< 4 February	6 February >
Discussions scheduled to run until at least 10 February 2009.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 18:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Military humor[edit]

Regretfully, it is 100% original research. All references cited are joke examples, rather scholarly/encyclopedic study of military humor. We had similar articles deleted on exact same ground: Lawyer jokes, Aviation jokes,Drummer jokes, and many more others. Much that I am interested in humor research, this article fails wikipedia criteria. Laudak (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Comment the AfD alert isn't at the top of the page (anymore?). Could someone fix that? SMSpivey (talk) 00:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'm going to go through and rewrite this to bring it up to standards, but the subject of the article itself appears to be quite notable if you go check out a quick search of google books and google itself. It should probably mention things more along the lines of Beetle Bailey and the USO as humor that grows naturally out of the exceptionally different culture of the military than what it talks about right now. SMSpivey (talk) 00:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think we should be very careful when comparing an article to other previously deleted articles in a deletion discussion. I think it's usually better to leave other articles and AfDs out of it, and discuss this based on its own merits, notability etc. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 04:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—I can attest that there is some notability, as well as controversy, behind some of the jokes left by the U.S. Military alone; we're not even mentioning the military jokes by other countries toward us. MuZemike 08:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article is well written, maybe easily upgradable, seems to have a future. --Mr Accountable (talk) 09:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable topic, Possibility for expansion, many books on the subject available, not to mention probably thousnds of tother sources.DGG (talk) 13:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article I read surely looks passable: it looks like it may have been improved. And it reminds me that we need to start a general article on military folklore, of which this is a subtopic. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:33, 6 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 A7 by Fabrictramp (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) JuJube (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Curtie[edit]

Non-notable person, I tried to put on a db-person but he wants to do an AFD -Zeus- 23:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy delete it doesn't matter what he wants. Speedy deletion tags cannot be removed by the editor. Absolute and total vanity. Also note the author has removed the AfD tag as well. JuJube (talk) 23:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete No references, no notability. Laudak (talk) 23:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, looks like we have a consensus, I'm removing the AfD from the article page —Preceding unsigned comment added by -Zeus- (talk • contribs) 00:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No sign of notability, no sources. Edward321 (talk) 00:29, 6 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 WP:CSD#G7. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TradeMark Express[edit]

I think it's unnotable and it's written bu someone at the company. -Zeus- 22:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

That's correct, it is written by someone at the company. However, it is no more uncountable than virtually any other company's wiki page wherein the goods/services are described, the history is provided and relevant media is provided. Tmexpress (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)Shannon[reply]

The references are all jokes, and everyone needs to know that the person above is the article writer/company spokeperson. -Zeus- 23:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete, no assertion of notability. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 23:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn. No reputable references which assert any notability. Laudak (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spam, fails WP:CORP. caknuck _° is a silly pudding 06:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and block COI editor's spamusername. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spam. Plastikspork (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused as to how Wiki works, obviously, so my apologies for all my mistakes. How is it that other companies have Wiki pages, which, in my opinion, are offering even less relevant or notable information. For instance, ShareASale or LegalZoom. The information detailed for TradeMark Express is easily on par with the information noted in those 2 Wiki pages. Any guidance is appreciated. 76.27.230.181 (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Shannon[reply]

Those companies don't "have Wiki pages"; there are pages about them. If any article fails to meet our standards for notability of the topic, it is subject to deletion. The existence of another article is no justification for violation of our standards. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay I understand now. It seems odd to me that someone outside the company would care enough to create a page about them. Again, my apologies for violating the rules. 76.27.230.181 (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Shannon[reply]

Well, that's kinda the point: companies nobody cares about are not notable enough to have articles written about them. People outside Apple Inc. or Cargill care about the companies, for better or worse, enough to have written about them. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete clearly not notable, should have been speedied IMHO ukexpat (talk) 19:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do we get closure on this? -Zeus- 19:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with the deletion. I clearly misunderstood the rules so please do what needs to be done. If I can delete on my end, let me know & I'll do so promptly. Tmexpress (talk) 21:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Shannon[reply]

You need to put this text at the top of the page: ((db-author)) -Zeus- 22:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Tagged. Matt (Talk) 03:36, 8 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 redirected as a POV fork. Well sourced material can be integrated into that article per content dispute resolution process Jclemens (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies and criticisms of Michele Bachman[edit]

Flagrant violation of WP:ATP. Given its title, its mere existence raises intractable WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE problems - reason enough to delete the article even if the content exceeded expectations separately or collectively, which it does not. If any of this material is viable, it can and should be merged into Bachman's main article. WP:ATP advises that if an attack page's subject "is notable, but the existing page consists primarily of personal attacks against that subject and there's no good revision to revert to," it should be stubbed, especially in the context of WP:BLP; while I realize that doing so may hinder this prod, those conditions obtain here, so I have stubbed the article. The most recent previous revision can be found at [1]. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:56, 5 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 20:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Western European paintings in Ukrainian museums[edit]

No doubt, some of the content here is of interest to us, but this article is the wrong venue for it. First, it sets up a slippery slope. What's next? Japanese art in Brazilian museums? Islamic art in Namibian museums? Cubist art in Cuban museums? Second, by all means mention the particular collections and their histories at each museum's article (Poltava Art Museum, Museum of Western and Oriental Art, etc). But there's really no case for patching together every museum's history here. And third, as always, the content is not verifiable without citations. Biruitorul ^Talk 21:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - anything relevant in this article is, can or should be folded into other articles. The topic is not autonomous. The bulk of it is over-focused trivia, and, to build on what the nominator is saying, it's a slippery slope to an extended version of eeny meany miney moe. That not only encouragestrivia, but it creates forks and makes existing articles on the same topics lose their purpose and focus. Dahn (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. I agree some information is interesting, but this is the wrong way to approach this topic. The list of such paintings and info shall be in the respective museum articles and not all in one article like this. —dima /talk/ 00:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article provides some useful and sourced information on the subject. Perhaps the content should be merged somewhere, but this is not a reason for deletion.Biophys (talk) 02:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The general discussion is fully appropriate. The list of art works should be divided and moved to the individual museums. Not that we'd list everything in a museum there either, but we could appropriately list highlights. DGG (talk) 05:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a worthy effort, but unmaintably complex and not sufficiently verifiable. There are, for example, around 2000 museums in the UK, with collections ranging in size from 2 objects to several million. Trying to pin down what is in what collection by artefact type, genre or origin of work, etc, is too much like a directory, rather than an encyclopedia. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and if we removed the directory material at then end and put it elsewhere? There are good historic reasons for treating this topic, as discussed in the article itself.DGG (talk) 13:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom...Western European paintings in Ukrainian museums is absurdly broad...Modernist (talk) 04:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree with the argument by analogy in the nom. Some cross-cultural subjects are more important than others. The history of western art in the museums of a country formerly part of the USSR and under German occupation during WWII is I think a notable subject. Admittedly, the article doesn't restrict itself to this and provides a History of Ukrainian art museums. But, that's a notable subject too.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Delete the list. It's 28 years out of date. The rest of it seems okay, and has a source, if only one. Notability:

"Western art" "Ukraine museums" turns up 4 hits on Google.

"European art" "Ukraine museums" turns up 5.

So no-one's going to be searching for this stuff.

"Western european art" ukraine - turns up 984. However, pages of travel guides and repeated references to two museums in Kiev and Odessa.

According to [site]"The Museum of Western and Eastern Art stands out as probably the only noteworthy collection of Western art in Ukraine"

All that aside, it's obviously a "special interest" subject, so:

How about renaming the article to an expandable "Western Art in Former Soviet Russia" or similar, and relegating the Ukraine section to a heading? - Ddawkins73 (talk) 09:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Rename to History of Ukrainian art museums. Delete the lists. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:22, 10 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 based on WP:RS evidence presented by NE2 and Cazort. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Hodges Bridge[edit]

Not a notable bridge. Rschen7754 (T C) 20:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Newspaper articles cover the current project and probably the older ones. One about the current project has a nice history of the original bridge. That's more than enough to satisfy notability. --NE2 22:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the multiple in-depth secondary sources about this topic as indicated by NE2. --Oakshade (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is a quite notable bridge, judging from the article text. Laudak (talk) 00:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Personally, I find this article interesting. Another source: [2], and a historical reference to the old bridge: [3] My only question...why don't we have a page on Lake Hodges? Cazort (talk) 01:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because you did not write one yet. Seriously though, there is stub article on the Lake Hodges Dam. Lake and dam articles are often combined. •••Life of Riley (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is not policy, but there is a notion of inherent notability for some things, including sizable bridges. Wikipedia:DEFACTO. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 04:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:29, 7 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. — Aitias // discussion 18:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Schrade Interchange[edit]

Not a notable bridge. Rschen7754 (T C) 20:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into I-805 - there's enough coverage in books to write a reasonable article, and so it satisfies notability. --NE2 22:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find much (interesting) mention of this interchange by name, just a mention in books doesn't really convince me of notability. Cazort (talk) 01:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In my opinion this has inherent notability. WP:DEFACTO. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 04:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The second of the Gbooks links NE2 points out appears to contain dedicated discussion of the bridge, so that's an engineering journal devoting explicit attention to it - seems enough for notability to me. Gonzonoir (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are several articles on bridges/interchanges in California. This article does need expansion/rewriting but I do believe the subject is notable. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:34, 10 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 Deleted by request of author (admins: see talkpage, last revision prior to deletion) Kylu (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Romania and the Mongol Invasion of 1241[edit]

This article looks like a POV fork, and is at best overkill. First of all, it's structured like "Whig history": there was no Romania to speak of back then (it's almost like having an article on "the United States and the Aztec Empire"), and not even the principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia. Secondly, the Mongol invasion itself affected the Kingdom of Hungary and regions on its borders - presumably, they passed through Moldavia and Wallachia (no definitive proof of this was presented, or indeed could ever be presented, but it is unlikely that they followed other routes). A reliable reference in the Wallachia article specifically says that Mongol rule in the two countries is unattested. Now, the Mongol Empire was a notoriously loose polity, so claims to an actual rule over just about any region they passed through are debatable. The Mongol invasion in the region is covered (with a natural focus on Hungary, the only polity of the time to leave a definite account of anything that was happening) in Mongol invasion of Europe (note that there isn't a separate article for the invasion of Hungary, which is largely covered there), Battle of Mohi, Kingdom of Hungary, Kingdom of Hungary in the Middle Ages, the Wallachia and Moldavia pages, Romania in the Early Middle Ages, History of Transylvania, Foundation of Wallachia and several other articles (yes, the picture they paint is confusing and the articles appear isolated from, even "schizophrenic" to one another, and one more article going nowhere does not help at all). What's more, the (unreferenced and ungrammatical) article makes speculative and rather amusing claims. The lead thus states (using flawed terminology): "The Mongol invasion affected first of all Moldova and Wallachia and had a big impact on the Romanian history and culture and had destroyed all cultural and economical records from that time." It did? How would one assess this impact on Romanian culture back then, when the first local written records are dated some tens of years after the invasion? If we're supposed to assume it is because of the invasion, then we're dealing with the unheard sound of falling trees. Dahn (talk) 20:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nominator's vote. Dahn (talk) 20:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. For the record, the 2008 CIA World Factbook states:

The principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia - for centuries under the suzerainty of the Turkish Ottoman Empire - secured their autonomy in 1856; they united in 1859 and a few years later adopted the new name of Romania. The country gained recognition of its independence in 1878.

--Quartermaster (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first union of The Romanian Principalities was at 1601 but lasted only 1 day beacause Michael the Brave the ruler of this campaign was decapitated ♫Razool —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

- I guess what the author meant was the territory of modern Romania. That is exactly the meaning of "Romania" from the article I suggest below to merge into. Dc76\^talk 20:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the nominator couldn't have put it better. Records on this are exceedingly shaky, and insofar as we can build up our coverage of the topic, we have Mongol invasion of Europe to improve. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everyone. Edward321 (talk) 00:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Romania in the Early Middle Ages. There isn't much to merge, but still maybe two-three sentences. Note that the latter article has a section related to Tatar invasion of 1241-1242 (by the end of that article). That is an excellent place where this topic could be treatied, because, as Biruitorul explained, there is a scarcity of sourses for an article of its own. BTW, Dahn, you don't need to spend so much time to exaplain in so much detail. This nomination is straightforward, a no-brainer once you see the article. Dc76\^talk 20:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe you're right, but I wanted (needed?) to stress that the article can't really go anywhere. Dahn (talk) 23:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty to merge what was worth merging (into Romania in the Early Middle Ages and into History of Transylvania). So now, no (potentially or not valuable) information would be lost be the proposed deletion. Dc76\^talk 02:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename I tried to create an article about ~~actual~~ the present romanian territory and the impact that the Mongol invasion had. If you want reference read ro:Invazia mongolă din 1241 şi ţările române. As you have mentioned my grammar seems "unworthy" of english wikipedia but as worse as my grammar seems to be there is nothing funny about this article! You do a better article! There is a good article for reference here http://www.rocsir.usv.ro/archiv/2004_1-2/2VioletaEpure2004.pdf

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the whole subject can be summarised as "the Mongols probably went through Romania on their way to Hungary". bogdan (talk) 13:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and a horde of hundreds of thousands of Mongols flew from Asia to Hungary, Bulgaria and Serbia! come on! reference here: http://www.rocsir.usv.ro/archiv/2004_1-2/2VioletaEpure2004.pdf ♫Razool 19:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reference is ok. But this can easily fit as a subsection in Romania in the Early Middle Ages. Don't take Bogdan's words to the letter. It is clear what he meant: you did not really add much info. Try to read Dahn's and Biruitorul's comments again. They are not your enemies, there is absolutley nothing personal here. Please, think logically, and you yourself would realize that it's better to have a well-developed section rather than a poor article. Dc76\^talk 19:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guys this is no contribution what you are doing here this is deleting. I tried to create a starting point for an article. If Dahn is so smart why doesn't he create an article because there is definitely a lack of information on the matter. It is obvious that the Mongols had a big impact on our society. there were no fortifications and the people in the plains was taken by surprise even the Hungarians who had few fortifications had very big losses. IT WAS A VERY BIG IMPACT PROBABLY EVEN BIGGER THAN IT WAS FOR THE HUNGARIANS. The Hungarian troops were composed of Romanians in the bloodiest first campaigns. You cannot say such things as bogdan said that's real subjectiveness. Do some research!! That's all from myself. I'm all done on this matter!! PLEASE CONTRIBUTE ON THIS MATTER!!! ♫Razool 20:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really didn't think it would come to this. But all right, if you insist: 1) Did you introduce information in concise informative manner? No, you didn't, you put it worse than in a blog. Hello, this an encyclopedia! Can we adhere to higher standards, please. 2) Did you introduce sentances that reflect faithfully what historians say? No, you introduced your oral understanding. Historians are supposed to do research, not you or us. We are forbidden to do research! See WP:OR, please. 3) Your passages do not even qualify as research, so poorly were they written. And it's not only about English. The article in the Romanian Wikipedia is not much better. How many times are you repeating every piece of info? Generally twice or three times. You should wirte it once but well. It seems that you do not have the patience to spend 5-10 minutes with each sentence. Yes, yes, that's a minimum! 4) Did you gather enough info for an article? By far, you did not. You only have one sourse, and that can barely help you write a small section. But you want more. And you want other to do it for you.

