected a specific file as a trojan, "Vendors B and C" detected it as a rootkit, and "Vendors D and E" said the file was clean. Continuing with that point; ~~many~~ most of today's threats are polymorphic; meaning that they take on characteristics from many threat categories; for example, antivirus 2009 is a trojan and a malicious downloader, to name a few off the top of my head. It tricks the user into thinking it is legit, which it isn't. That's a typical trojan. Then, once on the user's computer, it is reported to download more malware; just search antivirus 2009 in threatexpert. In conclusion, it being detected as a trojan or a downloader (aka fraudload; it loads fraudulent security software) isn't wrong. And to nail the coffin shut, AV-test.org maintains current cross-referenced list of all in-the-wild viruses for each month. Why reinvent the wheel? TechOutsider (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider[reply]
- For those of you who aren't computer techs - MS Antivirus may help in understanding some of these points. — Ched (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ched, have you reached a decision? BTW, I already referenced to MS AntiVirus (antivirus 2009) =). TechOutsider (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider[reply]
Delete. Another issue! What platform:
- Windows? Which version? XP? Vista? Many XP viruses/trojans can't touch Vista. ^[1]
- Mac?
- Linux? If so, which distro?
- DOS?
- Unix?

does this list apply too? Nobody has even thought about that?????!!!!!????!!!!! TechOutsider (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider[reply]

- While I agree with 10 Pound that a list of redlinks doesn't serve much purpose, (other than the request for articles page) I'm not ready to jump on the delete bandwagon yet. I've been looking over the virus list articles, article histories, past AfD posts and such first. I think things usually stay up for about 5 days, so I'm not in any rush yet. The link I posted to the MS Antivirus article was mainly to underscore the antivirus 2009 link - I probably should have made that more clear. I definitely don't think going through and deleting all the virus list articles is the way to go. I'll be the first to admit that the computer related articles need to be improved. And I think us techs need to approach it from a Wikipedia point of view - meaning that the articles should provide information in a layman sense first - then we can expand or fork those technical issues later. I like the table idea I saw on some of the AV articles - but again, it's a huge topic. Right now I'm leaning towards a merge/consolidate course of action. I'd rather fix things than just delete them cause they're not up to snuff. Jules is right about the previous consensus, and I'd be interested in the category idea that Benefix mentioned. I have this watchlisted, so I won't be bugging out without a definite !vote. — Ched (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Merge with ... ? I seeing to that the article is merged with the trash. TechOutsider (talk) 03:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider[reply]
Rename and rebuild rename to List of trojan horse malware (as opposed to hiding soldiers inside various devices to have them breach fortifications when those devices are passed to defenders). And I see no reason as to why platforms are excluded, since it would be a good idea to do that, so rebuild as a sortable table (release date, platform, name) 76.66.193.90 (talk) 06:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This one's tough because the topic and list could be useful and notable, but it hasn't developed into that after a very long time. All of the red-links should probably be removed and the list pared back down to programs that have their own pages (or could). It would be better as a small but accurate stub rather than the mess it is now. Shadowjams (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the subject is weakly defined, and most things in this list will be debatable if they are in fact trojan horses or just programs designed to remotely access computers. Being included in this list is potentially damning for a product, so we have to be 100 sure of the motives behind the creators, which we can't be. A category "Programs used as trojan horses" might be a little more neutral. Themfromspace (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Agree with Themfromspace. How do the people who contributed to this list know the programs/detections listed are legitimately malicious and can be defined as a trojan? Did they use a virtual machine with a Host-based intrusion detection system program to record and monitor the program's actions? No. This list of simply a list of detections/programs encountered by users which they believed are malicious, with little or no basis. Looking at the first 5 bluelinked articles, as a matter of fact, none of them cite any references. They needed to be deleted as well as this article. They simply seem to be some rudimentary research done by a newbie user. TechOutsider (talk) 02:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider[reply]

- Comment TechOutsider, you're only supposed to actually !vote (delete) once - the others should be comments. ;) — Ched (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect I cleaned up the list a little, and I suggest merging it with Timeline of notable computer viruses and worms.--Sloane (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Whatever happens to this article it shouldn't exist under this extremely recentist name. The phrase "Trojan horse" refers to a concept that has been around for thousands of years. Let's not assume that the metaphorical use in the last decade or two is the primary use. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem necessary. EagleFan (talk) 01:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has potential. The only trojans listed there, are those deemed notable enough to have their own wikipedia page. Perhaps having a category for them instead would make more sense. Anyway, if you wanted to read about trojan horses, then this list would be helpful for you to find them all. If there are any major ones that need to be added, then someone can add them. No sense deleting an article simply because it is incomplete. Dream Focus 01:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, > merge merge with the timeline and av list articles. — Ched (talk) 02:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment also a Strong Agree to dab rather than redirect. Conventional and historical items should be included with current tech lingo of Trojan. — Ched (talk) 02:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A list does not require research (for the most part). A redirect would not be helpful as this is a trojan-only article. They are notable, and therefore should be kept. However, I also think that a category, such as "Trojan horse", should be created. Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 03:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant to a category. Trojans shouldn't be listed here unless they're notable, and if they're notable they'll have an article which can be placed in a category. Stifle (talk) 09:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete basically per TechOutsider. This article has multiple problems and I don't think clean-up would solve them. Tavix (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Exactly, Tavix. How would cleanup help? Cleanup basically means verifying each and every one of the blue linked wikilinks. The first 5 don't cite references; I didn't bother checking further. Most of the articles will probably be deleted as well from a lack of reliable sources. TechOutsider (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider[reply]
- Comment. Are we listing detections here? Or filenames? Or software names? TechOutsider (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider[reply]
Keep if someone wants to add value, eg alternative names and date of release. Otherwise delete as redundant to a category. Brownsnout spookfish (talk) 13:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve by making a table. Artw (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A table? What do you mean?
  - Something more along the lines of the viruses article. Artw (talk) 00:40, 27 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 per G7. Frank | talk 19:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Heroes of the Bible Collection[edit]

Only two films in this series. Not worth its own list, existing info already covered in other articles. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 04:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. There are three. not two. I just never got the time to add the upcoming Heroes of the Bible DVD. by the way, it's coming out this apirl. P.S. It's only one day old so just let the page go and watch me extend it. Rowdy the Ant (talk) 14:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable show with no reliable sources. ThuranX (talk) 16:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a show, but rather a set of videos from the VeggieTales guys. It really doesn't need its own list if there're only three. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Rowdy the Ant, a major contributor to the article, non-admin closed this AfD just hours after its inception. I reverted this closure, as there was no consensus or SNOW reason to close it, and was done instead by Rowdy to protect 'his' article. ThuranX (talk) 16:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete no need for this little list, no sources support it.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. There's no need for a list article of two/three items. It's also stripped back to a bare list at this point, since all the film blurbs were copyvios from bigidea.com. —C.Fred (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I okay if you want to delete it. Rowdy the Ant (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for G7. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:35, 22 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 04:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Video game controversy[edit]