The conclusion is: you are not really interested in bringing info to WP, but instead you look for ways to create confrontation. We told you: start a section in Romania in the Early Middle Ages, develope it, with sourses, with high standard of naration. Once you have sufficient material, propose a separate article. Would this course of action have prevented you to contribute to WP on this topic? Not at all. Conclusion: you are not really interested to build an encyclopedia. You are simply looking for some guilty party. Why there is so little info about Romanians during the Mongol invarion? Because nobody so far took the time to look it up. Are you interested to look it up? No. What are you interested in? To find a party to blame. Is it better for the WP to have around a person which does not wish to contribute in civil manner, but wishes to blame without sense and create trouble? No, WP would do better without such persons. If you don't have the civility and good manner to contribute with patience and assumption of good faith, then please leave. Dc76\^talk 00:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if you did not notice, every time there was anything remotely useful in what you wrote on this subject, I introduced or copyedited it into Romania in the Early Middle Ages, Mongol invasion of Europe, and History of Transylvania. Something that you should have been doing. Dc76\^talk 01:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The last thing i wanted was a confruntation!! actually I wanted other people like you who seem to know what they are doing more than I do to contribute on this matter. I know you want the best image for us in here. That is good. But I cannot do it. Believe me I have spent a lot more than 5-10 min in the last week on wikipedia. I think i spent a lot more than i should have. I found a lack of information on this matter and read a few articles. The conclusion was that this is not at all like bogdan described it and even your opinion was subjective. Again all i wanted was to create a starting point for an article. I wasn't good. Ok it wasn't i admit it. But is that the way to handle it? You made some changes to the text and added it to Romania in middle age -- that was contribution. That was contribution the rest was CRAP!! What Dahn said was no contribution either (maybe this discussion was) Actually all of this is nonsense. Sorry for sounding so irritated but I was especially on bogdan's comment! Have a good day!! ♫Razool 16:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was perhaps a bad idea to start contributing to WP with an article on a topic with very scarse sourses. Some people just have it naturally and avoid conflict. Proceed with tact. You see people oppose a separate article, volonteer to merge as a section in some other article. You have to know when to be principial (on moral issues, on factual issues), and when to be tactful (especially on matters of taste, convention, style). Dc76\^talk 22:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but improove the article. It's easy to delete, but useful to improve. Or, at least merge into Romania in the Early Middle Ages. --Olahus (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete. My guess is that Mongol rule did not happen because some one was strong enough to repel the invasion. If so, this infirmation should be included in articles on the states in question, not an area created by merging two provinces in the 1850s and adding to it Hungarian territory after WWI. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into either Romania in the Early Middle Ages or Mongol invasion of Europe. There just really isn't enough here to justify an article, but it does deserve mention. Grandmartin11 (talk) 16:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 14:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why War? (organization)[edit]

Non-notable student organization Bonewah (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:ORG requires significant coverage in secondary sources, and the article asserts none. See WP:BURDEN. A google search returns 244k hits ([4]), but that's to be expected given the common locution this org chose as its name, and predictably, if there are any hits that actually pertain to this org, they're buried in a mountain of hits that have nothing to do with it. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and to cap it off, there's a disclaimer at the bottom of their own web page that announces the organization is defunct. So this isn't even a non-notable organization: it's a non-notable former organization.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Same reasons as above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by -Zeus- (talk • contribs) 22:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as prodder, but I don't understand why this was taken to AfD before the prod was removed. Tavix (talk) 22:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 14:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Anscombe[edit]

No independent, reliable sources, created by COI conflict account, most of content violates our rules against using a crystal ball for information. Gene Fallaize and Cupsogue Pictures articles (directly tied to this one by editors and content) recently deleted for same reasons. DreamGuy (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real indication of notability. Duffbeerforme (talk) 04:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:51, 8 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) 12:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wurstcamp[edit]

Note - this article was nominated for deletion on 22 January 2009, but the discussion space was blanked. This discussion was recreated on 5 February 2009, so when closing it please use the latter date as the time the discussion began. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 19:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability of this fast food enterprise. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I love wurst, I have to say delete. Google search turns up nothing noteworthy other than their official site (and in fact it thinks I'm trying to search for "West-Camp" rather than "Wurstcamp"). Politizer ^talk/_contribs 00:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing comes up in German Google web or news (www.google.de). I like the ad though! Curry To Go! J L G 4 1 0 4 15:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, David Eppstein (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. German wikipedia has no entry, can't find any usable sources on it. Cazort (talk) 01:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 14:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard's principle[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Richard's principle

The term Richard's principle appears to be entirely the invention of the page originator. It is possible that someone in the literature, in a notable fashion, has made the same argument as the page originator, and that might be written up somewhere in WP (if it isn't already), but not under the name Richard's principle, unless a source can be found for that term. This is one case where it is important not to leave a redirect. WP is not supposed to be used to make up nomenclature Trovatore (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm in complete agreement with the nominator about this.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, except for the recent explanations contributed by User:CBM; these could be used in Richard's paradox. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Commnet It would be cleaner if Carl would just reproduce those in the other article; then we don't have to worry about GFDL and such. --Trovatore (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No problem, the article on Richard's paradox needed to be expanded anyway. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query: has the nominator reviewed the book cited by the article as the source of Richard's principle - Les Principes des Mathématiques etc. by Jules Richard? Unless the answer is yes, I have to vote keep for the time being. I don't have any access to that text, in either french or english, and I don't see how we can delete an article on the basis that we haven't read a cited source that may well fully support the article. Wikipedia requires that its content be verifiable - not that you have verified it. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. Um. This is sort of a fair point, formally — no, I haven't reviewed the book. However it seems extremely unlikely that there is any such "principle" there -- CBM looked up the letter in which the paradox was elucidated and found no such principle. I think if Eckerslyke asserts that such a thing appears in the book (I do not believe he has made any such assertion), then he should state this explicitly, and quote the passage. If he does that, and if the passage in fact justifies the things claimed, then I would allow that the burden would shift back to me. But I can't agree that it's sufficient simply to name a reference that no one has handy, without saying in what way it supports the claims made. --Trovatore (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have reviewed the letter by J. Richard (1905) cited in the article. I have it beside me as I type. Richard does not propose any principle. At best, one could try to infer a general principle from the specific argument Richard gives, but this would not be easy. I am unaware of the principle claimed by the WP article ever being called "Richard's principle" in the literature (or even existing in the literature). — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, right, and that brings up another point: I think we can assume that, even in the unlikely case that Richard proposed such a principle somewhere, as opposed to in this 1905 letter, he did not call it Richard's principle. Therefore my main point, which is that the article must be deleted (and not redirected) as a neologism, would apply with full force. --Trovatore (talk) 22:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Did Thomas Gresham name Gresham's law, or did someone else name the principle for him? How about Mike Godwin, did he, in that seminal work, declare "for I am Michael of Godwin, and henceforth, the following shall be known as 'Godwin's law'"? How about Newton's law of gravity? It seems to me that it is commonplace for a theory or principle to be named for someone who was not so immodest as to do so themselves.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Exactly — that's my point. There is no evidence that that has happened in this case.
      - To justify the name Richard's principle we need evidence that this name exists and has some significant diffusion in the literature. No such evidence has been provided, and is extremely unlikely to come from something written by Richard himself. We need to see these other authors that have used the phrase (with the meaning ascribed to it by the article). I do not believe they exist. --Trovatore (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, the article cites a source that neither you nor I have read, but that the author of the article has presumably read. I would almost certainly feel differently in the context of a BLP, or some politically charged topic, but this article just doesn't tingle my spidey sense; perhaps the citation doesn't support the article, creating a WP:SYN, WP:OR, or WP:NFT problem, but to my mind, the article cites a source, and I'm not comfortable voting to delete this article on the basis of speculation about what the cited source may nor not contain by people - me included - who haven't read it. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - CBM has read it, and reported to us on what it says. And it's still a neologism — that's the most important reason to delete outright, rather than smerge or something. --Trovatore (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article as amended has no value and will enlighten nobody. W J Eckerslyke (talk) 11:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence has been found that the term is used in the literature, and it is unlikely that Jules Richard coined it himself. Even if he did, that doesn't make it notable per se. Geometry guy 10:25, 8 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. Bearian (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Night Fall[edit]

doesnt appear to pass WP:NOTE, possible fanboy dross Aurush kazemini^talk 20:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It was a #1 best-selling book by a best-selling author. If this book isn't notable, I think we'll just have to delete all books from Wikipedia. HMishkoff (talk) 02:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reviewed or discussed in Washington Post, Book Reporter, NY Times, Publishers Weekly, etc. JulesH (talk) 09:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a no-brainer. Night Fall is a major work by a widely known, popular American author. The protagonist of Night Fall is John Corey, who is himself the subject of an article in Wikipedia. •••Life of Riley (talk) 20:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. I think we should stop wasting everyone’s time and SNOWBALL close this. There is not a chance in the world that this article will be deleted. •••Life of Riley (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball keep seconded. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:21, 6 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. It's fairly evident that there is no consensus for deletion. — Aitias // discussion 22:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

139th meridian west[edit]

Do we really need an article on every meridian? Yossiea ^(talk) 19:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is not what Wikipedia is for. Yossiea ^(talk) 19:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Yossiea ^(talk) 19:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Close Malformed, ill-advised attempt to bundle all meridian articles into one AfD. If nothing else, Prime Meridian should make that impossible. No opinion at this time on the nominated article. Townlake (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Change to Keep - this should be added to OUTCOMES; we think latitude and longitude are notable enough to stick them in every city article, so having an article for each whole-number break seems reasonable. These articles can be expanded. Townlake (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD is for this article, and I just mentioned that I think we should discuss all meridians. Obviously the Prime Meridian is different. There is an encyclopedic need for an article on it. I don't think we need a need for every meridian to have an article. Yossiea ^(talk) 21:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you have the best of intentions. The problem is that slipping the line in about all articles like this could easily lead to confusion about what's actually up for discussion here. Townlake (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Very well, I will remove the line about all other meridians. Yossiea ^(talk) 21:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Close - the current community consensus is to keep these articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/104th meridian east. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 139th meridian west, consensus can change and I can't find any reliable sources that discuss or analyze the 139th meridian west as their subject. Passing mentions are not sufficient to establish notability and with this lack of sources I can't see that the article could ever be expanded much past a definition. Looking at what links to it, as a way of estimating its usefulness, the only inbound link is List of satellites in geosynchronous orbit, where only half the integer meridians are linked. Exactly how somebody reading about satellites would benefit from this smattering of links escapes me. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Beeswaxcandle notes, there was a previous bulk attempt to nominate all of the meridian articles in December 2008: so "consensus can change" is not really very convincing in this particular nomination. I'd just as soon see this shot down on the merits to put it to rest, since these articles seem to be attracting repetitive nominations. A far more established consensus establishes that named geographical locations are notable per se. This would appear to count. Personally, I object to the POV-pushing of these articles that the earth is not flat, but that could be dealt with in a template. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that "named locations" applies to this article could equally be applied to 123.1°W, or any of the thousands of named divisions of the globe. What is the difference between 123.1°W and 139.0°W that makes one notable, but the other not notable? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may be that the choice of prime meridian, and therefore the choice of the others, was arbitrary, Anglocentric, or some other epithet. The rest of them follow from that definition. The 360 degree circle is also an arbitrary historical accretion that remains galling to some of the decimal monomaniacs. Now, as has been pointed out, some of these arbitrary lines are certainly independently noteworthy locations (49th parallel north, 90th parallel south). Their number is finite. And an article on any one of them makes the omission of any other seem incongruous. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced by the "List all for completeness" argument. For instance, we have an article on Ebenezer Place, Wick, but not any of the other streets in this town. If notability is conferred on a defined set of entities by one member of this set being notable, why don't we have articles on all the streets in Wick? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here we go again... There is consensus and precedent to keep articles such as this. See 104th meridian east, 19th parallel south, 19th parallel north, 18th parallel south, 18th parallel north, 17th parallel south, 15th parallel south, 14th parallel south, 14th parallel north, 12th parallel south, 12th parallel north, 11th parallel south, 11th parallel north and 49th meridian east. Every one has resuled in a decision to keep. Bazonka (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citing "consensus and precedent" is not an explanation or argument - I'm still not clear what this article is for. This isn't a probable search term, so we must be expecting readers to follow a link to this article from some other articles. In that case, can you give some examples of articles where these links would give the readers information that would give context or a deeper appreciation of the topic? I just can't see any use for 139th meridian west. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Apply liberally to other xth meridian/latitude articles as well. Some are notable, and should have articles, like the equator or prime meridian. Others should not, like this example. -Atmoz (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see nothing notable in this article and no good reason to keep it. I do not agree with the discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/104th meridian east and would recommend deleting that article too. If a precedent has been set, I would support overturning it. I think some further notability (other than an integer value in degrees) is necessary to justify including a meridian in wikipedia. The mathematician in me says...if we include 139, then why not include every fraction between 139 and 138 (of which there are an infinite number) ?. The division is arbitrary anyway. And there are plenty of notable meridians--such as those including time-zone borders: I say we keep only the ones that have some pratical/political importance. Cazort (talk) 01:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is determined by the frequency with which something is noted. It is worth considering that this meridian is marked on almost all maps of regions that it passes through, whereas the majority of maps do not bother marking fractional meridians. This suggests to me that integer meridians are much more notable than fractional ones, and hence more deserving of articles.
- If you want practical or political importance, consider that this meridian is referenced in a state law of Alaska [5]. JulesH (talk) 09:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Other than the nice round integer value (and remember, the Prime Meridian was selected arbitrarily), there's nothing particularly notable about this line. If it was used as a border definition it'd be different, but that's not the case here. As for previous AfDs, consensus can change and I see no compelling reason to be bound by precedent here. BryanG (talk) 05:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since the nominator didn't provide a good reason as to why this particular entry should go. Yes, consensus can change, but we shouldn't try nominating until it does without providing solid arguments on why the nominator believes the consensus should change. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/104th meridian east. Yes, consensus can change, however it doesn't normally change over the course of less than two months. JulesH (talk) 09:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some meridians are certainly notable for appearing in treaties, for defining geographic regions etc. If Wikipedia has more than, say 25 (or some other number) of these, then it would be incomplete if it doesn't have all of them, particularly as there is a finite, and not particularly large number of them. It would be like having articles on, say the years 1091 and 1093 but leaving 1092 out because nothing much happened that year. Jll (talk) 14:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or like omitting 2107 BC since it isn't a notable year. It's a redlink, for "completeness" would you like to write the article? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are redlinks to 2107 BC in existing articles, for example in the 22nd century BC "decades and years" template at the bottom of 22nd_century_BC, presumably in the expectation that the article will be written. In practice there is so little that can be said about any year in the 22nd Century BC that all of the existing articles (2117 BC, 2118 BC etc) are simply redirects to 22nd_century_BC. I think the article would be trivial to write as it would just be another redirect to 22nd_century_BC, although it would seem rather pointless since there is nothing about that year in the 22nd_century_BC article (although there isn't anything about 2118 BC in there either). Fortunately we are not in this situation with meridians - there is enough to say about each one to make it a proper article rather than a redirect. Jll (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with an article on 2107 BC is not that the year is unimportant, but rather that our knowledge of the past lacks the fine detail needed to place an event in that year rather than another. None of these articles have any such problem. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they do. There are not enough sources that discuss this meridian as their subject for this article to be expanded past a definition. No sources = no article. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any sources that are specifically about 445 BC, but we can place events in that year, so we have an article about it. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "Do we really need an article on every meridian?" yes. Until such time as a viable argument arrives to delete it/them. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 09:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CCC. Stifle (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So far we have 6 votes to delete and 8 to keep. That's hardly a change of consensus in favour of deletion. Besides which, no new opinions or ideas have been made - just the same old ~~WP:IDL~~ arguments. Bazonka (talk) 09:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a rather insulting statement, considering that most of the delete arguments have been based on editors' interpretations of the deletion policy. Could you please try to be more polite and show at least a little respect for your fellow editors' opinions? Tim Vickers (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way Tim. I have struck out the offending part of my sentence, but the rest of it still applies - there are no new arguments, and hence no change of consensus. Bazonka (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's much appreciated. I can see the argument that since these articles are not doing any harm, there is no urgent reason to delete them, but I feel that they are not really any use either, as I explained above by looking at what links to them. As to consensus, we seem pretty equally split on the matter. I therefore think there will continue to be regular AfDs on this set of articles. Would it be possible to merge them all together in some way? That would create one article like List of lines of longitude that would explain the whole set and would have indisputable notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of noteability made. Something is not noteable merely because it exists. Alternately, redirect to the article about meridians in general. Either way, this can't stand on it's own; no indication of noteability, no sources or references. Jtrainor (talk) 06:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re. sources and references - there's a link to coordinates at the top of the page. As a geographic/cartographic subject, this is the source/ref - a map. Previously, in similar articles, I have used a direct link to the MSN Maps website (e.g. [6]). However it was pointed out to me that this did not meet WP:EL criteria and qualified as spam (though I disagree somewhat with that latter point); I was recommeded to use Geohack as an alternative. I feel as though I am between a rock and a hard place with this - I can either use an inappropriately formatted source, or a source that doesn't look like a source. I would welcome suggestions as to how this can be improved, but I must stress that this is not a sourceless article. Bazonka (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which source did you copy the table from? That would probably be the best choice. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't copy the table - the data came from a map. (And to pre-empt a WP:OR argument, this is not Original Research. All of the information is verifiable from commonly available reference material, i.e. atlases or on-line mapping sites. I have simply tranferred the information from one format (cartographic) to another (textual). It's certainly not original thought, analysis or synthesis.) Bazonka (talk) 09:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There will only ever be a small and limited number of such articles. Also, if there is a desire to discuss general policy as regards articles for meridians and parallels, this should be done in a centralised discussion or in talk page of Wikipedia:Notability (Geographic locations). Creating a series of AfDs on individual articles is wasting the community's time. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per above, I think this article is Wikipedia:Inherent notability Nominator gives no procedural reason why this should be deleted. The "indiscriminate collection of information" argument is invalid, because WP:INDISCRIMINATE lists five things that shouldn't be on wikipedia: Frequently Asked Questions, Plot summaries, Lyrics databases, Statistics, News reports. This article is none of these. 'Procedural Close as per editors above. Ikip (talk) 14:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Obviously, more than just those things fits into 'indiscriminate information'. Jtrainor (talk) 17:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't cite the policy. the policy lists those 5 things only. Ikip (talk) 21:44, 9 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 19:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eitan Feinberg[edit]