A "controversy" article which has been tagged with problem tags for at least the past eighteen months. The major problems with this article seem to be the normal problems: bias, and synthesis. The article, an ostensible spinout of Video game, synthesises several controversies about several games (MK, GRA, Manhunt) and applies it to the entire VG scope; most notably, in the "publicised incidents" section. There is little, if not no, effort put into offering the otherside of the debate; in essence, this is a one-sided POV fork of video game. While AfD is not cleanup, I see no way in which this article can ever be fully compliant with all three of our trifecta of policies (NPOV/NOR/RS), which indicates that the article should be deleted. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too broad and scatterbrained to remain its own article. I'm neutral on whether anything's worth splitting and merging elsewhere. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really? No. Keep this article. AfD may be fine to deal with mergers consequent to non-notable sub-articles but it is decidedly not the venue to discuss multi-target mergers and selective mergers on a subject of some note. Is this article a mess? Sure. Could it be better expressed in some other form? Probably. Can we do that by deleting it or forcing some merger process to a target as broad as Video game? No. "Controversies in video games" has had enough coverage in secondary sources that you could write a tertiary source on only that subject. If this article needs cleanup, clean it up. Don't use deletion as a tool to do so when better methods exist. Protonk (talk) 04:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that no matter how much work is done in fixing this article, it won't ever be compliant with our core policies. I've read all the essays about "potential" and "no deadlines", but I don't see any potential for this article to pass NPOV at all. Yes, it's sourced. But RS doesn't preclude NPOV. People really need to take a more aggressive stance to deleting POV material in the same way we're aggressive about deleting unsourced material, if we're going to have any chance of being reputable. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see the undue weight issue, though. This content is better than the controversy material in most of the potential target articles, and would well represent a widely-held, widely-discussed, albeit somewhat incoherent viewpoint. I suspect that the incoherence of this article has a lot to do with the incoherence of the topic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles shouldn't be purely devoted to one viewpoint on a subject. The current title is woefully incorrect; I see no evidence of "a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views" (Merriam-Webster), just a bunch of synthetic statements against video gaming in general. The content could do with being merged into Video game or deleted, but it certainly should not be an article on its own. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't disagree that the article sucks. I just don't think that there's undue weight given to these views, just insufficient weight given to other ones. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up bias if necessary. The presence of the article makes sense and deletion won't do any good.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This nomination just shows that any article can be deleted, nominated by an editor whose only "contribution" to the article has been the AfD tag. It has 42 very good references for god sake. The statment: "tagged with problem tags for at least the past eighteen months." begs the question: Why didn't the nominator attempt to clean up this article himself? Three quotes come to mind: "I'd Rather fix the damn pipe rather than complain about having wet feet, better to light one candle than curse the darkness" and from the Guardian: "Self-promoted leaf-pile guards...appeared [on Wikipedia], saying that your leaves were too crumpled or too slimy or too common, throwing them to the side"[12] Ikip (talk) 07:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It also goes to show that anyone can comment on AFD, even if they aren't going to address the article's issues or offer anything but ad hominem attacks. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are clearly controversial aspects of video games that require coverage. The long list of references on the article clearly demonstrates the notability of its subject; we should therefore have an article on this topic. A quick read of the article doesn't suggest any bias or synthesis to me, and even if there is any I suggest that these are problems best fixed by editing the article rather than deleting it. I'd suggest the nominator call out explicitly what argument he believes is being synthesized here that is not supported by the sources used. JulesH (talk) 09:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article, as it stands, is a bit ugly and yes, scatterbrained. However, the subject is notable, and has received not only quite a bit of media coverage, but has been an issue brought up frequently in the US congress. The issue, again, is quite notable and a topic of discussion for years. The different subjects covered in the article belong merged into an article of this subject (i.e., not a different article for violence, then another for sex content) . Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The tags may be there but they are all related to cleanup, not notability, thus there's no reason to delete. Cleanup is absolutely necessary but there's no deadline for that. Given the number of references and the potential for more based on the missing citations, this likely can remain its own article. --MASEM 16:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. The article just needs to be cleaned up a bit, but it has been tagged since mid 2007. Versus22_talk 19:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep – very notable and well-referenced topic. MuZemike 21:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Video games are resulting in new controversies that should be noted and discussed. A good example is the Columbine shootings which were blamed on Doom. Considering this is a subject that enters the news regularly, we should have an article to inform those who are interested in the subject. This article could be cleaned up, however. Vasant56 (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Video game controversies are a big concern for gamers and their allies. They have been publicized in the media. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando (talk) 23:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If an article suffers from a biased Point of View, try being bold and making the necessary changes rather than deleting the article. I can't see how this article could be incurably POV.ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 02:39, 23 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 03:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Colleges with online degree programs[edit]

Not encyclopedic material, merely a listing of colleges. Dmol (talk) 05:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Rules99 (talk) 09:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it's definitely a WP:LIST, I think the question is whether its criterion for inclusion is noteworthy. Rules99 (talk) 10:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuild it as a Category Spinach Monster (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've never seen such a long list full of notable items with so few wikilinks. I'm amazed. These AfD'd lists are usually populated by redlinks. Wow. Anyway, ummmmm.... delete and "merge" content into a category. SMSpivey (talk) 04:44, 19 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 04:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply a list of colleges. I thought (almost) all colleges had online degree programs? Tavix (talk) 05:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not really relevant, and as a Brit I'm insulted by the two British universities listed as being "foreign" when Wikipedia is a global website. The UK universities are no more "foreign" than the American ones. But in any case, I still think it's an irrelevant list. Tris2000 (talk) 12:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good example of listcruft, sorting by irrelevant data. Thanks to Tavix for a good point; I might have supported a change-to-category otherwise. By the way, the "foreign" has an understandable reason: the data are taken directly from a US publication (perhaps U.S. News & World Report?); not to say that this is good :-) Nyttend (talk) 14:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —Noetic Sage 00:26, 24 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 Transwiki. Transwiki MBisanz ^talk 03:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Standardista[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and there's not much chance this will ever be more than a definition. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~Transwiki. I added a "transwiki to Wiktionary" tag. --Alvestrand (talk) 12:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki. We don't have to hope the transwiki happens before the debate closes. A transwiki is a valid outcome and while the current sources don't seem too reliable, this link and these search results indicate verifying this is a trivial matter. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:36, 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, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 04:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki looks like the way to go on this one. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:38, 22 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 List of minor EastEnders characters (2009). This seems as good a target as any. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Kumar[edit]

This seems to be a very new minor character on a show just recently introduced. I had to revert through a large amount of vandalism just to get to this revision which itself has problems. It seems to also be titled the character but about the actor, or perhaps vice versa. Let's Delete this article until such time as this character becomes notable. Valley2city^‽ 18:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is about the character Todd Taylor, a minor character recently intoduced on long-running British soap opera EastEnders. However, the character article has been created under the actor's name. The options I can see are (1) Rewrite as a sourced article about this actor, (2) merge or redirect to List of minor EastEnders characters (2009)#Todd Taylor (the article section on the character as a plausible search term) until such time as a sourced article on the actor can be created, or (3) delete until a sourced article on the actor can be created. -- saberwyn 01:14, 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 04:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge just merge it somewhere as a compromise. At present it is not possibly a full article. If the character develops enough that there's sufficient material it can be unmerged later. DGG (talk) 04:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and/or redirect to List of minor EastEnders characters (2009)#Todd Taylor. JamesBurns (talk) 03:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and/or redirect per JamesBurns and DGG. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:19, 25 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 03:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of RHI players with 40 goal seasons[edit]

Delete per WP:LC. List is not notable. FingersOnRoids (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but maybe it needs a rewrite. Based on the wording "As of the completion of the 1999 regular season, 11 different hockey players have scored at least 40 goals in a Roller Hockey International (RHI) regular season" this looks like something plagiarized from a media guide. However, it seems like a legitimate spinoff from the Roller Hockey International article. Mandsford (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Arbitrary inclusion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#STATS Secret ^account 18:41, 19 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 04:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm afraid this opens the floodgate to other randomly picked stats. ^Law_shoot! 04:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#STATS Tavix (talk) 05:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: You can slice stats innumerable ways, and we can't hope to have articles for all those groupings. The redlinks at the bottom give weight to Law's fear. Gonzonoir (talk) 11:36, 22 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. For a list to be kept, either the general concept of the list has to be notable (a list of X is acceptable if X is notable), or the individual entries in the list should have some but insufficient independent notability (like is the case for many character lists and episode lists). In this case, no evidence is provided that the individual creatures have received any attention, nor that they as a group have received attention. This is not about fiction or not, a list of "inhabitants of village X", with people who would never get their own article individually, would be deleted for exactly the same arguments. Fram (talk) 08:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creatures in The Sword of Truth[edit]

Article gives undue weight to minutia, is unreferenced, unwikified, written in incorrect tone, and unencyclopedic. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Entirely detailed in-universe information for non-notable fictional elements which have not received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What, um. Doctorfluffy said. Nothing to distinguish this from Furniture in The Sword of Truth. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mentioning each books each one was featured in might be a good addition, but I no reason to delete it. Dream Focus 02:59, 19 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 04:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appropriate list article as a compromise. The elements in this sort of an article do not have to be notable. If they were, they'd be in separate articles. Deleting this sort of article tends to destroy any chance to compromise about fiction.DGG (talk) 04:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A compromise between WP:V/WP:NOR and including content that doesn't meet those standards? This is culled directly from the books, and full of speculation and conjecture. There aren't even the sort of licensed encyclopedia-conceit sources you prefer. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: That makes no sense, considering that the article's still unencyclopedic no matter what.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Man, I am really glad we have editors to subjectively decide what is and what is not encyclopedic, becoming the self-promoted authority on whether to delete other editors good faith contributions. Ikip (talk) 06:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not glad you are substituting that tired rhetoric for discussion of the article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per DGG, so much for DGG and others grand comprise to allow lists to exist, and merge all individual character and episode articles. Once all the character and episode articles are deleted, editors will start going after the lists too, as they already have. Well written article, about a very popular series. Ikip (talk) 06:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a merge target; it's original research cut from whole cloth. Accusations of bad faith don't substitute for discussion of the article, and the fact that it's a list is immaterial.

As a historical note, this is the sort of list that logjams any sort of exception for lists in guidelines like WP:FICT. There are lists that are homes for scraps of information that are necessary for understanding and don't fit anywhere else. Then there are lists like this, lists for the sake of lists, of the form "List of stuff in [fictional setting]". Finding a good way to separate this sort of list from lists of characters is part of what always gums up each compromise. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This AfD has been listed on: Terry Goodkind The Sword of Truth Ikip (talk) 06:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fancruft, unsuitable for an encyclopedia. This article belongs on a fantasy/sci-fi wiki, not this one. Unfortunately, this case appears to be a judgment call, as WP:FICTION is not a guideline, and not clear-cut on cases like this one either. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is fancruft because it has no sources, reliable or otherwise, consists mostly of reheated plot summary and is an indiscriminate collation of information. There is no compelling reason why this catalogue of fictional creatures is important enough to include in an encyclopedia. Reyk _YO! 11:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS aside for a moment, I wonder, is it any more or less notable than Magical creatures (Harry Potter). The primary difference between the two though is the extensive sourcing that HP gets, while this does not. But the sourcing is almost exclusively to JK Rowling's own website, interview transcripts, fandom forums and dedicated sites, etc... HP has benefited from the good fortune of having the bulk of its run happen during the internet age and subsequent explosive popularity. 7 blockbuster movies vs. midnight syndication certainly didn't hurt as well. The point I'm meandering to is, is there any leeway in WP:FICTION for novels whose popularity peaked well before the Harry Potter fan-created sources ever had a chance to exist? I would also note the existence of List of Middle-earth animals, wholly sourced to the novels themselves. Tarc (talk) 13:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The HP lists are on the bare edge of what is considered good sourcing. Why cross the line from "Really bad sourcing" to "No sourcing whatsoever"? The Tolkien stuff is different; there's a great deal of scholarship there, even when the articles don't (yet) reflect it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
as usual, sourcing for t his can come from the primary source, & is certainly possible. so it meets the criterion of being sourceable. Yes, it needs to be much improved. Better to work on it instead of trying to remove it.DGG (talk) 01:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was Cat written by watching Fluffikins, your housecat. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is the very pertinent issue that these novels are not as notable as the Rollings novels. Those have quite a bit of real world attention. These, however, I have seen no proof otherwise. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What "real world attention" have thestrals and boggarts received? Tarc (talk) 05:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Those", in this case, appear to be the Harry Potter novels. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ikip. EagleFan (talk) 01:16, 23 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 03:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie Petrelli[edit]

PROD contested. A character in an unreleased novel that isn't the subject of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. -- Darth Mike (join the dark side) 04:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:FICTION... - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable novel. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable Character in non-notable novel--DFS454 (talk) 10:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very unnotable character from unknown novel; reads like a bad Heroes fanfic just from the character's last name. Nate • (chatter) 13:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment: Salt per Dravecky. Sounds like someone with a grudge against this person. Nate • (chatter) 23:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable character in nonexistent novel. Edward321 (talk) 14:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while WP:PERNOM and WP:JNN are not compelling "reasons" for deletion per User:Stifle/Don't say non-notable, as I was unable to not only verify the character on Google News and Google Books, but failed to verify the novel and author as well. Moreover, I could not identify any real people with this name with sufficient sourcing to justify starting a revised article on a real person as well. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as while there is a real, notable Mark Stent, this is not that guy, that not only is the novel not notable but there is no trace online of such a novel, and I'm beginning to wonder if this is just a "clever" way of some hoaxer posting the biographical details of a minor to a very public place. - Dravecky (talk) 07:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum: Per this diff, the article was created by a single-purpose account with a COI-confessing username who is vaguely threatening other editors. This should not only be deleted but salted as well. - Dravecky (talk) 07:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I requested a speedy on this. A quick look would suggest that this is a hoax/vanity piece, probably by someone under the age of 16. The speedy was deleted and as a result this nonesense has been given air for a week - it is quite possibly an attack page on a real Carrie Petrelli Porturology (talk) 03:36, 24 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 01:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pursue mobility model[edit]