This biography of a college student does not demonstrate notability. Although the author states that Feinberg is the CEO of a company and has been featured in major media outlets, no reliable sources have been found through Google News and other web-based searches. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. While this person does exist, there are no sources to back up his claims of notability. Just being CEO of a company isn't notable (since anybody can start a company and name themselves CEO/President/etc.) and no proof he has been mentioned on any of those shows. TJ Spyke 19:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is also a potential COI since the creator of the article admits to being Eitan's cousin at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Efeinberg. TJ Spyke 19:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The creator has had enough time to point out reliable sources, and I sure never found any. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He seems to be quite present on Facebook and similar places. Not much else. Seven ghits for him and the company together. Including the article. Building a computer at four? Possible. So is winning the Lottery. Building them at eleven is more likely. But how notable? How many have been built - and sold? I'm sitting here using a Dell system. Dell started out working from home. But he wouldn't have had an article until the factory was built. Peridon (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, which AA is he certified with? The link is to a long disambiguation page. Peridon (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please see discussion. Author has been hospitalized with pneumonia and has been unable to edit the page. Jajiggles (talk) 22:05, 9 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 WP:SNOW & CSD:G12 --Versa geek 23:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Essay:Israel vs genocide[edit]

Contested prod, endorsed twice. This is an essay which fails WP:NPOV, makes unsupported accusations againsed societies, and was copied from Conservapedia essay. With emboldened unsupported accusations such as "CLEAR GOAL OF GENOCIDE CAMPAIGN SINCE THE 1920s", this is unencyclopedic, opinionated and unworthy of Wikipedia. Strong Delete – Toon ^(talk) 19:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete quickly and without hesitation. §FreeRangeFrog 19:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox, see WP:SOAPBOX, about the most flagrant case I have seen yet. PatGallacher (talk) 19:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I see its up for speedy deletion. If that, for some reason is denied, I still want to make sure my vote's heard so this garbage can be snowballed out of here.Umbralcorax (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

as for my reasons, its unencyclopedic, a really big freakin' coatrack, and possibly verging on an attack page. I'm assuming conservapedia has a GFDL license or something similar, otherwise, it'd probably be a copyvio too. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – More war propaganda. – RJH (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bias one sided propaganda Dream Focus (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G4 - this is not the first afd discussion on this article - see WP:Articles for deletion/Israel vs Genocide. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - definitely just an anti-jew screed Aurush kazemini^talk 20:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - propaganda, against not one, but some tens of wikipedia rules (I would grow tired invoking them, but let's start with WP:NOT, WP:NPOV and WP:RS). Dahn (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I checked on Conservapedia, and while I don't claim to grasp all the subtleties of the GFDL, they appear to allow the unattributed reuse of their material on other sites.

This page may be a malformed attempt to resubmit this screed as a Wikipedia essay, in which case it's not an article. It probably would be deleted at WP:Miscellany for Deletion in any case, because it's not about Wikipedia, editing philosophies, or anything else. It may not "belong", but might be tolerable, in someone's user space, for whatever reason they chose to upload it. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G4 per Beeswaxcandle, or regular delete per any number of policies starting with WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP (and quite likely, if a closer look was given, WP:OR and WP:SYN).- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G4, G10, G-everything)—the person putting up the speedy said it best, "flagrantly contrary to Wikipedia guidelines". Strongly consider sanctions against the article's creator. MuZemike 23:02, 5 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 20:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Milton[edit]

why has this page been deleted? how can it be restored? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.41.61.2 (talk) 23:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as an expired WP:PROD, restored per request at my talk page. — Aitias // discussion 18:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--no notability that I can find (unless he was in World War 1--see "Felix Milton" on Google News). Drmies (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Drmies.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He is involved heavily with UK music & film work, his family has been doing it for years...http://www.britfilms.com/britishfilms/catalogue/browse/?id=D99E1BFC1ae7d2A1F6KpYuDE626B One of many film productions that he has worked on. He was producer for Aaliyah's 'Ultimate' album released 2005 through Unique. Has worked on studio productions with 50 Cent, Gorillaz, Boyz 2 Men, Blackstreet & many more... Has worked on live shows with Marilyn Manson, Michael Buble, Feeder, Busted, Pigeon Detectives & a lot of other artists, thats only the ones that i can remember in the last few years. Regards Ali —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.252.16.10 (talk) 21:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can provide references for these activities, feel free to add them to the article. I found no proof of this work--that's not to say it's not there or didn't happen, but please read WP:V. Drmies (talk) 22:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably best to ask him or the other artists he has worked with, if the website link is not enough evidence already, it appears to be extreamly difficult to provide references because there are not pre existing websites for people of this nature, thats why it has been put on Wikipedia!

Maybe you'd prefer me to source a handwritten reference from every person the guy has worked with, when i don't even personally know him! Regards Alistair —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.252.16.10 (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, open to change if sources come to light. ukexpat (talk) 18:06, 9 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 Criteria (band). MBisanz ^talk 20:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Druery[edit]

No indicator of notability. contested prod back in 2006. Google search finds nothing. Oo7565 (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete indeed--and perhaps Mike Sweeney (musician) and Steve Pedersen could be added, neither of whom have real notability beyond some mentions on MTV.com and one article in the Omaha World-Herald. Another Criteria member, A. J. Mogis, does have plenty of notability as a producer, and some kind soul could beef up his article. Drmies (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - wikipeida is not a soapbox WP:SOAP Aurush kazemini^talk 20:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all 3, no stand alone notability outside of the band. The AJ Mogis one is ok though. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Criteria (band), per WP:MUSIC. He is a member of that band, the band article has at least some information on him, and he is a reasonable search term. He lacks notability independent of the band, and was never a member of Bright Eyes, only contributed to one of their songs. The other two should be kept for now: none was tagged with ((AfD)), and both have been members in more than one notable band, which makes them "generally notable enough", again per WP:MUSIC. --Amalthea 14:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: not sufficiently notable on their own WP:MUSICBIO. JamesBurns (talk) 08:27, 8 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 CSD-A7/G11 --Versa geek 17:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Ideas and Execution Inc.[edit]

This sounds very much like an advertisement. Elm-39 - T/C 18:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete,as I tagged it. It's pure SPAM, per WP:SNOW, why bother with the debate? Wuhwuzdat (talk) 18:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--yes, pure SPAM. Drmies (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as chopped pork shoulder meat with ham meat added, salt, water, sugar, and sodium nitrite. Cycle~ (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11) as pink meat. Also, on the side, it's not good practice to nominate an article for AFD while a speedy tag is already up (shown here). However, that is moot since the creator placed a ((hangon)) on the page. MuZemike 19:40, 5 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 19:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Heldring[edit]

Sole claim of importance is album that came out last year which isn't coming up in gsearch or gnews. Fails WP:V and WP:N. Oo7565 (talk) 18:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--there's a few hits on Google News, on the same level as the two cited in the article, not enough to be called substantial in-depth coverage. He's played at CBGB, which isn't bad, and at the Living Room, but there is no word on the EP/album. In short, not (yet) notable, but I wish him the best. Drmies (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability not established WP:MUSICBIO. JamesBurns (talk) 06:21, 7 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 or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 06:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Hahl[edit]

*Delete: Subject fails WP:GNG. Bladeofgrass (talk) 18:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GNG isn't something that can be "failed". It is a sufficient condition for notability, but not a requirement for anything. Gene Nygaard (talk) 21:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand, how should I have phrased my request? By saying failed, I meant that I felt it did not satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article specificed in WP:GNG. But, I think I'm repeating myself here...am I? Bladeofgrass (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GNG requires non-trivial coverage, while trivial coverage that confirms someone won a major sports event or an award can also establish notability. GNG can only be used as an exclusion criterion if none of the relevant notability criteria (in this case WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE) are met. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he might not meet WP:GNG, but I think you're right in that he meets WP:ATHLETE. Bladeofgrass (talk) 12:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Other than the single source in the article, there's [7] this, for example. I'm not sure it fails WP:GNG, but then I'm not a bowling expert. §FreeRangeFrog 18:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable bowler, meets WP:ATHLETE for competing with Team Finland and in FIQ World Championships, AMF World Cup, and World Games. Sources are available: [8], [9], [10] [11], [12], etc. Jfire (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It appears that he participates at the highest level of amateur competition in Europe (no action on the professional level, though), but nontrivial coverage is wanting. Even the one cited article by itself is not enough regarding WP:BIO as it covered only the finish of one tournament (in contrast, there are hundreds of American teenage bowlers with substantially greater coverage in local media). This article is in dire need of expansion if it is kept. B.Wind (talk) 02:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bowled for Team Finland, and bowled in the FIQ World Championship, notable passes WP:ATHLETE.--Giants27 T C 00:35, 9 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 19:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nasty-O[edit]

Not a notable musician, does not appear to pass inclusion criteria in WP:BIO. Source material cited in the article is very trivial and offer next to nothing in information. hateless 17:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Source article has nothing demonstrating notability. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Likely self-promotion. Dahn (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:05, 7 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 20:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ya’akov Banai[edit]

Delete Not notable. Fails to meet WP:GNG Bladeofgrass (talk) 17:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikinews (if they want it), then either Delete or Convert to stub. Article written too much like a news source, and will require a fundamental re-write to become encyclopedic. This might pass notability though in a better article. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. People looking for sources should note that the subject's first name can be spelt Ya’akov, Yaakov, Ya’acov, Yaacov or Jacob, and possibly in other ways. and that Lehi is frequently referred to in English as the Stern Gang. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added a couple of sources to the article, and as the subject was one of the leaders of a very important group, I'm sure that there will be many more available. My only concern is that this could be a copyright violation, as it reads as if it has been copied from an obituary. I'm rather reluctant to spend much time on looking for more sources if this has be deleted anyway for copyright reasons. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Repost as stub, keeping both references added. Now satisfied article does pass notability, but it still needs a fundamental rewrite, and given the possibility of a copyvio, it's probably better to start again. Might change mind if original poster clarifies source of text. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- Ray (talk) 18:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There appears to be ample material on the subject for notability, judging from the article as of this time. Ray (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has historical notability as senior Lehi member. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite if there are demonstrable copyvio problems. Important historical figure. DGG (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep (I initially removed the PROD) - I have added some sources to the article. Definitely notable person, but as Phil Bridger I'm concerned that the text has been ripped from somewhere else and possibly a copyvio. This is not a valid reason for deleting the article however, only some of the text, as the article certainly has encyclopedic content. I have no interest in working on the article myself. Power.corrupts (talk) 07:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The only problem with that is that, if it is copyrighted, simply deleting the copyrighted text does not entirely get rid of the copyvio as it will still be available in the history ... Alternatively, how easy is it to totally delete the copyrighted revisions? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not an ideal article, but plenty of reliable sources mention this somewhat important individual. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for what appears to be a bit of a mess. I translated this article from an obituary that appeared in Hebrew from the Arutz 7 website: http://www.inn.co.il/News/News.aspx/183861 . I sent it out to all the family members that do not speak Hebrew and one of them took the initiative to place it on Wikipedia. I don't know if this qualifies as a copyvio and am willing to work to improve it so that it will meet wikipedia's standards. Since this would be the first time I am doing so, I would appreciate any advice/suggestions. Chinguri (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If someone copy-pasted it from another website, it probably is a copyvio. There are ways of getting copy-pasted articles acceptable under Wikipedia's GFDL license, but the easiest thing is to re-write the article in your own words (preferably taking care to write from neutral point of view). Someone will need to delete the original text from the page history, but that's someone else's job. Don't worry too much about using the right style for Wikipedia; if there's any problems, someone will clean it up. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not exactly copy-pasted, since I translated from the original using my own words, but I hear what you are saying and see that this does not meet Wikipedia's standards. I will work on it in the coming days and hopefully it will read more like a Wikipedia entry. Chinguri (talk) 15:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 14:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Graham boxall[edit]