Given that we have no mobility model article and that in five days no-one has managed to find any refences for this article, one is tempted to dismiss it as original research. In fact is does appear to be a real subject of academic research but is it notable enough for Wikipedia? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 03:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your reasoning does not stroke well with WP:DEADLINE. Note: I have a dialogue with the nominee at User talk:RHaworth because he PRODded this article (and others) without checking if sources exist. I defer from further comments here. Power.corrupts (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It looks like this term is in significant use: [13], [14]. I won't be able to add sources to this article, but there's no deadline for improving Wikipedia articles. Baileypalblue (talk) 03:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Simple Google searches like those of Baileypalblue above demonstrate an extremely high likelihood that this topic is notable; it certainly appears encyclopedic. At the very least it needs to be merged into a suitable topic (if one does not exist, perhaps it needs creating). --Rogerb67 (talk) 13:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Devrukhe Brahmins - Original 98 Villages[edit]

Apart from wiki and its mirrors there's no evidence whatsoever of the existence or notability of these villages. I'm not advocating a merge because there's no evidence these belong in the parent article (which has issues of its own) and it's not a likely search term for a reedirect. StarM 03:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devrukhe Brahmins - List of Institutions founded by Devrukhes about a similar topic created by the same author. StarM 03:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 03:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original 98 Villages are somebody’s original research. Could not find any sources, except wiki mirrors. Salih (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Besides a blogspot that mentions there were 98 villages, and a mirror site, I couldn't find other references in English language. I checked out a handful of the village names on encarta. I googled three of the villages simultaneously (Asave, Chandivane, Deuda: the first, eleventh, and twenty-first villages listed). I checked over at worldcat. Maybe with DeepPeep or a foreign language translator, there'd be a hit; or maybe these villages are referenced in an old book; or maybe the article constitutes original research. These things I don't know, but I do know that I couldn't find any acceptable citations. Rosiestep (talk) 23:57, 23 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. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feather Linux[edit]

Lacks WP:N. Chealer (talk) 03:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Despite being a free software which often don't receive the publicity they deserve, this distro has received reviews in magazines and linux-related websites[15][16]. There are How-To's and other general mention in books (search it up on Google Books). It is on Distrowatch, which adds to the notability further. Magazines, websites such as distrowatch and books are all independent sources—that's what Wikipedia:Notability wants. There is no specific guideline to gauge the notability of software because Wikipedia:Notability (software) is dead.Magic.Wiki (talk) 04:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Chealer won't be happy until Wikipedia has only three articles: God, Michael Jackson, & Coca-Cola. ¦ Reisio (talk) 04:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Be sure to assume good faith sir. WP:AGF, WP:AAGF. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - One can ignore reality only so long. ¦ Reisio (talk) 05:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Magic.Wiki. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - based on the following web searches:
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  - there appears to be significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above. Yellowweasel (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources identified above. Not in the article != doesn't exist. StarM 22:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it seems to have significant coverage Dream Focus 02:42, 25 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 06:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of deaths by aircraft misadventure and List of people who died in aviation accidents and incidents[edit]

Unsourced list article which appears to be a violation of WP:LIST as an indiscriminate, POV, collection of information. I am also nominating the following related page because it is a similar POV, indiscriminate list article with a similar deficiency in stated citations:

B.Wind (talk) 03:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The level of diction in the title ("air craft misadventure") suggests that this is some sort of joke page. The fact that these people died by aircraft death shows little relevance to the people themselves. Letsdrinktea (talk) 03:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't recommend anything involving levity in the phrase "death by... misadventure." "Death by misadventure" was the official coroner's verdict for former Rolling Stones member Brian Jones after he drowned in his swimming pool. B.Wind (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try not to giggle when I look at List of deaths by swimming pool misadventure then. Mandsford (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The aircraft misadventure article as a redundant and not-needed list, but keep the List of people who died in aviation accidents and incidents. I just discovered that article last week and have been updating it to get it up to standards. Tavix (talk) 04:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List of people who died in aviation accidents and incidents, particularly since it is being brought up to code by Tavix. I don't see anything worth merging from the "aviation misadventure" article, which is redundant and has a silly title to boot. I'm not sure that everyone will realize that the nominator has added the aviation accidents list in as part of the nomination. At first glance, this looks like nothing more than a nomination of a clumsily worded article with the bizarre phrase "aircraft misadventure". I am fixing the title to make that clear. Mandsford (talk) 15:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect List of deaths by aircraft misadventure into List of people who died in aviation accidents and incidents, and keep that one. The list is not indiscriminate, and it should be pointed out that the information is reasonable material for a list; the involvement of a notable person generally makes an accident or incident notable, per WP:AIRCRASH. The list complements several others noted in Template:Lists of aviation accidents and incidents. As for the misadventure page, it is not a "joke page", if you actually bother to read anything more than the title you see that it serves some purpose as an attempt to list by event rather than occupation. The information is certainly good for a merge. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect as per Blood Red Sandman. MilborneOne (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hold up for a sec, I disagree with a merge because how are you going to combine both articles? They are the same thing almost, but sorted by two different things. If the two articles are merged, you'll have each person who died in an avaition accident listed twice in one article and it will get really messy. Take it from me as I'm trying to improve the article, and merging them is NOT the way to go about it. Tavix (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merging only applies to nonduplicated information. It would be required to methodically sift through each entry and see what, if anything, was not already there. I would advise redirecting at the AfD close (assuming we go for merge) and then looking at the old revision of the page in its history do the hard work over time. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, I want to make the article nice, but trying to get me to shift through the other article for what I missed is overkill. Eventually, when I have the tables imputted nicely, I'm going to go through each person and figure out the specific cause of death, including type of aircraft (which is entirely what the misadventure article is about). However, a merge wouldn't make sense as I'm going to get that information from each person's article, not the misadventure one. So eventually, I am hoping that the "people who died in avaition..." article will satisfy both article's needs, but merging is not going to get that done. Just please delete that article so I don't have to do that extra work. Tavix (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said you had to do it. The nature of the wiki is that a) you do only the work you volunteer to b) you don't own the article. I would be pretty impressed if you just cleaned up what you've already got. I might pick through myself, although I have a busy week ahead. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but still, even for someone else, that is a pretty arduous task. I already have a good idea of what I want the article to look like, so you can save your time if you want. Tavix (talk) 21:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with Tavix working to make these articles acceptable, there is no reason to delete them right now. Lists take a bit longer to bring up to standards than regular articles due to the amount of formatting and citing that is required (trust me). I'd say keep to give Tavix enough time to get it in good shape, then deal with organization issues on the relevant talk page (such as deleting the misadventure page once content is merged). Clearly, this subject is notable enough for improvement. AfD is not the place for such articles. SMSpivey (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing the amount of time it takes for these lists. However, I am only working on the "List of people who died in aviation incidents" article, not both of them. Tavix (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, whoops. Either way, the one you are working on should be kept, in my opinion. At the very least, it should be userfied and the delete should be without prejudice of re-make. Really, though, it should be kept. SMSpivey (talk) 04:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Per WP:NOT WP is not a list ......... YOu get the idea