Delete nn sportsman fails WP:ATHLETE - never played at professional level Mayalld (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This might pass notability if being captain of an under-16 national side qualifies (or, failing that, you might be able to find coverage of him in news sources about this). However, if this article stays, it needs a fundamental rewrite, and all the opinion have to go, even if it is a sad tale. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally non-notable. Dreamspy (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sad story, no doubt, and too bad he injured himself out of the game. But, WP:ATHLETE - he never made it to the pros. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Playing in a national team, no matter what your age makes someone notable, especially if they're the captain. This still should be deleted, because none of it is verifiable.
Google search[13] - Mgm|^(talk) 22:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't the link work properly? - Mgm|^(talk) 22:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now fixed. ;) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unverifiable. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - representing your country at schoolboy level is most certainly not deemed inherently notable (if it is, I'm off to write an article about the kid I was at school with who played schoolboy hockey for England but who now works in a bank). The exception to that might be if there was exceptional coverage of the kid involved, but in this case there seems to be none -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm merely saying age shouldn't be a factor. Several countries have youth teams that tend to be nominated for deletion because they never played a fully professional league because of their age, but played international matches at a level between the typical school and professional level -- the highest achievable at that age. (Not that it applies to this person, but I'd write an article about any player in Jong Oranje in a heartbeat if there were enough sources.) - Mgm|^(talk) 09:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under-21 level is generally considered acceptable, not least because players who play for their country at that level have generally played professional club football anyway. I don't believe that extends "downwards" though. Under-16 level players are schoolkids playing against other schoolkids in matches which receive zero mainstream coverage and are simply not notable, irrespective of it being "the highest [level] achievable at that age". -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject isn't notable Camw (talk) 08:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 10:12, 6 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. Stifle (talk) 09:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering traditions in Canada[edit]

appears to be a collection of sometimes poetic, never encyclopedic, anecdotes - doesn't appear to meet WP:NOTE Aurush kazemini^talk 16:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Three of the four entries appear to be backed up by other articles in Wikipedia (which doesn't automatically prove notability, but these articles would probably have failed AfD by now if they weren't notable). The article does need a lot of work, but I think it's salvageable. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article needs references and the removal of fluff/bias, but I still think it's a notable topic, engineering traditions having had a long history and significant impact on the lives of engineers in Canada. If anything, I think the individual engineering traditions (such as iron ring) should be merged into this article. TastyCakes (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I think the article should be expanded to include mention of other, sometimes school specific, traditions. Right now the only real substance is on the iron ring and the calling of the engineers, which already have their own articles. TastyCakes (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine provided that everything you're thinking of adding to the list is notifiable and verifiable. The last thing we want is for an article to become a free-for-all for every major, minor, trivial and made-up-in-one-day tradition. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, anything added must be notable and clearly classed as "a tradition" TastyCakes (talk) 18:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems like an arbitrary collection of facts and thoughts. Even if a good article could be made, which is questionable, I don't see how keeping this text would help. It's so bad, I had to check history, thinking this must be a vandalized version of something better. I realize merely being badly written isn't grounds for deletion. If it was made clear what this was, then we could simple trim it down to a small stub. But, if we trim out all the garbage, it would literally be empty. --Rob (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the first three sections of this article to Iron Ring due to the redundant scope involved; that leaves the Certification section, but that isn't really an engineering "tradition" as such, and much of that seems too generic for its own article. Any bits of content specific to Canada may be better sourced and merged into other articles e.g. those which have links. It may be better to develop an Engineering in Canada article to collect notable country-specific traditions and practices, but there doesn't seem to be anything substantial at this point to maintain as a separate article. Dl2000 (talk) 04:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article can't be fixed. It's all original research. Drvoke (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not sure what you think original research is, but it isn't all original research. There are reliable third party sources on all of them as far as I know. TastyCakes (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further, are you just here to show support for your anarchist buddies? Can't you guys have your own opinions for once? I would have thought you "activists" would seek to avoid group think, mob mentality. Also, if you started showing some independent thought I might stop thinking you guys were all socks of each other and spare us all the rigmarole of getting checkusers done. TastyCakes (talk) 20:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the banter off this talk page. If you've got some issue you need me to resolve, take it to my talk page. Also, whatever happened to good faith? And also, nothing is cited in the article. If it's not OR, add some cites. I can't find anything for any of the assertions made in the article. Of course, if you can't be bothered to clean up this page, maybe you don't have enough of an interest in it to be worried about whether it gets deleted(except because of who is nominating it). Drvoke (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I brought it up here because it applies here. The article doesn't have any citations, never mind OR ones, so it seems to me you just showed up and threw out some generic complaints to shore up your buddy. As far as why I am here, I was the one who created the article in its current form (I moved it from somewhere else which I believe got deleted.) It seems to me, therefore, that there is little mystery as to why Aurush nominated this article (or perhaps his numerous other AFDs for articles I have been involved with or created are mere coincidences?) I am aware, however, of the problems in the article and so have assumed good faith on that matter. TastyCakes (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General Comment: Additional "traditions" I would say could be included here include Lady Godiva, (see here), various engineering jackets and various school traditions that are deemed noteworthy (UBC engineers hanging cars off of bridges comes to mind). TastyCakes (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and Weak keep This appears to be about Engineering student traditions, not traditions of working engineers or P.Eng's....my father was an engineer, working in hydro construction; there were traditions associated with, for exampel, inauguration of new turbines and powerhouses (bottles of champagne broken etc) and dams (can't remember what, probably ribbon-snipping). So the title should make the specificaion of "student traditinos".....I'll reserve judgement/vote on this yet after I consider it; I can't see why it can't remain as an article, though; I see no compelling reason to delete it....as for engineering student traditions, the ESU at the University of British Columbia is famous/infamous for its Volkswagen beetle placements; on top or the carillon tower, suspended beneath teh Lions Gate Bridge etc....Skookum1 (talk) 14:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think it is all student traditions because mostly students have written the article so far, and they seem to be more documented in various media. It would be nice to have input from working engineers who could add traditions like you mention. TastyCakes (talk) 15:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm rather mystified at how this AFD has got three keeps, as I don't know what kind of article it is people want to keep. It would be very helpful if those wanting this article, would write a proper lead for the article, which would make clear what the scope and purpose of the article is. Once the article has a decent lead, if it's kept, than we can trim out anything lacking sources, lacking context, or off-topic. --Rob (talk) 17:23, 10 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 Apple Jacks. MBisanz ^talk 20:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apple Jacks truck[edit]

Besides a few pictures on Flickr, I cannot find any coverage about this advertising campaign on Google. I therefore suggest it isn't notable and should be deleted. Computerjoe 's talk 16:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too trivial for an article independent of Apple Jacks, unless someone wants to say how this is notable (a mention in a hobby magazine isn't enough). Might qualify for a mention in the Apple Jacks article, but I'd leave that up to what the editors of that article think. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally non-notable. Dreamspy (talk) 17:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this was a contested PROD. Computerjoe 's talk 17:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Apple Jacks. Better off as a bit of trivia in there. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every brand puts their logo on something (including die-cast cars), and this is no different. Not even notable enough to be mentioned in the cereal article. Nate • (chatter) 21:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Apple Jacks, maybe create a section titled "Promotional Campaigns"? Tarheel95|The Man Agree? —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. There have been countless advertising campaigns over the years with all manner of toys and giveaways. I can't find anything particularly noteworthy about this one. If someone wants to add a mention of this to the Apple Jacks article, I have no objection. •••Life of Riley (talk) 22:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Apple Jacks. Tarheel95's suggestion for a new section there sounds like a good idea to me. Grandmartin11 (talk) 16:47, 9 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 Userfy. (non-admin closure) Mayalld (talk) 14:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Payanigal Gavanithirku[edit]

Explicitly fails future film notability guidelines. Film was never started. No prejudice towards recreation if reliable sources indicate that shooting ever begins. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 16:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy back to author's sandbox User:Universal Hero/Payanigal Gavanithirku so it may be brought back when it moves beyond the "announcement" stage. Its a tad premature. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}`
Userfy. Since the film is by a notable film maker, it's going to be clear if this one ever happens. In userspace it can survive a couple of months which makes recreation easier if it is ever needed. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:21, 5 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. Sandstein 06:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by TV 2 (Norway)[edit]

As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Indosiar and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by TV ONE (Indonesia) this is indiscriminate, non-notable and a directory/TV guide page. Unlike those pages it is too big to merge so please let's delete it outright this time, then lock a redirect in place to prevent recreation. Benefix (talk) 15:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddawkins73 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and previous AfD's. Drmies (talk) 19:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So what exactly do you consider to be indiscriminate? There's clear boundaries as to what is and isn't included - so to me indiscriminate doesn't cover it. How else do you suppose such material should be covered, external link on the channel article? category wildfire? - Mgm|^(talk) 22:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Categories would bloat the page, and I doubt if there is a website that provides a record of their past programming, so the link would not be as useful as this page. But tough luck unless you have any other ideas, we've already decided these things are indiscrimate and there is no reason to keep Norwegian pages when the Indonesian ones have been deleted. Benefix (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who are this "we" that have "already decided these things are indisciminate"? A handful of editors arguing to delete a handful of Indonesian lists doesn't create a consensus to delete a list of programs broadcast by the largest television network in Norway. Besides, the Indonesian lists weren't deleted, they were redirected or merged. And "we" actually have decided that such lists are a valid part of Wikipedia. DHowell (talk) 01:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ample precedent for lists of programs aired on a national network, including the major U.S. broadcast networks: List of programs broadcast by CBS, List of programs broadcast by NBC, etc.; and cable/satellite networks: List of Sci Fi Channel (United States) programs, List of programs broadcast by Discovery Channel. See also Template:Lists of TV programs by country and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of programs broadcast by networks. This is evidently the largest TV network in Norway, so this is just as valid as any of these other lists. DHowell (talk) 02:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an invalid argument per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Benefix (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"This is an invalid argument per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" is an invalid argument per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS ("Another contributor may respond simply by saying that just because other stuff exists does not mean that the article in question should be kept. While perhaps a legitimate response, the automatic dismissal of such a statement is just as lacking in rationale ...") and WP:JUSTAPOLICY ("... citing an essay (like this one) just by one of its many shortcuts ... without further explanation, is similarly ill-advised..."). My argument is not just that other stuff exists, but that other similar stuff exists whose existence is upheld by numerous discussions and strong consensus. The Indonesian AfDs (which didn't end up in complete deletion anyway) are the exception, not the rule. DHowell (talk) 01:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My question is - how does this list benefit anyone? Why is it important? Essentially, what good does such broad criteria do for Wikipedia in the long run? - Ddawkins73 (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Large television network in Norway, broadcasting for the past 16 years. It's not inconceivable that someone researching Norwegian television history would find this article entirely useful. BTW, decades of research have been involved in the reconstruction of early U.S. television history, which was poorly preserved: had Wikipedia been around, it would not have been necessary for TV historians to attempt to reconstruct lists like this one. If there's one thing Wikipedia does well, it's pop culture, so deletion of the stuff Wikipedia excels at makes little sense. "How does this list benefit anyone?" is a short-sighted argument. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we don't know the future, I agree. However, I would say it is inconceivable to see how this could become notable, since historical precedence isn't being set ("history isn't being 'made' "). So how do you conceive it? Storing data for future generations is an understandable motive for inclusion, but what the TV historians needed was the internet to exist, not Wikipedia. The internet stores everything just fine. Wikipedia isn't needed as data storage for the scholars of 3009. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"We can find it elsewhere on the internet" is not really a good reason to delete articles. There are entire books written on television network programming, including many which are called "encyclopedias". However, because of systemic bias and FUTON bias, it is much more difficult to find such information for many non-English speaking countries. Of course the information is out there, but much of it is likely tucked away in brick-and-mortar Norwegian libraries. The difficulty in finding such resources on the net for non-English speaking countries is a good reason to retain articles such as this on Wikipedia. DHowell (talk) 01:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, DH. I'd only add that "history isn't being made" is another debatable statement. These shows will almost certainly be a part of history, depending on one's definition of where history begins. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they are part of history. Everything is part of history. "making history" is a matter of current awareness of notability and future notability. Anyway... TV2 Norway's website is the repository, the internet is archived. More information at IMDB also. Wikipedia doesn't need to be a time capsule. I understand the sentiment, but it doesn't apply.

Books are written on the subject on the subject of TV programming. I'm not suggesting that an article on TV2, TV in Norway, or TV programming be deleted.

A list of every BBC program ever would be pretty pointless too imo. Systemic bias isn't the issue. Unless I'm biased against TV. A list of every Xbox game, or every game published by Konami... every book published by any publishing company you care to name... whether these things exist on Wikipedia or not, the idea of Wikipedia storing them for posterity is laudable but misguided imo. As a resource, Wikipedia is for the general reader, but not as just a collection of things that are interesting. Articles about TV2 programming - great. This list just increases the information to knowledge ratio, and should be discouraged. Wikipedia as academic reference - won't work, won't happen. As data store for professional researchers - not neccessary. As general reference - great idea.

Ddawkins73 (talk) 18:57, 10 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 Dancing on Ice (Series 4). MBisanz ^talk 20:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing on Ice (series 4) weekly scores[edit]

Notable enough, delete per this precedent. Philip Stevens (talk) 15:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a DOI fansite. Stifle (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No D_ice (trivial stats) Ddawkins73 (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally non-notable - who actually cares?. Dreamspy (talk) 17:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not sure how this fits in, and this appears to be more tracking of scores than anything. Better off on a personal web page someplace. -Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very, very trivial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs)
Merge but this is not trivial, so the information must be relocated here if it is deleted, which it looks like it will be. Sky83 (talk) 19:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I think this is a good idea. --Philip Stevens (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything not in Dancing on Ice (Series 4) over there, which I don't think is much. Hate to use an essay since it's not grounded in policy, but I cite the Pokemon test of comparing very similar articles that have already been deleted (also makes sense). MuZemike 19:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment--doesn't the main article, Dancing on Ice (Series 4), cover this information already? I mean, the only thing that this article adds, if I see it correctly, are the "judges' votes to save." Is that really so relevant? Drmies (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is a more detailed breakdown of the scores, which is why the info should be relocated. If this was simply deleted, a lot of information would be lost. Which is why I have changed my vote to Merge. Sky83 (talk) 11:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:10, 7 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. (Non-admin closure by Malleus Fatuorum)

AfDs for this article:

Alder Coppice Primary School[edit]

The significant information about this apparently unremarkable school has been merged with Sedgley, its local neighbourhood article. Malleus Fatuorum 15:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Sedgley#Primary schools as could have been done without coming here. TerriersFan (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That merge has already been done, as I pointed out in the nomination. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The point I am making is that it could simply have been redirected. Since content has been merged, the page cannot be deleted for GFDL compliance so the nomination is fundamentally flawed. TerriersFan (talk) 17:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - As "deleted pages" are not actually deleted I have never found the GFDL argument to be very convincing. The material in the Sedgley article may or may not have come from this one, who can tell? I was in any case not altogether convinced that the topic even warranted a redirect, which is why I opened this AfD. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect For the regular non-admin, deletion means deletion. They can't see the article and the related history which makes following the 'paper' trail of who wrote what impossible to follow. That's why it violates the GFDL. We would keep information while not having the related pages publically available. Everybody should be able to see it complies with the GFDL, not just admins. Besides, if it's merged, then we should really have a redirect to point readers to the right article and avoid recreation. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the GFDL argument works on any level, but if the consensus is for a redirect I'm happy with that. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect this should never have come here. When we merge such materai in, we create a redirect as a matter of course to preserve the edit history. Quite apart from GFDL, if a particular named institution is included as a significant section of an article, it should have a redirect whether or not there was a preceding article there. Malleus, is there sufficient consensus for you to withdraw the AfD now? DGG (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although I don't agree with any of the reasoning, I'm prepared to bow to what appears to be an inevitable consensus against my view. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:49, 5 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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kai mullins[edit]

Non-notable musician... article has been re-created at least twice... Zero G-news hits, and the only G-hits are a previous incarnation of this article, facebook entries, and comments this person has made on Eurovision websites/blogs/articles... I couldn't even find an "Official Website"... Adolphus (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete-Hoax, speedy and salt. Canterbury Tail talk 15:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 14:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chutia[edit]

I proposed the article for deletion, but there was an objection, thus I have nominated it here. The article is a slang term and violates WP:NOTDICDEF. Bladeofgrass (talk) 15:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for not deleting this, is the same which all the ‘right to information activists’ cite for not banning sites as these(wiki.s) in most of the communist and the Arab world. Let’s all be free and informed. Knowledge is precious, whatever be its form and considering that obscenities are the first words that anyone learns in new language, having an inaccurate idea of their meaning can prove fatal.Free.obama (talk) 15:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want this article to be deleted because I am against the freedom of information, but rather that Wikipedia is not meant to be a dictionary (WP:DIC). Perhaps this belongs in the Hindi Wikitionary? Bladeofgrass (talk) 15:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please soapbox somewhere else. Thank you, MuZemike 19:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or move. At least as far as the EN goes, this article clearly fails WP:NOT Mrathel (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a dictionary entry, albeit a very long and completely unreferenced one. Drmies (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a possibility of a transwiki to a Wikipedia or Wiktionary of another language? MuZemike 19:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the note near the end I suspect it's a clear case of WP:NFT, so unless evidence turns up I recommend against transwikification. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's already at the English wiktionary.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete WP:NFT does not apply here, as a gsearch comes up with many ghits for this term with this usage. The problem is one of reliable sources. Most of the ghits are blogs, forum posts, urban dictionary and the like. If someone can come up with reliable sources that show the notability of this term, I'll gladly take another look, but right now all we seem to have is a dictionary definition.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone except for the "INFORMATION IS FREE" nonsense. JuJube (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Just my 2 cents -- Hemanshu (talk) 04:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's nothing wrong in principle with having encyclopedia articles on slang words, and nothing in WP:WINAD prohibits it. I can easily imagine that a worthy encyclopedia article could be written about this word. But the existing article isn't it. It's a mess of poorly written original research and speculation, and doesn't even provide any sources that people could start working from to write a good article. —An gr 14:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violates WP:NAD. It's allready on wiktionary, the article itself is completley unreferenced. --DFS454 (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NAD, WP:OR, WP:N. I'm Jack^(Lumber) and I approve this message. 02:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP.

If the Arse hole can stay then so can the Chutia. All objections here are as well correct for the arse hole but it stays, for as they say, ' no one has the right to censor what we ought to know and what not to.'Free.obama (talk) 13:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Arse at least is coherent – and English. —Tamfang (talk) 07:52, 10 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 19:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Donny Jones[edit]

Biography about a musician that doesn't meet the criteria for notability. It's an article with a promotional air to it, written by a single purpose account with no other edits. A Google search for "Donny Jones" pianist|piano|composer [14] finds the following:

A student run blogspot article [15]. He was a substitute pianist for Wicked at the time and was also musical director for some school production

publicbroadcasting.net [16] where there's mention of being a musical director in Oliver at John W. Engeman Theater at Northport. Here it is again [17]. This link has the most information I could find about him

The personal web site mentioned on the page no longer exists. Some of it is at archive.org [18]. It was in flash and it didn't work for me but the meta tags say "From classical piano recitals to Broadway shows, Donny Jones is quickly emerging as one of Long Island's most sought after pianists. Whether you need a piano teacher, live piano music for a private function, or a musical director/accompanist for a musical, you've come to the right place! piano, accompanist, pianist, Long Island, New York, music director, musical, theater, theatre, musical theatre, cocktail music, rehearsal, performance, performer, teacher, piano teacher, piano player, wedding entertainment, plaza theatrical productions"

There is also a Donny Jones that has produced a CD [19] of some sorts but he's a black blues artist, not the same guy. Ha! (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Ha! (talk) 15:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete totally non-notable. Dreamspy (talk) 17:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not established. Seems to be a free-agent that's trying to get his name out. Good luck, Donny. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 6 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 04:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pizza-ghetti[edit]

See WP:NEO. One of my friends made pasta and jelly tots once and called it pastatots. Does that mean Pastatots should exist? This is just a plate with two seperate items on it or ontop of each other and pasta made with pizza sauce is not exactly special or rare, its just a pasta dish. I'd seriously question if this even meets WP:N. Also many of the references are blogs/user edited content on recipe site. The reference articles do not talk about the 'dish' rather just mension the combination of pizza and spagetti in passing as a neologism. The article even says that the restaurant chain which shares the name of this 'dish' doesn't even have it on the menu. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign!)} 14:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replace with disambig per WP:NEO - "... should be avoided in Wikipedia articles because they are not well understood, are not clearly definable, and will have different meanings to different people" - Google test shows that its primarily known for a restaurant chain in the United Kingdom, so this can allow for both to be properly explained. --^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 14:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, don't give other editors ideas! MuZemike 20:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion: references show that Pizza-ghetti is a legitimate food served in restaurants in Quebec -- not at all like the pasta and jelly tots of Cabe6403's friend. WP:NEO does not apply: this is a standard item on Quebec menus. Here is what we read in this reference (scroll down to "3 am at the Casse Croute"): "I open up the menu, a small book of photocopied paper, and try to decide what to get. My choices include all of the casse-croûte standards: hamburgers, poutine, souvlaki, fried rice, pizza, spaghetti and, of course, pizza-ghetti, that unbeatable combo of soggy pizza and overcooked pasta served side-by-side." And this reference unequivocably defines Pizza-ghetti as "a Québec dish". Finally, the proposer's comment about the restaurant chain is a non-sequitur: that section has been added as a jocular counterpoint to the dish, not to support the dish. --Zlerman (talk) 15:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose disambig proposal: as noted above WP:NEO does not apply here. --Zlerman (talk) 15:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. OK, so it has articles pointing to it, and some recipies, but I'm unclear as to how it becomes notable. Somebody change my mind. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep WP:NEO doesn't seem to apply; the question is whether or not it is notable. I'm not sure if the article yet meets the notability guidelines, but it's certainly close, and given that it does seem to exist, and is considered "standard fare" for Quebec food, I don't think it would be impossible to find more reliable references. Jazz Man 19:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—I contest the reliability of all the sources in the article. I also could not find any other reliable sources that can establish verifiability that this is a popular and common dish in Quebec as claimed in the article. It also does not bode well when there are zero Google News hits. MuZemike 20:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The dish exists in the form as described in the article and is notable as thousands of Quebequois eat it every week. It appears on numerous restaurant/cafe/casse croute menus (e.g. [20] or [21] or [22], and many others) throughout the province. That the same phrase is used for different dishes in different part of the world does not justify deleting one of the meanings and both are mentioned in this article. Similarly, just because a restaurant in the UK uses a portmanteau of its principal dishes as its name, but doesn't actually serve "pizza-ghetti", is not a logical reason for deleting this. The article is fine as it stands, doesn't misrepresent anything, and actually refers to a real dish. Pyrop e 20:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because resautants have something on their menu's does not make it worthy of inclusion in wikipedia. For example, Jack Daniels Chicken many restaurants (such as T.G.I. Friday's have that item on their menu, Jack Daniels is a product, Chicken is a product so should an article about the Jack Daniels Chicken dish exists? -- Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign!)} 23:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? If enough can be gathered together to make an article, even a stub, perhaps you could argue that a discrete dish exists and could have a page, should someone want to write one. To turn your debating style back on yourself, fried fish is a product, and chips are a product, so why do we have a separate page about fish and chips? Just because it is a better known dish? It is still just two products combined on a plate. Pyrop e 14:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you're coming from there but ask virtually anyone about Fish and chips and they'll know of that dish. It's a world famous dish popular in many different countries. Remember WP:OTHERSTUFF, just because one article exists on a comination dish like this does not mean that all such dishes should have an article. The reliability of the sources has been contested too with users unable to find any reliable sources that establish WP:V. One of the key principles of Wikipedia is the ability to verify the source(s) of an article. As stated; It also does not bode well when there are zero Google News hits meaning few (if not none) mentions in popular articles. --Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign!)} 17:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unless someone can explain what makes a food notable, I see no reason not to treat existing foods as inherently notable. Also, it has encyclopedic potential. It can be expanded with information on who first made it and why. -Mgm|^(talk) 21:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the same notability requirements that cover every article covers this. I can't see any major publication about "Pizza-ghetti", one minor publication mentions it as spagetti on pizza and the rest are either blogs or sites with user created content. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign!)} 23:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as article appears to cross, if only just, the verifiability and notability thresholds. With expansion, this article could be as useful and informative as poutine has become. - Dravecky (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (talk) 02:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the references suggest it is suitable for inclusion Scapler (talk) 03:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the Wiktionary Entry was deleted, so if it can't survive there... why would it survive here? 76.66.196.229 (talk) 06:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be a pessimist. On en:Wikipedia we go by consensus (or so I hope...). --Zlerman (talk) 06:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily, if an article clearly meets one of the criteria for deletion then even with 100 keep votes the article will be deleted. This is rare however so most of the time, you are right, we go by consensus/arguments. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign!)} 17:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per notability concerns expressed by other users. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - When I was in Italy I saw several places that served Spaghetti Pizzas. Readro (talk) 23:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Many other simple food combinations have become recognizable dishes and this is reflected in articles such as: biscuits and gravy, mince and tatties, rice and beans, bangers and mash, half and half, Arnold Palmer, and so forth. Once the name of a dish spreads beyond its origin and a group—be they restaurateurs, diners, chefs, home cooks, cookbook authors, food critics, or some combination—start using a common name to refer to the same dish, you have the essence of notability. Provided the dish has its origins in a place with newspapers, printing presses, and widespread Internet access, finding sources is a matter of digging.
        In using Google News Search—including the Google News Archive, which no one above has mentioned checking—to find news coverage of an item, do realize that coverage is far from thorough. In particular the Google News Archive has only recent coverage of the Wall Street Journal, The Economist, The Guardian, The Times of London, and other such obscure papers. Digital text searches of these papers can still be done, but the search often needs to be done through the paper's own digital archive or a pay database. Expecting Google News coverage to be thorough for French newspapers in Quebec is expecting more than Google is likely to deliver.
        Anyway, checking the Google News Archive for "pizzaghetti" returns a couple of hits that use its meaning as a Quebecois dish. One is in French at the website of monteregieweb.com[23]. The second is from the York Daily Record [24] with a Google News Archive summary of "They offer Pizzaghetti - an eight-inch pizza with a half portion of spaghetti and salad for $5.50". Taking my own advice seriously and using the search functions of a Canadian paper or two, I found further mentions on the websites of the Waterloo Region Record [25], the Montreal Gazette [26], and a couple of others.
        As a final observation, when pizzaghetti is mentioned in Quebec, the writer assumes the reader knows the meaning of the term. When it is being written about outside of Quebec, the writer includes a short description of the dish. — VulcanOfWalden (talk) 01:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There appear to be enough sources as demonstrated in the discussion here and my own cursory google web and news search to verify this as a dish. If there are multiple uses for the term, that can be explained best in the article. DoubleBlue (talk) 02:50, 11 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 American Juniors. MBisanz ^talk 20:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Thompson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Previous debate conclusion was 'delete' but article was kept. Possible vanity submission of non-consequential artist. Not yet notable. Tribute article. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taylor Thompson for more information.

It is suggested that "The casting of this character sparked considerable media interest due to the nationwide casting call and the relevance with the Iraq War", however no mention of this is included in the article and as such the article seems to provide information which servers no purpose other than promotion of the band. Intimidated^talk 14:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete totally non-notable and probable vanity article. Dreamspy (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see how this survived the first deletion, possibly a mistake on admin's part. Either way, it totally fails WP:Music
Merge and redirect. ~~Delete~~--nothing notable here, no significant mention anywhere, and really only one passing mention. Drmies (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to American Juniors. While there's no reason to have a stand alone article on each member, the American Juniors had several albums with a notable label [27]. The won a large broadcasted competition to get into it (the group as a whole was part of multiple tv broadcasts over 30 minutes) which makes the band notable under at least two criteria (and probably more). Even if she personally doesn't meet notability criteria, this should be redirected as a plausible search term for the band rather than deleted. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm I guess the plethora of edits (and vandalizations) of the article prove MacGyver's point. I'm changing my vote. Thanks MGM, I should have figured that out myself. Drmies (talk) 21:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge I support merging this article into American Juniors. --Intimidated^talk 07:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable enough to have own article. JamesBurns (talk) 01:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something that is not notable enough to have its own article can be covered in other ways. Your comment doesn't consider that at all. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. 69.212.65.45 (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

330th Bombardment Group[edit]

This article requires an encyclopedic rewrite. Elm-39 - T/C 14:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is notable. The article needs a lot of work to get it to wikipedia standards, but deleting an article because it needs to be rewritten to make it an encyclopedic article is not a reason to delete. A new name 2008 (talk) 14:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Question I don't know a lot about the subject area, but it looks like this group is the same as the 330th Aircraft Sustainment Wing. If so would a merge/redirect be the right way to go?--Cube lurker (talk) 15:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like editors with more knowledge on these groups then myself think a stand alone article is the way to go. Looks like this can be all handled editorialy. So for the record Keep.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just found the same thing, yes the lineage of the 330th Aircraft Sustainment Wing includes the 330th Bombardment Group. ~~Applicable information should be merged there and then this redirected.~~ A new name 2008 (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking again at the amount relevant information in this article, it would overwhelm the 330th Aircraft Sustainment Wing article. A summary of the information should be left there and this should be made the main article. A new name 2008 (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, 330th Aircraft Sustainment Wing is a direct descendant. 65 years later!--B29bomber (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and possibly merge, per comments above. Either way, though, I'm against the AFD nomination. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without Merge: for the same reason we have United States Army Air Service, United States Army Air Corps, United States Army Air Forces and United States Air Force as separate articles. The USAAS was the predecessor of USAAC, .. USAAF -> USAF and each was significant on its own. Articles needing improvement is not equal to AFD. Toddst1 (talk) 15:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without merge - and since when have we gone AFD'ing notable articles because they need clean-up? There is a policy describing this... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 16:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep and I completely endorse the previous comment.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Toddst1 (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs cleanup help, but I can see the article has a place here. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment? Seeing as the page had been deleted before, it seemed that it probably wouldn't be edited by others, and that further appearances of it would be vandalism. So, I felt that it was necessary to delete it yet again. Now that I see consensus has changed, I purport to Keep the article, and close this discussion. Sorry for the confusion. Elm-39 - T/C 18:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree it's a mess, but seriously. There's an editor who has been documenting US Air Force bombardment groups from WWII, patches and everything, from freely available historic MIL docs... I don't think they're the same person because the ones I've seen were very well done. I'll see if I can find him/her and see if they're interested in taking this on. §FreeRangeFrog 18:44, 5 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 or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 06:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Berenika Zakrzewski[edit]