— Kosh_{Naluboutes, Nalubotes}^{Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris} 14:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, can you show me the policy that says "Wikipedia is not a list". If that was a policy, then the hundreds of thousands of lists can be deleted, which isn't the case. Second, which of them do you want deleted, because there are two of them up for deletion... Tavix (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep one merged article on this self-evidently (per WP:COMMONSENSE) notable subject under whatever title. No content from either article should be removed until the merger is complete, and a redirect should be left behind for GFDL purposes, so deletion is not required. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:21, 24 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 01:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protect your privacy online[edit]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 03:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Absolutely why 'how to guide' was likely created. ^Law_shoot! 04:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to wikibooks. That is, if the page is consistent with said project's guidelines. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as "how-to" article, material more appropriately covered in Internet privacy. PamD (talk) 12:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per PamD. This article was originally tagged for speedy as spam, which it isn't. I detagged it and tagged it for deletion via prod instead (as "WP isn't a howto and this adds nothing that isn't in the Internet privacy article"). The prod tag was removed by the author with no communication. Tonywalton ^Talk 17:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a place for posting how-to guides. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move, move to wikibooks.Smallman12q (talk) 00:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete; transfer to Wikibooks or another project or merge as appropriate. Can this be merged into Identity theft? Take a look at Identity theft#Techniques for obtaining personal information. I think parts of Protect your privacy online could be edited to fit in nicely as a companion to that section. Fg2 (talk) 10:40, 23 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 01:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transformational leadership council[edit]

Nominated here after the close of an RfD of a redirect of the same name resulted in "restore article and take to AfD." There is a serious question as to whether the Transformational Leadership Council meets WP:CORP. The primary editor of the restored article has a conflict of interest as well. B.Wind (talk) 03:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it doesn't look to me like it meets WP:ORG. It looks like its claim to fame is that it was founded by Jack Canfield, but since notability is not inherited, delete it. Tavix (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apparently a minor trade organization with no showing of importance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non notable members' only club populated by the self styled great and good. The "council's" web site is a set of blatant advertising for its members Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jack Canfield, which does mention the TLC and appears to be supported by these [17]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Little Fyodor[edit]

Lacks 3rd party reliable sources (external links are primary blogs or primary sources from the label). Is this band notable enough for an article or should this be merged into the label's article? There are some Google news hits but they are primarily entries in the local newspaper's entertainment calendar rather than significant coverage.Rtphokie (talk) 02:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- no notability at all, not notable enough to be covered in the label article either. Letsdrinktea (talk) 03:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- This artist is obscure, but the notability failure claims are tenuous at best. There is limited press, but this artist has been playing live and releasing tapes for years, and hosts a radio show in denver. riffic (talk) 07:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The weekly alternative paper seems like a reasonable enough source to use but the citations from blogs dont really help establish notability here. WP:NOTABILITY is looking for significant coverage sources that address the subject directly in detail. --Rtphokie (talk) 13:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment- There are a few reliable news articles behind a paywall [18], including Denver Post and Chicago Sun-Times. Also, I oppose a merger with The Elephant 6 Recording Company as this artist wasn't part of the collective, other than one release on the label. riffic (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - Those are great sources but are the articles about this band or do they mearly mention the band in some larger context? I"m still not seeing significant coverage. Also rather than adding simple untitled links, please see WP:CITE for more information on how to cite information in an article. --Rtphokie (talk) 16:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: trivial coverage. Insufficient independent 3rd party sources WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 06:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- I'm not sure if you had a chance to view this article.. As it stands there are four references cited, all of these are independent 3rd party sources. This subject is not lacking 3rd party coverage riffic (talk) 16:35, 26 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 01:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Kastle[edit]

Delete Revised my edit. I agree with ALL reasons for deletion.

I propose the article "Richard Kastle" for deletion, based on the following:

1. The subject is not noteworthy. 2. The author of the article is apparently it's subject (see talk page at Article). 3. The article appears to be spam...self-promotion of it's author. Prof.rick (talk) 14:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - let's extend the benefit of the doubt here, why not? I see independent sources. Also the use of "hereby" in the "proposition" of this AfD galls a body somewhat, it does. X MarX the Spot (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi X: at the risk of being pedantic, I think the problem is the comma right after "article."

"hereby" and comma removed Prof.rick (talk) 03:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Xdenizen and "unsigned"...the issue here is clearly not one of the use of a particular word or the placement of a comma in the title! It's about the article! Before "extending the benefit of a doubt", let's do our homework! Scrutiny is essential to the reputation of Wikipedia. Prof.rick (talk) 05:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Signed to a major record label. Well sourced. Easily passes WP:MUSIC. Pburka (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Kastle has apparently produced ONE album, in 1991. I don't know how successful the album was, but apparently he has had no recording contract since. Prof.rick (talk) 03:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two albums, according to Amazon, although the second is not on a major label. Also lots of press coverage.Pburka (talk) 04:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ONE recording on a major label is hardly grounds for "notability", particularly if the album was a flop! As for non-major labels, ANYONE can do that, ANYTIME! As for press coverage, check his website. There is just one clip from a newspaper appearing there: the presentation of a "musical scholarship" (when Kastle was a teenager) by the Mayor of Hialeth, Florida. Prof.rick (talk) 05:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per WP:SPS, WP:BIO, and WP:N. Questionable notability, reads like a CV. Letsdrinktea (talk) 02:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This search suggests there is notability, in the form of newspaper articles over an extended period of time. Drmies (talk) 02:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reasonable likelihood of notability from the sources provided above. DGG (talk) 03:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Drmies's link suggests this person may barely pass the first criteria at WP:MUSIC. That being said, this is a non-notable person and I doubt this article will ever be expanded at all, it's a junk article. LonelyMarble (talk) 03:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment, due to the low exposure of this AfD, I suspect this will end up no consensus, do we really want a Wikipedia article on anyone that is mentioned in newspapers a couple times? That doesn't make one notable, it's a common occurance. LonelyMarble (talk) 05:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements as verified in reliable sources. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note - This is apparently a self-authored biography. Check on YouTube, "Hungarian Rhasody no 2 Richard Kastle Liszt with the Horowitz Cadenza". Here, Mike Caffey, who posted the item at YouTube, and who initiated this Wikipedia article, says:

"The most important notes ever created for a virtuoso are at the the climax of Liszt's most famous piece. Kastle's official web site has a new page that explains this as well as a page that explains the century of virtuoso failure with youtube time codes and faking methods. To get there click on more info next to the photo of Jay Leno and myself, then cick on the web site."