This autobiography fails all the criteria of WP:MUSIC. A rising star? Perhaps. But not there yet. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A Google News archive search shows that she is "there". Phil Bridger (talk) 12:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Phil Bridger's new refs demonstrate notability. Gonzonoir (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn -- Phil Bridger's research saved the day, and apparently was more thorough than my own. Mea culpa. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. nomination withdrawn due to expansion Mgm|^(talk) 11:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

15th century AH[edit]

The entry is an unnecessary duplicate of Islamic calendar. (Compare to 13th century AH which actually has content of events in that period). Mgm|^(talk) 13:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see no reason why this article couldn't be expanded to summarize notable events that occurred during this period, similarly to the other AH century articles. I note that this century has yet to complete, but I don't see why that should be an obstacle to the article's creation. JulesH (talk) 09:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Normally, I would have said that it doesn't matter, since if it's deleted, the redlink will still be there and somebody would then attempt to make it a viable article. In this case, it does matter-- an editor decided to make a viable article on January 25. I give the nominator credit for not immediately nominating this-- looks like MgM waited ten days to see if anything was happening, and it wasn't-- but other contributions from the editor indicate a person who is knowledgable about Arab and Islamic history, so I think that this is in capable hands. Since we are in the "15th century AH" (the Islamic year "1430 AH" began on December 28, 2008, a few years before "2009 AD"), and since the last 30 years have been a period where Islamists have had significant influence on world history, I'd tend to encourage someone to make an article about this. Mandsford (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I actually waited a lot less. I came across this article in uncategorized pages patrol and checked if there were any recent edits. Since the reason to nominate no longer applies. I'm withdrawing the nomination. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 14:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Baird[edit]

Delete. Fails wp:bio, reads like a resume, only sources are self-published, NPOV issues abound MrShamrock (talk) 13:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems to me like this should be a speedy (A7). In addition to nominator's reasons, the article also fails WP:N. The only reference on the article is an editorial submitted by the subject himself, with the link being to a reproduction of the article on the subject's commercial web site. Based on the creator's username, this also seems like an autobiography and therefore brings up more concerns per WP:AUTO. --Aka042 (talk) 13:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete (A7) - Whilst the article goes into great detail about the achievements of this guy, none of the claims actually amounts to a claim to notability Mayalld (talk) 13:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per. Ddawkins73 (talk) 13:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not for an encyclopedia, nn...Modernist (talk) 04:36, 7 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 19:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 27s: The Greatest Myth of Rock & Roll[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The 27s: The Greatest Myth of Rock & Roll

Fails criteria at WP:BK - outside of blogs, etc there is only a newspaper local to the home town of the writer. Also self-published. dougweller (talk) 12:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless non-trivial reviews can be found. I am tempted to say weak delete, but an exhaustive google search brings up little information that doesn't originate from the sourceMrathel (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivia, and blogs don't count as sources. Dahn (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial and self-promotional. Dayewalker (talk) 23:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The book meets the Wikipedia:Notability (books) guideline because it "has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience." I'm not counting two interviews, here and here, cited in the article, because they're on Blogspot. These look good to me though:
- review in the Missoula Independent.
- review on WNEW (FM).
- article on JamBase, a significant web site for fans of jam band music.
- the JamBase article again, on the significant web site All About Jazz.
- article on Popular Culture Madness.
- article on MuzikReviews.com. — Mudwater^(Talk) 02:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment yes, but "non-trivial" is the key. The jambase "article" is written as a promotion, and is not a review. Mrathel (talk) 03:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As for PopCultureMadness this link [28] says "Writers, Bands & Artists: If you want Pop Culture Madness to review your Book, DVD or CD, e-mail your information to PCM's editor, and we'll get back to you with submission details!". So I don't see how this can be used to establish notability. MuzikReview simply mentions the book is to be published, which is about as trivial as you can get. WNEW is I agree promoting the book (reading excerpts), but that's not enough either. dougweller (talk) 10:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant independent sources WP:BK. JamesBurns (talk) 05:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, plus: Not an academic book, but Amazon.com Sales Rank: #1,433,267 in Books. THF (talk) 14:36, 9 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 20:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shitskin[edit]

Non-notable, fails Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary and Wikipedia must use reliable sources. Neutrality on the topic is maintained, though. Yerack (talk) 12:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - tells us nothing that the Racism article doesn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deb (talk • contribs) 12:41, 5 February 2009
Delete as above - not a notable piece of slang. pablo_hablo. 13:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to list of ethnic slurs.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn slang. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 14:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Day Sleeper[edit]

Found article during uncategorized article patrol. The article fails to list reliable sources and gives no indication it meets WP:MUSIC and is more than a garage band. I'm AFDing rather than speedying since searching on Google is hard with all the false positives, so I might have overlooked something. Delete Mgm|^(talk) 12:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources in article are blogs and MySpace. No significant coverage found from a Google/Google News search.--Michig (talk) 15:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC, no reliable sources and I would have speedie'd it in a heartbeat if I had spotted it in new pages patrol. §FreeRangeFrog 18:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to notability issues. However it might be worth recreating as a redirect to Daysleeper as it seems a plausible search term for that. Keresaspa (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:20, 7 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 19:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dance of Death (Wall of Voodoo)[edit]

Found at uncategorized pages during patrol. According to this page it's a bootleg. With the article hardly more than a track listing, there's not sufficient material for an article and the title is not a plausible redirect. Delete Mgm|^(talk) 12:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WoV are notable, but if there are no sources for this then it should go. I couldn't even recommend merging without sources. §FreeRangeFrog 18:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient 3rd party references WP:NALBUMS. JamesBurns (talk) 01:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(James changed his vote after I made this comment) You mean 3rd party references. Notability is a property of the article topic and not the references that back it up. Notability is - by definition - not third party. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:21, 7 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 David Ignatius. (I'm not keeping the page content because it's a copyright violation to copy-paste it here.) Mgm|^(talk) 13:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Davos incident[edit]

Contested prod. Prod and cleanup removed by IP editor with no edit summary. Prod reason: An original research personal report of what appears to be an unremarkable incident Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Afterboth (talk) 12:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion light begins to dawn. I've found the source of this article in David Ignatius. It looks as if a new editor has grabbed a section of that article and made a random new article out of it. It took me a while to find, and I AfD nominated way before I found it. Shame the PROD was removed or this would have withered ion the vine without fuss. Copyvio was nagging me because of the style. Anyway logic says we can speedy close this as a redirect to Ignatius. Should the redirect page stay? Well it does no harm, but probably no good either. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 14:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mauro Saviola[edit]

Less than 4000 ghits, almost all of which are for a wood company called "Mauro Saviola Group". References to this artist are mostly mirrors of Wikipedia. Article includes no claim to notability Esprit15d • talk • contribs 12:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Afterboth (talk) 12:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Ty 12:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He seems basically to be a hobby painter. No evidence of notability. freshacconci talktalk 12:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable person. JuJube (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An Italian-language search yields nothing suggesting notability. IceCreamEmpress (talk) 00:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above...Modernist (talk) 04:42, 7 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 20:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Oliveira Gonçalves da Silva[edit]

Per Brazilian FA archive, he just played for Madureira (Serie C) and other Brazilian State League. He is a non-notable footballer Matthew_hk t c 11:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Afterboth (talk) 12:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hasn't played in a fully-pro league, so fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 15:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - he has played in the Copa do Brasil once, which means he barely passes WP:ATHLETE. I suspect he's played in the fully-pro Campeonato Carioca at some point, but can't find a match report which shows this. Jogurney (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a follow up, I did find a match report which shows Nelson played for Bangu this past weekend in the fully-pro Campeonato Carioca. Jogurney (talk) 02:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Campeonato Carioca was excluded in fully-pro list, due to State level. Matthew_hk t c 09:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should be excluded per WP:FOOTYN, but WP:ATHLETE doesn't incorporate WP:FOOTYN yet. Also, the Copa do Brasil is a national fully-pro competition. I'm not sure this article should be kept, but it does pass WP:ATHLETE. Jogurney (talk) 14:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't know if this guy meets WP:ATHLETE just because of a handful of games or not, but what I can see is an article with no claims of notability whatsoever. A Google search of his full name gives only 15 hits [29], so for me he fails WP:N. --Angelo (talk) 02:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to find non-trivial coverage of this player in reliable sources with no success. Maybe it's because his common name is Nelson so I'm getting too many irrelevant hits, but I don't think the article will pass WP:N. That said, my understanding of WP:ATHLETE is that it is a brightline test, you've either played in a fully pro league or you haven't. This player has. It wouldn't be much of loss to the project if it were deleted though. Jogurney (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 14:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Short[edit]

Does not seem to pass WP:GNG with significant coverage in independent sources. --aktsu ^(t / c) 11:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Afterboth (talk) 12:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally non-notable. Dreamspy (talk) 17:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete seems to be competing with a fair number of matches but only at the lower level of the sport (e.g. KOTC); passing news mentions only [30], [31], [32]. No obvious rd candidate. JJL (talk) 19:22, 7 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) 23:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aluisio da Silva Meres Junior[edit]

The player is poorly sourced. From CBF (Brazilian FA) source, he only able to play in Serie C and Brazilian state league. So he is no-notable player unless have a source state that he playerd in Brazilian Serie B or above. Matthew_hk t c 11:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - The article is in a terrible state, but it's clear that he's played in the Brasileiro Serie A and the Turkish Super Lig (both fully-pro leagues). I've added some references and tried to clean the article a bit, but it needs plenty of care. Jogurney (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw The creator create a terrible stub. I forget check his career in Turkey is my fault. Matthew_hk t c 14:34, 5 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 19:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Political Neoism[edit]

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

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

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

As its name implies it is new. Is it notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable neologism. A quick search [33] reveals only one relevant page, the article itself. ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 14:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; see WP:BURDEN. I googled the references cited in the article (except the National Catholic Reporter, which isn't specified with even remotely sufficient specificity to be verified), and the only hits each of them get in any of several configurations is this article. The term does appear in a limited number of ghits, but a cursory glance does not suggest that the term is used in the context it is here.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; As a valuable analysis of a new idea and an emergent new culture. By the way, ZappyGun, a quick search on Political Neoism brings up the website on Political Neoism as the first result or in some cases third result. The only relevant page is NOT this article itself, there is an entire website on it at www.neoistsynthesis.org . A more careful search would reveal numerous blogs and media as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakingsultan (talk • contribs) 20:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC) — Shakingsultan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That source is irrelevant - an organization's self-published website can't bootstrap its notability. Notability is founded on significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (see WP:ORG; WP:GNG; WP:NEO; etc.). - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Notability is founded on significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - another contradiction. How can you want coverage of the subject by people who are independent of the subject? You want someone to write an article that doesn't know anything about it? Or does that mean you have to have a PHD or something to contribute around here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Illipticdynamite (talk • contribs) 22:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC) — Illipticdynamite (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Illipticdynamite, I'm not sure that your comment is coherent unless you think that "independent of" means something akin to "ignorant of." Do you really mean to advance the theory that only one who is dependent on or a member of a given subject can "know anything about it"? Is, for example, Alan Bullock's book about Hitler and Stalin useless since an author who was neither a nazi nor a communist, nor a member of either of their families or political circles wouldn't know anything about it? That's the upshot of the argument you're making here. It's also completely contrary to Wikipedia policy; if your theory is right, then WP:COI, for example, has it precisely backwards: people should be encouraged to edit articles about themselves, because after all, who is less independent of the subject, and who knows more about the subject, than the subject themselves? We are to assume good faith, but a string of incoherent reasoning from a user who appears to have registered for the sole purpose of disputing this prod really stretches the point.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: original research about a non-notable neologism. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Has anyone here read the article? The article is about an ideology not an organization. The website cited before neoistsynthesis.org is an example of an organization that practices the ideology. The source might be irrelevant, but after doing some checking up I see that the article was judged on the "thinness of its external links." Neoistsynthesis.org is an external link. So the logic of the deleters here is: external links are irrelevant but there needs to be more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Illipticdynamite (talk • contribs) 22:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC) — Illipticdynamite (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I don't understand a single word said. MuZemike 23:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and block obvious meatpuppets. JuJube (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable nonsense. And so something about the puppetry. Edward321 (talk) 02:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that this philosophy has had any coverage in reliable sources. If this idea goes away and gets revived in a few years will it be neoneoism? Phil Bridger (talk) 12:51, 6 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 20:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee[edit]

This non-notable organization has no third-party sources for it's notability Hipocrite (talk) 11:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some google hits, but mainly on press releases and trivial mentions in fringe sources. I'm not seeing anything to indicate this is a serious outfit, let alone a notable one.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Worth keeping simply for their legal attempts to get accurate or audited information released about official gold holdings in the USA and governmental involvement in the precious metals markets. Referenced regularly in the hard money community. --RayBirks (talk) 08:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Their activities are only notable if other people discuss them. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:03, 6 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 19:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes Originals – Black Eyed Peas[edit]

It's a compilation album made up by iTunes. I don't think this is notable enough for its own article. Also, the infobox states it is a studio album which is a fabrication. GARDEN 10:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep generally, most iTO albums are notable. Doubly so given it's the BEPs. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the assumption "most iTO albums are notable" based on? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Aren't they just collections of previous songs? GARDEN 11:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're official and endorsed releases, normally containing two or three re-recordings of songs per release. Most if not all also contain interviews with the band. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok then. I'll leave this open, though. GARDEN 18:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While there is no doubt that the origional album is notable, this rerelease is not notable beyond the notability gained from the origional release. In other words, there would have to be sufficient criticism on the ITunes Originals version for this article to exist beyond the article on the album itself. If there is a review in the Rolling Stone that talks about the difference between the two or something to make the two distinct, then I would be wrong. But I did not gather a hint of original notability from the article itself. Mrathel (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party notability. JamesBurns (talk) 01:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete not enough sources. Descíclope (talk) 15:31, 8 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 Userfy. Moved to User:Lance Xavier/Raccoon Willie on suggestion from nominator (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 06:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raccoon Willie[edit]

~~Article fails to meet WP:NOT. Lack of significant coverage Bladeofgrass (talk) 09:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete. The article does not establish notability. Theymos (talk) 10:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Author had a hard time understanding why his article was SD'ed and then PROD'ed, removed tags, etc. But regardless of that, he failed to establish notability completely, which is why it was SDed and PRODed. Off with Willie. §FreeRangeFrog 18:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. Instead of throwing their work down the drain, we should try educating the newbie and give them a chance to try establish notability. If he is to appear on Animal Planet, the chance he's notable is present. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. This is a better idea. Bladeofgrass (talk) 12:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 14:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Impulse (command line)[edit]

Failed speedy deletion and recommend to move here. This is just a cheat command list. じんない 09:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not establish notability. It's mentioned in the Console (video game CLI) article, and there it should stay. Theymos (talk) 10:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNo notability established. --Peephole (talk) 00:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 14:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mazen Rashad Pharaon[edit]

not notable, no google hits, no assertion of notability MrShamrock (talk) 08:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, relationship to a notable person does not make one notable, per WP:BIO and WP:NOTINHERITED. Theymos (talk) 10:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't even claim to be notable. Edward321 (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:28, 7 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 19:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiology (album)[edit]

Hammer time Descíclope (talk) 08:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Album has a title, Hammer doesn't stand. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It applies because of ((Citation needed)). No source has confirmed the name of the album yet. Descíclope (talk) 16:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Descíclope (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Band is notable, but without a valid source (and that single link isn't) this is just WP:CRYSTAL at best. Delete so it can be created when and if the album is announced. §FreeRangeFrog 18:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While this is likely to be a notable album, without a source, it fails WP:Crystal Mrathel (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable, third-party, sources, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums & WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per previous reasons, WP:MUSIC, WP:CRYSTAL. Article has no confirmed material and there doesn't appear to be any RS covering the album apart from an interview with Kerrang! k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 05:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - [34] would seem to confirm the album title at least. Grandmartin11 (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mayalld (talk) 11:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darren M. Jackson[edit]

No (at least online) reliable sources with any significant coverage of the subject. Second nomination, previous here. --aktsu ^(t / c) 08:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I nominated this at the original AFD, and post that worked with the main contributor to establish sourcing. The fact that the sources are not available online is not a reason to delete. I've seen copies of several of the sources, and can vouch for their existence. Mayalld (talk) 09:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I AfD'd questioning his notability, not just because of unavailable sources. (Should I clarify that above? I was assuming it was implied when nominating). Anyway, from what you saw, was he the subject of significant coverage in those articles? --aktsu ^(t / c) 10:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. He was the principal subject of a couple of articles. That amounts to significant coverage in my book. Mayalld (talk) 11:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask what they were about? He doesn't seem to have accomplished anything notable? Anyway, I'll withdraw since you can vouch for the articles. --aktsu ^(t / c) 11:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They were about his MMA fights. Can't recall more, and I no longer have the scans. Mayalld (talk) 11:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He had his own article in a magazine. I think that's significant coverage enough. Theymos (talk) 10:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw - Per Mayalld. --aktsu ^(t / c) 11:09, 5 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 Nanavira Thera. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nanavira Thera Dhamma Page[edit]

Website fails WP:WEB. No significant third party coverage. Suggest redirect to Nanavira Thera Clay Collier (talk) 08:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Theymos (talk) 11:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:54, 7 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. Mgm|^(talk) 10:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Die of death[edit]

Either a WP:HOAX, WP:MADEUP or a wholly non-notable game. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 08:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as blatant misinformation. No way is this game patented. And if you don't want anyone to steal this idea, why did you post on on Wikipedia in the first place? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:44, 5 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 close/redirect. Nobody has suggested this article should be deleted. NAC. JulesH (talk) 08:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Tennis Court[edit]

Details of article merged into Battle of Kohima. Subject does not warrant an article by itself. Merge and deletion has been discussed in talk pages; vote 3-0 for merge HLGallon (talk) 07:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You've already merged it, so you just need to redirect. There's no need to invoke AfD for a redirect, so I suggest this debate is speedily closed. For the record, I agree with the merge/redirect but feel "Battle of the Tennis Court" should be retained as a redirect page (likely search term)--hence, keep.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. HLGallon (talk) 08:50, 5 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 20:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infrequently Asked Questions[edit]

article is full of original research on an unnotable topic. It has already been suggested to be deleted before. じんない 07:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, original research, no reliable sources. - Damian Doyle (talk) 12:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request more information please. You say "It has already been suggested to be deleted before" -- but I don't see a PROD in the history of the article and I'm not aware of a previous AfD. If there is no previous AfD, why didn't you just PROD it? And if there is one, please could you link it? --S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested on the talk page by another user a while back. I found this when assessing the backlog of articles needing importance rating for WP:VG. History log has shown no effort to source anything since the comment was made. While it may be possible to cite some examples of someone posting an IFAQ from a reliable source, I highly doubt anything ecyclopedic worthy will be found. Even then, most of those would be SPS about themselves or something they're interested in.じんない 22:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems like original research bonanza, unless there's some proper sources this should really go.--Peephole (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Delete any original research and clean up the page--but I think this is a notable topic that warrants a small, simple page. Not only is it a frequently-recycled joke, but it shows up as a rhetorical device in the scholarly literature: [35], [36], in addition to the computer game world, and also on the famous Donald Knuth's personal site: [37]. Cazort (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find where in those first to they refer to ifaqs or "Infrequently asked questions". As to the latter, that does not show notability and hardly any verifiability except that they do exist, which is not enough for Wikipedia's standards.じんない 01:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BURDEN because I can't find any reliable sources to suggest this is notable. But I do think the nominator should have tried a ((subst:prod|reason)) first.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn gamercruft. humourous but not encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, at least the current version, per what Wikipedia is not which includes original research and what seems to be promotion for GameIAQs. No prejudice toward recreation using the sources mentioned above, which is in a different context than what the current state contains. MuZemike 21:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe merge to Donald Knuth? SharkD (talk) 21:54, 7 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, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

L&M Car Rental[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/L&M Car Rental

Geographically limited car rental company. No indicia that it meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). bd2412 T 07:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete More rental car blatant advert. §FreeRangeFrog 18:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A little spammy, but I'm thinking more along the lines of WP:LOCAL. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:25, 7 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 deletion (closed early per WP:SNOW to avoid further disruption). -- Ed (Edgar181) 01:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos nemer[edit]

Previous vote: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlos Nemer

This is not only recreation of deleted content both here (see Carlos Nemer) and on Simple English Wikipedia, but no sources and notability given. TheAE talk/sign 06:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable. No reliable source coverage, fails WP:BIO. Baileypalblue (talk) 06:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The correctly-capitalized version of the article has been salted after being deleted seven times, the first under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlos Nemer, the rest A7's and G4's. Please note also that anonymous editors have repeatedly attempted to alter the AfD to make it appear other than the delete decision that it was. The current article is different from the AfD's version (so presumably not G4-worthy) but not in any sense better. Also, note that his university lists him only as a substitute professor (whatever this means?) so I doubt he passes WP:PROF. If this article is deleted again I suggest that it be salted under this capitalization as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per David Eppstein. --Crusio (talk) 10:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Per David Eppstein. Pass neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO. Practically no trace of publications or anything that would indicate notability by this “polymath”.--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am his ex student, I could not pass his discipline 4 times and I simply want to kill this guy ! briossferic; — 201.19.218.49 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep. I don´t believe straight-C students should be able to make a delete call. For me it´s a matter of logic, if a professor is so hated by some ex-students then there´s a great possibility of his performance becoming internationally recognized, and more than that Wikipedia cannot establish any barrier based on the origin of the person. (someone deleted the rest of this argument probably because of its sharp content). completor 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Keep, The article is not finished political barrier against emerging countries which is the case of Brazil. What if all his (Prof.Nemer´s) scientific production is written in Portuguese (which seems to be the case), why we should delete it? Because we simply don´t speak Portuguese ? And last but not least what if the scientific production of a person was written in a more obscure language? should we delete it because of that? chiropratic - Boston. 5 february 2009; — 201.19.218.49 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment Both above comments were posted within minutes of each other, from the same IP (which maps to somewhere in Brazil, not Boston:-). --Crusio (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Boston is the name of our server Mr. Know-it-all Crusio. (This can be considered another example of the political exclusion talked before. -Why cannot a server be called Boston ? If it were in the US there would be an extension like Boston-US or something...). Brazil is growing fast it´s a very young country and will certainly contribute a lot to the world. contactplanet. 5 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.19.212.234 (talk) — 201.19.212.234 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete, despite the passionate plea from "Boston," and even though I may be guilty of, *ahem*, political exclusion. Drmies (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The article is not finished and it´s a well known person with more than 63000 Google hits. brakiarya, Brazil 5 February 2009 (UTC); —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.19.212.234 (talk) — 201.19.212.234 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Time for a sockpuppet investigation. Drmies (talk) 20:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per David Eppstein. Ray (talk) 20:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Dear Mr. David Epestein you have voted more than three times... What´s the meaning of that? Dear Mr. David is this some type of ethnic persecution or are you another C-student of Prof. Carlos ?? Delaytimes900. 5 February 2009 (UTC) — 201.19.212.234 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment AfD is not a vote. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*facepalm* MuZemike 22:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Fails WP:PROF by a country mile, and looks like probable recreated material, so likely speedy. Certainly WP:SNOW. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It´s a rare opportunity to discuss the complexity of international relations. Since this is a Brazilian scientist "no sources and notability is given" of course you won´t find them because they are all written in Portuguese. But since there´s a universally accessed platform such as the internet the possibility of international visibility has increased exponentially. In other words if you keep this article others more will come and the final result will be a broader and closer-to-its-original-purposes result. Bottom line intellectual democracy will have a substantial growth. blairwitchhigh 6 February 2009 (UTC); THE PREVIOUS CONTRIBUTED BY 201.19.96.129.— 201.19.96.129 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- In other words, you admit to spamming, which is clearly against Wikipedia guidelines. MuZemike 08:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt as per everyone. Edward321 (talk) 02:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete, salt per David Eppstein Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and let the article expand per chiropratic tokamak10 6 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.19.112.115 (talk) — 201.19.112.115 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete nn Twri (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Six votes and counting by the WP:SPA with IP address 201.19.218.49; one delete and five keeps, with plenty of nonsense arguments. This IP traces to “Tele Norte Leste Participações S.A.”, an ISP in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, where Prof. Nemer works.--Eric Yurken (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: if so many are calling for salt, it must be snowing. Drmies (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: How can anybody in the world behave in such a way speaking about deleting an article that was not even finished, an article presenting only a few lines? speaking about a person notable for its great background that was not even detailed. It looks to me as if whitchhunting has never ended in the northern hemisphere..., more, I would say it became more sophisticated, perhaps it went electronically, it became part of the internet now... (Who could ever imagine that? maybe it´s part of a irrational collective ritualistic inconscient behaviour (Young) and no matter which media you use it will never be extinguished). (Keep); antishadow 6 February 2009; —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.19.208.66 (talk) 21:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just my hubris, I suppose. 201.19.xxx.xx, you got so many socks, there ought to be a pair in there among them. Drmies (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (A7) and salt — Like the 6 or 7 other times it was deleted, the same thing: nothing verifiable indicating why this person is remarkable in any way. I'm also citing the snowball clause], assuming the weights of the opinions of established users far exceed those of the canvassers/meatpuppets. MuZemike 01:19, 7 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 02:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Paradise[edit]

Disputed prod. Both links are dead. His band didn't have an album planned as of two years ago (and no indication of its existence at all since then) and no indication that superswing is anything more than neologism. At best, redirect to the prodded superswing article. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: now deleted superswing article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Should have been speedied at best. §FreeRangeFrog 05:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Speedy not possible due to the claim of creating "superswing". Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:25, 7 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. Needs work, keep and improve (non-admin closure) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 00:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Wexler[edit]

NN artist Oo7565 (talk) 04:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —freshacconci talktalk 04:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think. Not stellar, but seems to pass the threshold. Solo show review in Time out,[38] 4 person show[39] and group show[40] in The New York Times, plus presence at the Saatchi Gallery,[41] which in itself is a significant contribution to notability. However, I'll see what other points come up in this discussion. Ty 09:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Borderline, but I'm for giving the article some leeway.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above...Modernist (talk) 04:41, 7 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 WP:NAC. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 08:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kanagram[edit]

The article text is a verbatim copy of the website text. See here. It describes a word jumble game written for a unix platform. It describes its function as producing anagrams (it doesn't - it just jumbles words). It seems more like inaccurate advertising than encyclopaedic quality information Mattopaedia (talk) 03:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G12 per User:Mattopaedia; there is no non-infringing prior version. I have attached a speedy tag. Non-notable, anyway. Baileypalblue (talk) 07:16, 5 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 Seduction literature. We have the somewhat uncomfortable, but fairly common position in which there is consensus that the article should not be kept in stand alone form, but no consensus to delete it. I will close this with Seduction literature as a proposed target, but this is favored by a bare plurality, and the interested editors certainly are free to decide on another target. If the merger somewhere isn't accomplished in a reasonable period of time, the article is subject to renomination and possible (perhaps even likely) deletion. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery Method[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Spammy article that doesn't seem to have sufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--per WP:IDONTLIKEIT I won't cast a ballot here (and the spamminess level is amazingly high), but I did notice this: [42], [43], and [44]... Drmies (talk) 03:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The painfully detailed description of the "method" should probably be reduced to a tenth of its current size, but the concept has been sufficiently covered to establish notability. Townlake (talk) 04:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Seduction community or Seduction literature (merger between those two articles has already been suggested anyway). Delete voters have fair points. Townlake (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A merge & redir to Mystery_(pickup_artist) would also make a lot of sense. There's already a subsection of that article discussing his method (or "technique"). Townlake (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep, clean up - the book received significant coverage and is clearly notable. Artw (talk) 07:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the book is a seperate article - you might have grounds for a merge. Not strong ones though. Artw (talk) 07:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not sure where the sufficient coverage comes from, but there isn't much in the way of notable content in the article itself. Rather than providing sources with valid information on the subject, the article uses outside sources to make OR comparisons between the methods described in the book and those of notable figures (such is the case with Gould). While the NYT article does suggest notability is possible, this article does not meet many other standards for inclusion. Mrathel (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the book is perhaps notable. the man is notable. the method as such is not--its am attempt to duplicate (triplicate, actually) the articles on him. is not. The court materials concern the domain or the person, not the method--that section is totally irrelevant. 19:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment I haven't voted yet even though I've been involved in the page. One problem we've had from the beginning (which isn't made any easier with the crossfire of COI + SPA accounts representing Venusian Arts Corporation on one side and at the very least some accounts with a very unhelpful anti-Mystery perspective on the other) is that we don't have a shared understanding of what exactly this page is for. There is already a page for Mystery, so is this page for "Mystery's Method" of picking up women? I don't think so, or we should also have a "Tucker Max's Method" page and a "Neil Strauss' Method" page that is separate from the main page. Does it refer to the organization and school of seduction thought called "Mystery Method" that existed since 2004 and included a number of pick up artists? If so, the page needs to reflect the evolution of both the company & the methodology & the personalities involved - I might have some of the details wrong, but my understanding is that "Mystery" was teaching in 'Mystery Method" in 2004-05 only, and that after then, it was all Savoy, Sinn, The Don, Cajun etc? I do know that the Mystery Method of 2008 - in terms of what is being taught - is vastly different from what Mystery taught in 2004-05 and is vastly different from what Mystery is teaching now. (It would like writing an article on Disney that was only about Walt Disney and ignored everything after him...in a situation where Walt Disney left to found a smaller competing studio while Disney carried on, grew, expanded and developed without him).