In fact, the picture is of Richard Kastle with Jay Leno. Is Mike Caffey a pseudonym for Richard Kastle? If so, this is a biography created by it's subject. Prof.rick (talk)

Don't vote in your own nomination, we already know you want to delete it. LonelyMarble (talk) 05:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, LonelyMarble! It's the first time I've found a need for AfD, and admit I'm still uncertain regarding priorities and procedures. I changed my "Delete" to "Note". I hope this is satisfactory. Please, don't go away...I may need more help and advice here!!! Thanks, Prof.rick (talk) 08:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Google news links mostly lead to barely two pages of articles not directly concerning Richard Kastle. Most of them already included in the current article. Also, the number of articles is slightly irrelevant considering they invariably say the same thing over and over, this is less to do with popularity and more to do with how Google works.

He doesn't appear to represent any kind of prominence in his field, anything mentioned of note is of course extremely common in the classical music world and indeed expected of any musician, which makes it even less noteworthy. On the subject of the Google news articles appearing over an extended period of time, I think someone may have neglected to notice that there is more than one Richard Kastle in the Google results. His two albums were not only less than popular, they are discontinued and have never been reissued. I think it needs to be made clear that we are not keeping this article out of some kind of good humoured fairness by letting it scrape through, either it's noteworthy or its not. Blurgezig (talk) 09:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with reasons for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pvu2 (talk • contribs)
Keep Appears to meet the minimal notability criteria as a musician. Article is at this opoint definitely not a "puff piece" and may actually contain vandalism against the person. Last edit by asserted COI was a "blank page." And having a CD go "out of print" is common -- meaning quite little. In fact, the entire CD industry is on the brink of it itself. Collect (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Meets only one requirement of WP:BAND, #1. Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable. And only barely meets that. -Freekee (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we stay on topic please? We're not here to discuss CD industry politics. Whether or not it contained vandalism at any point has little to do with it being noteworthy. Blurgezig (talk) 01:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets every requirement for notability and verifiability. The objections appear to be coming from single use accounts created just to delete the article. See User:Blurgezig for example, who appears to have a personal grudge against Kastle based on the edits from the account. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find personal remarks such as that are not not permitted in discussion guidelines R A Norton, stay on topic. How recently my account was created is not the issue here. We are not here to interfere with anyones right to vote for a whatever they feel is suitable Blurgezig (talk) 22:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Josef-Stefan Kindler[edit]

An article which consists primarily of a list of album artwork credits. The article fails to meet the notability standards at WP:N. Outside of several trivial mentions via Google News,[19] and Google Books,[20] I can find no secondary reliable sources with which to verify the article or confirm that it meets notability guidelines. dissolve ^talk 02:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: looks like some self-promotion going on. Insufficient independent 3rd party sources. JamesBurns (talk) 06:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Other than a claim that "He is one of the important German record producers and publishers of audiophile music." I see no independent verification of notability. TheMindsEye (talk) 21:40, 26 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 Music Player Daemon. MBisanz ^talk 03:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gnome Music Player Client[edit]

Non-notable software. Does not claim notability. Has zero sources referencing notability. One news.google.com hit in an attempt to find reliable sources that would indicate notability, and the one hit does not seem to be something we would use. [21]. Run-of-the-mill media software is not inherently notable. Miami33139 (talk) 22:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Well known software distributed with most Gnome-based Linux distros. LotLE×talk 22:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Music Player Daemon; since it's only a front-end to the Linux Music Player Daemon (see [22], [23]) merge and redirect to Music Player Daemon. TJRC (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is MPD notable either? It appears to be all primary sources. Miami33139 (talk) 23:28, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. As above, this would fit as a subsection of Music Player Daemon article. Dialectric (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As per TJRC. Yellowweasel (talk) 02:05, 22 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 03:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Electro Interstitial Scanner[edit]

Advert article for completely non-notable device Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks reliable sources to establish the notability of the device. Note that WP:MEDRS requires better-than-usual sourcing on medical topics. EdJohnston (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, almost worth keeping for comedy value, but the article fails to establish notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete - looking at insighthealthgroup.com/references it seems they already use French WP as a reference for this device. That makes me think that a originally Good Faith Article by the Editor has mutated into something not so good for WP. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ad, unsourced, no evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 04:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ooh, unsourced medical claims which read like an ad for the device. Not good. Delete the redirect Electro-Somatography as well. Zetawoof_(ζ) 08:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; can't this be speedied? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as promotional woowoo. DreamGuy (talk) 16:40, 25 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 02:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Bukovac[edit]

Absolutely no reliable sources found pertaining to him proper, just trivial mentions found. Despite multiple credits, he does not appear to be notable without any sources to verify so much that he exists. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that a musician can meet any of the 11 WP:MUSIC criteria without having references pertaining just to them. That is just criterion #1 (WP:GNG), one of the many criteria that can be applied. It should not be used as a sole reason for deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still, even the sources I'm finding that mention him and someone else focus more on the someone else and aren't really "non-trivial". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the article is about a session guitarist and a career built on accompanying others on their albums and on tour. So there's no claim that he's a star, just that he's notable in that capacity, which there is ample evidence for. Whether there's enough substantial coverage of that role is another matter, and it's not entirely clear, but I think cumulatively it's enough. He's played with some big time acts over a substantial career with many credits. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Google news has quite a few mentions of the guy on major tours and album performances. I don't see substantial coverage of him in particular however, but the breadth of accomplsihment seems notable to me. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:36, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party sources WP:MUSICBIO. JamesBurns (talk) 02:48, 24 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 (NAC) RMHED. 23:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Faze TV (TV channel)[edit]

This article is about a proposed television channel that never launched and at this present time, has no plans on launching anymore. Television channel articles should only be about channels that are on the air or have been at one time on the air. This channel in question, has neither. There is also no references or citations. musimax. (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Aborted channel, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment Request more reffrences before I make a decision. AltecCrog (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We've already looked and found bupkis. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I had no trouble finding references to support the claim that the channel would be the first aimed at gay men in the UK, and have added additional material to describe the effort and its collapse, backed by appropriate references. I'll add a few more to get it to qualify for DYK, but this is a decent start. Alansohn (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the thing is that the channel never actually launched. If it had gone to air, then I think it would be notable enough to keep. But simply a planned channel, that never launched, I don't think that's notable enough. musimax. (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia notability standard is not that something exists. The question is if the media has taken notice. Per WP:N, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." The article makes an explicit claim of notability, that does appear to satisfy these criteria by being included in independent reliable sources. That it never made it on the air is not an impediment to notability. Alansohn (talk) 04:22, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Alansohn. Also, the channel's potential uniqueness and the reasons surrounding its failure are notable, encyclopedic and of potential historical interest. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per adam's comment.Smallman12q (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article is now properly sourced, appears to cross the notability threshold. Remaining issues with this article are a matter for cleanup, not AfD. - Dravecky (talk) 19:08, 23 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 (NAC) RMHED. 23:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PhpWiki[edit]

All sources cited are part of PhpWiki; no independent, reliable sources are given to establish notability. Therefore, the page should be deleted. Oboeboy (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, if it is true that is was "the first Wiki written in PHP to be publicly released", it makes it a bit notable... But I would not cry if it was deleted... SF007 (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Even though it is the first, the article fails to cite any independent sources. If reliable, independent sources can be found, it should be kept. However, as the article currently lacks any such sources, it should be deleted.--Oboeboy (talk) 15:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't see why being "the first Wiki written in PHP to be publicly released" would confer any automatic notability. What has the language used to write something got to do with notability? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. For web applications, the language used to write them is more important than most other software, as the user must choose a product written in a language supported by his hosting provider, therefore the language becomes a significant element in how the application to use is chosen, with PHP being the most popular choice these days. So, "first wiki in PHP" translates to "first wiki available to use with most hosting providers". I don't think this is much, but it is something, and is suggestive that the software should be notable rather than evidence that it is. JulesH (talk) 09:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There would appear to be plenty of sources available from a Google Books search, but I'm afraid find this topic too boring for me to actually look through them to prove notability conclusively. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:25, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a couple of sources. I'm sure there are more to be had. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Upon the addition of independent sources. FingersOnRoids 22:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep L.A.L.'s sources show notability. JulesH (talk) 09:27, 23 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 03:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Lobby (improv)[edit]

Regional comedy group. The one third-party reference (in an apparent local, minor web publication) says they are a local group. The article is about what the group offers, not why they may be notable. Omarcheeseboro (talk) 12:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no establishment of notability, and indeed, based on the tone of the article, appears not to be. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as even though they might not be the biggest comedy group in the world, the page has a sizable amount of information on it. There is also a few referances, and they have been performing at big stages as well, so not not notable. Koshoes (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. More references added. Capnwalrus (talk) 01:31, 19 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) 00:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, most comedy groups are "regional." More refs have been added, and this group does seem to be notable. SMSpivey (talk) 10:55, 22 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 03:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Stevens (doctor)[edit]

Unclear if this doc meets the wp:bio/wp:prof notability standard. The article is also a bit too spammy. The input of other editors would be appreciated. Thanks, brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see how this biography meets any of the notability guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
uncertain 27 Peer-reviewed papers in scopus, highest counts 30, 12, 11. Possible a notable surgeon, but borderline. Many of the papers are in good journals and report very long series of cases. It is possible that he's notable in the specialty; however, most of the MD articles submitted to Wikipedia are from cosmetic and plastic surgeons; this is a specialty that depends very heavily on advertising, and therefore I tend to have a rather critical attitude towards these articles. But this is a better real publication record than most such here. DGG (talk) 05:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertisement, probably written by a marketing firm. Narayanese (talk) 23:26, 21 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) 00:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per WP:ADVERT and, IMHO, a failure to meet WP:BIO and WP:PROF has mentioned by OP. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 09:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dr Stevens does not meet the WP:BIO criteria. He has several publications, but he does not have significant coverage about him in any secondary source. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ad. Citation for fame refers to own clinic. Kevin McCready (talk) 01:12, 25 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 03:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Hoffman Agency[edit]

Spammily written article that was un-PRODded by a bot like user who contests dozens of PRODs daily. I read the listed external links as if they were attempting to be reliable sources. Only one is not a primary source or blog. That one link is to inc.com. That link is a single sentence setting up a quotation from one of their employees. One sentence does not meet our criteria for Notability, multiple references to multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Miami33139 (talk) 00:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spammy article with no independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete PR releases do not count towards notability, even for PR firms. - Eldereft (cont.) 05:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple stories in reliable sources about this company. E.g. [24]] [25][26][27][28] JulesH (talk) 14:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional coverage of some their awards: [29] [30] JulesH (talk) 14:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Doesn't read like WP:ADVERT and company seems notable. LotLE×talk 22:01, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Company appears to be notable, and any spam can be removed. We don';t delete when we can edit. DGG (talk) 04:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JulesH and DGG. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Appears" is not enough. What exactly will be left to edit when the spam is removed? If an AfD discussion fails to provide the external sources needed to prove notability, then what will? So, if "we don't delete when we can edit", then by all means edit to provide the information and the sources that turn "appears" into "is", or show that vanity industry reports and personal quotes are enough to keep this article. Flowanda | Talk 08:15, 24 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. Stifle (talk) 10:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Midwest Bisexual Lesbian Gay Transgender Ally College Conference[edit]

Just seems to be a random conference. No external news coverage other than press releases from Indiana University from a cursory search. Spinach Monster (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only coverage appears to be in the college paper. -- Whpq (talk) 18:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable keynote speakers and performers makes it notable. Rescue? Bearian (talk) 02:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are not many hits for this on Google (~600), but I went through the first few pages anyway. They were mainly simple informational listings with time, date and basic details, which do nothing to establish notability, blog listings and the like, which are not reliable, and a press release which appears to be mirrored a few places. I found no evidence of notability. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:09, 21 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) 00:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Doctorfluffy. There is a lack of sources that give it notability. Tavix (talk) 05:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak ~~keep~~ delete - The page seems to barely satisfy the guideline for "multiple, non-trivial mentions by third party media" - [31]. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - How so? Most of the newspapers listed are campus papers. And based on the text, are either passing mentions or event announcements. -- Whpq (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Simply the fact that there was a conference does not make it notable. Of those "sources" you found, is there any of them that show notability? Tavix (talk) 15:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - you're right. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Legitmate conference organization notable for their efforts in this area. EagleFan (talk) 15:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - What sources establish this notability? -- Whpq (talk) 15:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep articles in several university newspapers, and the Herald Times. I moved the conference list to the talk page. Ikip (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note, this AfD has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject_LGBT_studies Ikip (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local or regional conferences are very rarely notable. They should require more than minimal sourcing: I think one wouldneedto show they have received national-level attention. References are only from the college town paper where it's held, which is not sufficient. The General Notability guideline makes no more sense when used in a positive direction than a negative, if it permits articles like this. Typically, we've been getting around it by saying the sources are not sufficiently independent or not reliable as a factor for notable, since they indiscriminately cover all local events--as here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
- I also found an article from the Herald Times. Ikip (talk) 01:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think that an article with potential to pass Wikipedia's basic content policies (NPOV, OR, V, NOT) should nevertheless be deleted because you personally don't find the topic notable, then you should either rethink the idea of notability as an inclusion criterion, or accept the GNG. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 03:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourcing can be beefed up -- All citations in use appear to be self-published material (blogs, a wiki, even the student newspaper one is a press release), the Herald-Times reference is un-usable afaik due to requiring subscription, Google News has 1 usable citation in this (unless student press isn't usable), but even this news article is mainly about a funding controversy by the student senate, so not sure if this is enough to hang the entire article on. Am sure this is a great conference, but without better sourcing, it is offering little more than their own self-published info with a Monobook skin. Outsider80 (talk) 08:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No problem that the Herald Times is subscription only, but i don't think one such article establishes notability.Yob Mod 13:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subscription-only doesn't matter, as long as it's verifiable. Multiple independent refs (granted, not as many as I'd like to see), notable speakers.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment' - Which refernences are you basing your opinion on? There hasn't really been anything specific that has been pointed out as a good source. The only candidate appears to be something behind a pay wall and there is insufficient information to determine if it is an article about the conference, a passing mention, or an event announcement. And even if it were about the conference, that remains the only source. -- Whpq (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Self-promotion of non-notable organization, looks like using Wikipedia as a means of activism. Netrat (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only one reliable source, not enough for establishing notability.--Sloane (talk) 18:49, 24 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 02:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Superior Taste Award[edit]

Insufficent notability ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It might look spammy because all jury organizations are linked externally, but it's an award given out by a notable organization with notable judges which is the main thing that makes an award notable. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, what makes something notable is being covered in some amount of detail in reliable sources independent of the subject. Bongo matic 05:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, sorry when my first article is not sufficient, however consulting Wikipedia has helped me so often during the last two or three years that I wanted to do something in return. I did my best to follow the guidelines and hints, so now I do not understand, what is wrong with my article. I'd be happy if you could tell me why it is insufficient. I've seen many articles (e.g. look at "degustation") that were quite short, too. So is it length? Or the wrong links (externally linked instead of Wikipedia links)? Thanks for helping ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joheba (talk • contribs) 22:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The key to content additions and new article creation is wp:notability. The basis for notability is substantial coverage in independent sources. All I see for this subject is a press release from the organization and citations to the organization itself. If there is substantial coverage in independent sources like magazines, newspapers, or books, that would demonstrate the subject meets guidelines for inclusion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unable to find coverage of the award . . . mainly press releases by companies whose products had received it. Happy to be contradicted if such sources exist. Bongo matic 05:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand and futrther source. There does appear to be enough about the award and the organization to improve the article (Award, Organization). Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to a Google search is quite unhelpful. The comments above indicate that editors have already looked in the web and news for article hits, but have found that the references do not constitute significant coverage of the award in independent sources (press releases are not deemed to be independent). The number of WP:GHITS is not an indicator of notability, so if you think that one or more items in your linked searches actually demonstrate notability, please indicate the sources themselves. Bongo matic 23:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are some potential sources found by a Google News search, some of which are press releases, but many of which are independent coverage. The problem seems to be that most of the ones from publications that I recognise as the sort of sources that confer notability are passing mentions in articles about winners of the award, such as this in The Economic Times, this in Komsomolskaya Pravda and this in The Star. This appears to have more direct coverage of the award but I'm afraid I can't make much sense of Hungarian. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A normal award, doesn't famous at all. 98.119.177.171 (talk) 06:11, 25 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 (NAC) RMHED. 23:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arsonists (rap group)[edit]

Non-notable musical group. Mikeblas (talk) 02:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are they or were they signed to Matador Records? Seems to me they may be notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The group is considered popular for the standards of its underground genre and its underground label (Matador Records). A weaker argument on keeping it is this: the article was created on March 06 and since then nobody has contested its notability; plus, there's a dozen of wiki-articles linking to it. However, I'm surprised that nobody has used so far musical press articles as references for its statements or for establishing its notability. To sum it up: worthy subject, poorly referenced article. (Can't we recruit people from the relevant WikiProjects i.o.t. take care of it?) --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No chartings. No independant ghits for the band or its members. Myspace pages are not notable. Mystache (talk) 00:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as below. Mystache (talk) 01:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:MUSIC. Their album As The World Burns charted at #78 Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums [32], their single "Pyromaniax" was #43 Hot Rap Singles .[33], as well as multlple reliable secondary sources via Google News: [34] [35] [36] dissolve ^talk 05:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Dissolve's comments. Strikehold (talk) 08:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per dissolve's comments.Smallman12q (talk) 00:32, 23 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 03:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Hippocratic Registry[edit]

Not much 3rd party mention in independent sources - see Google search. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination. Google news search shows NO hits; Google web search shows hits only for this site and links to this site. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The real issue here, is that some doctors don't like the doctors' general Charter, but wish to revert to the original Hippocratic Oath, which inter alia, does not allow assisted suicide or abortion. These are the life and death issues (literally) at stake here. The article is not specific and blunt enough on this, I suspect due to WP:COI issues. Bottom line is though, that the topic is important, existential, relevant - in short, encyclopaedic - and so is articles on national organizations of physicians that trumphet pro/con such principles . Keep or delete votes here, will mostly be based on a perception if WP:N guidelines are some sort of policy, of if they merely are guidelines, that need not rigorously be complied with. Power.corrupts (talk) 12:21, 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, — Aitias // discussion 00:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N. Whatever WP:N is, this article fails it and should be deleted. Themfromspace (talk) 01:36, 22 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 03:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AUTODYN[edit]

Non-notable software Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 05:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Nothing special about software package and no immediate assertion of notability. --Sigma 7 (talk) 20:07, 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, — Aitias // discussion 00:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Corporate advert with no assertions of notability. §FreeRangeFrog 01:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Week delete there does appear to be some case of notability, for example this paper. Article does not establish it though. --Salix (talk): 08:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Interested in this software... hope the article can be undeleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.116.59.13 (talk) 09:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ismael mbana[edit]

Sportsman who does not seem to ever have played in a fully professional league, as WP:BIO requires, and has no substantial coverage. (The Ligue Nationale de Basketball (Switzerland) is professional in that players are paid money, but they are not full professionals.) Sandstein 22:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Great success in college (Div. 3) and a short semi-pro career, but nothing approaching notability per guidelines as far as I can tell. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:33, 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, — Aitias // discussion 00:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notable coverage. Mystache (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awaken Acappella[edit]

Based on the following web searches:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

the article appears to lack significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, and consequently doesn't comply with the general notability guideline. PhilKnight (talk) 11:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 03:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JamesBurns; a Google News archive search turned up no substantive references to meet WP:BAND. Note also that the proper name for this group appears to be Awaken A Cappella according to ucla.edu. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:17, 25 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.