Making a NPOV and inclusive page could be done, but editing this page is a nightmare. Anti-Mystery partisans keep wrecking the page and the SPA/COI accounts keep pushing Mystery's business stuff with spammy links. I don't know whether that qualifies as a reason to junk the page, but if it's going to be edited and cleaned up, there should be some way of discouraging the SPA/COI/non-NPOV stuff on both (all?) sides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.1.215 (talk) 20:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a non notable method, at least not for an encyclopaedia. Before me, no one had ever defined courtship as a predetermined structure having several phases. Really? What about Psychology and Giacomo Casanova (1725 –1798)? Warrington (talk) 22:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Seduction literature. This and all related pages are a complete mess due to edit warring between rival factions with a dispute over the origination of the method, the company, etc... I am having a hard time seeing how these articles can ever achieve NPOV. There have been posts made to COI boards, editors attempting to out other editors. Merging pages could help contain the edit wars to a single (or small number of) article(s). On one hand, I wish the article could be cleaned up, but it might not be possible given the environment. Plastikspork (talk) 23:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I think you may be right. On the other hand, if we had a consensus in here of what the page should look like, it's a matter of filling in the details. For example, I would propose that the page could look have 1) Intro (MM book vs MM theory vs Mystery himself), 2) Methodology 04-05, 06-09 (two sections), 3) Criticism, etc., 4) ownership dispute if it's even necessary. If we all agreed on that, the actual content that would go into there would be fairly uncontroversial. Then we split the difference between the Mystery-Corporate people who want the article to stop in 2005 or to focus exclusively on Mystery the person and the anti-Mystery people who want to whitewash him from the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.1.215 (talk)

- I really have to think that if wikipedia can have articles on truly controversial and emotional subjects, we should be able to manage one here that is fair to both (or all?) sides that have an interest here while presenting useful information.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.1.215 (talk)

- Further Comment I'm not sure how relevant this is, but if you type Mystery Method in google this page is the leading entry. That would imply that lots of people are linking to the page and consider it important and useful. However, I'm not sure if that is a relevant criterion for inclusion. Nor am I even sure that the page is worth keeping; I've wasted too many hours already. Thoughts?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.1.215 (talk)
- further reply I think wikipedia is the first page that comes up for the majority of topics that don't have paid ads on google, but in a way that actually works against a claim of notability, because that would show that wikipedia is the source most commonly used to attain information about the subject. Of course, that point is moot too because even books such as "The Sound and the Fury" have their wikipedia page come up first. But let us not forget that Google learns about its users as it goes, directing you to pages you commonly use. But all of this is really a sidenote. If the method were truly notable, then we would not have to be arguing about google searches in the first place. I really don't think there is anything in the page that describes a notable topic for an article. No non-trivial writers have discussed it and I am not sure that editors talking about it really knows what it is... the contraversy seems to stem from the fact that the term doesn't really have a definition because... its not notable. Mrathel (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is notable,and just conceivably the book. The method has no separate notability. There is nothing useful to merge. It is not even a reasonable search term. Wikipedia is usually the main entry for topics like this, which nobody else cares much about--that's not an argument one way or the other. DGG (talk)
- There's a subset of people for whom this would be a viable search term. Mystery and his "method" were the subject of a VH1 reality TV show a year or two ago. The reference to the method should redirect somewhere. Townlake (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in need of merging. A redirect to the Mystery (pickup artist) would serve people who did not bother to type The Mystery Method: How to Get Beautiful Women Into Bed. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep and Response to above The consensus seems to be against keeping it, which is fine, but I would completely disagree with redirecting the search to Mystery pickup artist. While I think some have exaggerated the point, it is undeniably true that The Mystery Method as an entity or organization or school of thought or even as a popular seduction website is significantly different from Mystery the person. Maybe a disambigulation page listing the book, the person, and organization. Perhaps the book is notable enough for a small entry, the person already has one, and the organization (as Love Systems) has one.Camera123456 (talk) 04:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with either Mystery (pickup artist) or Seduction literature. The notable sources, such as news articles etc refer to Mystery more than the Method. His particular method is what gave him his notoriety. This article is for too detailed for a whole encylopedia entry, when Mystery the man is more widely noted. Until the ownership dispute is resolved and made known throughout the community with some notable sources this article will probably never be very high quality. Its more logical to put a brief overview of the Method in the other sections, if at all. Seduction material tends to be unnecessarily detailed, which is fine for the community, but it doesn't make sense for a public encylopedia.--AzazelswolfsuperPUAwithacherryontop (talk) 17:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Mystery and the Mystery Method are two completely different things; the former is a person and the latter is a method of seduction and the name of a corporation behind the method. Although I do agree that there should be a reference made on Mystery's page to the method, the method itself needs to have it's own page. It was initially developed by Mystery but subsequently refined and further developed by the people behind the Mystery Method corporation. The page should be kept and/or redirected to Love Systems (formerly the Mystery Method corporation) with references on both the Mystery and Love Systems page. If no one wants to take responsibility I'm willing to rewrite the page with npov and reliable sources (as I have done with success in the past on other articles). Coaster7 (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists or seduction literature or seduction community or Mystery (pickup artist) per Azazel & townlake. THF (talk) 12:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The Mystery Method is part of the old Mystery Method Corporation that used be run by Mystery and Savoy (see their respective Wikipedia pages). I vote for merge with Love Systems (formerly known as Mystery Method). Add references to both Mystery's page and The Game if necessary Deganveranx (talk) 00:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that no one can seem to agree where it should be merged or redirected seems to indicate that there is a topic here which transcends the other subjects; it is clear that the method has received significant coverage in reliable sources, whether it is in the context of its description in the book The Mystery Method: How to Get Beautiful Women Into Bed (reviewed by The New York Times]); the person known as "Mystery" (interviewed by Salon.com); the book The Game (a story in the Los Angeles Times); or the method itself as taught in expensive courses ("For $2,950 each, Mystery Method transforms men in Scottsdale" in The Arizona Republic). Perhaps this article could be rewritten to be about both the book (Mystery Method, not The Game) and the method, but that is an editing, and possibly renaming, issue. DHowell (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the consensus appears to support a merge/ redirect / deletion of this article as a stand-alone piece. Redirecting/ Merging to one of the other articles would preserve the history and allow anyone who wants to wade through the article to see if there is anything worthwhile the opportunity to do so and would also recognize the substantial number of editors who have concluded this article should be deleted (as it would no longer exist in its present form after the merge/ redirect took effect). ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, though the apparent consensus is to merge or redirect (there is not a consensus to delete), there is no consensus as to where the redirect should point. Everyone seems to be saying that it isn't notable independent of some other subject, but the fact that there are reliable sources commenting on this method, in the context of several different subjects (an author, two books, a corporation, and a controversy over ownership of the method), means that there is an independent notability. Could you please address why you think the sources I cited above, which do indeed contain significant commentary on the seduction method, and not just coverage on a person, a book, or a company, do not constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? DHowell (talk) 06:29, 10 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 04:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of street names of drugs[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Recreation of deleted page, see previous deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of street names of drugs (2nd nomination). The article is not maintainable with regards to Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Notability, in addition to being a vandalism magnet. For good reasons, Wikipedia is not a slang guide, please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We already have to waste our time to constantly remove slang names from the respective articles. Most of these slang names are restricted to a small circle, are very short lived, and are highly ambiguous (as seen in the current list). There are very few established street names, such as ecstasy for MDMA or angel dust for phencyclidine, but these are already mentioned in the respective articles and redirects are in place. Cacycle (talk) 03:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 05:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - recreation of previously deleted content. JulesH (talk) 08:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion for recreation doesn't hold. None of the previously deleted versions bear a resemblence to the current version. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LC items 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 11. Stifle (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the LC items Stifle invoked:

1. The list was created just for the sake of having such a list

There's no evidence for this.

3. The list is a violation of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information

It's discriminate. If we follow Wikipedia policy only widely documented streetnames are verifiable and notable enough for inclusion. Any concerns about membership are addressed by existing rules.

4. The content is unverifiable or the underlying concept is non-notable

If these names were included in the articles about the drugs there'd be no issue, so the underlying concept isn't non-notable. Verifiability of current listings is a valid concerns.

6. The list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable

Maybe for some drugs the number of suitable entries is ridiculously large, but we can't know before we scrapped the ones that don't meet the rules first.

8.The list is unencyclopaedic, i.e. it would not be expected to be included in an encyclopaedia.

We have a lot of entries that are not expected in a regular encyclopedia. I see it as a navigational entry.

10.Determining membership of the list involves original research or synthesis of ideas.

Not if we only allow referenced entries.

11.The list's membership is volatile and requires a disproportionate amount of effort to keep up to date.

No evidence yet.

Only items 4 and 6 make a valid case. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete list of neologisms Mrathel (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a useful list. Some of the slang terms are notable and widely known, even for me, a Russian speaker. "Magnet for vandals" and "previously deleted" are not valid arguments for deletion.Biophys (talk) 02:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki Since this is primarily about words, perhaps moving it to wiktionary is the best solution. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you read WP:Dicdef, it clearly states that wikipedia is not the place for "slang or idiom guides". While this list might be verifiable, it is very clear that its intention is to provide a guide for common slang regarding drugs, which is a great example of WP:NOT Mrathel (talk) 14:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if there was verifiable reliable sourcing about how each drug got its name with some explanation of that process, then it could survive, but as an unverifiable list it cannot. If there were sources, it may be mergeable into Drug subculture#Drug slang, but as it is, it isn't. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are plenty of reliable sources for street names of drugs. Understanding Street Drugs is one. The Hippie Dictionary is another. There are plenty more. "Wikipedia is not a slang or idiom usage guide" is meant to prohibit prescriptive usage guides, not descriptive lists of slang terms of a specific type like this one. DHowell (talk) 01:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--The potential for vandalism is not a valid reason for deletion. I learned several terms that I didn't know. That is the purpose of this enciclopedia; the sum of all knowledge. The main problem is lack of reference and DHoweel has provided different reliable references that can be use to sourced the article. --J.Mundo (talk) 02:23, 11 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 02:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outcomes Research Consortium[edit]

This has been tagged since May 2008 and seems to have been abandoned - although neither of those situations are reasons for deletion, I bring the article here to determine notability. It appears to have been previously speedied User_talk:Nakon/arc1#Deletion_of_Outcomes_Research_Consortium —G716 <^T·_C> 22:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <^T·_C> 22:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are a bunch of entities out there with the phrase "Outcomes Research Consortium" in them (see here). This does read like an ad, but there may be potential here. I don't know what to do with this statement, though: "research by members of Outcomes Research Consortium, which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Association,showed that if surgical patients were kept warm [3][4] or received supplemental oxygen, [5][6] then the risk of post-surgical infection was markedly reduced". Do we attribute notability to organizations the members of which have public artcles in notable journals? That seems to be the only material notability hook here. There do not appear to be any news hits concerning this particular ORC and its director. J L G 4 1 0 4 19:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Weak delete' - the issue is WP:NOR, not spam per se. Can this be fixed? Bearian (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC) Keep per WP:HEY and discussion below. Bearian (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable group, though the article is too spammy to show it clearly. The membership is based on the Cleveland Clinic and UCSF, and their publications are of great importance. The point of this is that they are a distinctive unit organising definitive analyses of surgical procedures, in the movement towards evidence-based medicine. It was nominated for lack of notability, but I think it's shown by the references to its work, though only a single one of the hundreds is explicitly cited. I see no problems with POV, actually, but surely we don't delete for such problems, but revise the article as needed. I did a thorough clean-up; the next step is additional 3rd party sources. Along with discussing afds enough to keep them in the first place, i can rewrite about 2 articles like this a week; if the afds were reduced, I could do proportionately more. DGG (talk) 09:33, 4 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) 02:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They do not splash the evening news, but are sufficiently notable in the field. I fixed the references and toned down the advertising some. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Moore[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This Page seems to have been recreated this time as a puff-piece for some horse-trainer, it is not written in NPOV, contains no references except to the horsey lady's personal website, and the subject is not notable. Declan (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have created a new discussion page for this nomination as it was created on the discussion page for the first AfD discussion of April 2007 in error. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further note: The subject of the article deleted by the earlier AfD was a different person to that in the current article. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further note: Sorry, yes the first discussion was for a musician (who I was looking for, although I don't dispute her non-notability) this is for a new page for a different lady. --Declan (talk)
Keep - The tone of the article is too promotional, but she is notable due to her multiple world championships. There is at least one reliable source for that claim [45] --Megaboz (talk) 20:03, 4 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) 02:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – appears to be a notable actress in many roles. Needs reliable sources, but should be kept. TheAE talk/sign 06:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While the article has a lot of issues, this person seems to have at least a modicum of notability. It needs work, not deletion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Davi[edit]

The subject of this article is a non-notable blogger. The article does not meet WP:BIO or WP:WEB standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paster Theo, I beg to differ. Please explain which of the notability requirements I have failed to meet. One of the most reputable journalists in the world referred to my blog as required reading. I write for the Atlantic Monthly. Exactly what is missing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erdosfan (talk • contribs) 02:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Blogger with two entries on Atlantic Monthly's website [46]. The required reading claim is not significant coverage, but just part of a long list of blogs. Fails notability. FYI, article creator claims that he is subject. 2 --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 02:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one just about my blog from the Atlantic: http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/10/understanding_derivatives.php#comments. Also, there are tons of other article JUST ABOUT DERIVATIVE DRIBBLE. Would it help if I posted those? Finally, "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." I certainly meet that requirement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erdosfan (talk contribs) 02:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--I don't see the notability here. The first reference is a primary source; the second reference mentions this blog as one of nineteen. And I'm not entirely sure if Megan McArdle is "one of the most reputable journalists in the world." Drmies (talk) 04:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is what Google News had to offer--no secondary sources at all. Drmies (talk) 04:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The link above is a secondary source, and is about Derivative Dribble only. There are plenty others like it. Google the blog name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erdosfan (talk contribs) 04:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ehh...a. which link? to Megan McArdle's list of nineteen blogs? Yes, that is a secondary source--the only one provided in the article. And it's a blog, and the mention is a passing mention, not in-depth. b. I did, as you can see. Nothing shows up in Google News, which is for things that have to do with news, like economic news. Please don't use imperative constructions in these discussions. Drmies (talk) 04:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This link: [47]—Preceding unsigned comment added by Erdosfan (talk contribs) 04:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know. Megan McArdle. Her blog. You mentioned it before, and that is what I was talking about. Please sign your messages by typing four tildes, to give SineBot a coffee break. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those are different links from McArdle's blog. You complained that Derivative Dribble was one blog in a list. That one is ONLY ABOUT DERIVATIVE DRIBBLE. And this link [48]Erdosfan (talk) 04:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And this link: [49] More? Erdosfan (talk) 05:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a google news search for my blog returning a ton of results. I don't know what you're talking about: [50] Erdosfan (talk) 05:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT Delete As mentioned by Drmies above, google news is "for things that have to do with news, like economic news" and my blog is heavily cited on the first page of search results, it satisfies the notability requirements. Look for yourself:[http://news.google.com/news?oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&client=firefox-a&hl=en&um=1&tab=wn&nolr=1&q=Derivative+Dribble&btnG=Search+News —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erdosfan (talk contribs) 05:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More? Please. Since that individual mention by McArdle is two sentences long. And your Google search delivers SIX hits: The first one is a press release. The next three, that's your blog. The fifth is about balsamic vinegar (which is delicious, of course). And the sixth is an opinion piece from an Australian newspaper about the new US president. I'm convinced--I'm sticking with delete. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 05:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, how is my page any different from Matthew_Yglesias and others like it?He cites his own material, 3 times. Erdosfan (talk) 12:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of many differences. Drmies (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT Delete Page has 9 citations, 7 of which are highly reputable secondary sources.Erdosfan (talk) 14:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note, above user already !voted once, above, and left it unsigned. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability demonstrated, and frequent pleas to links from other blogs are not helping the author's cause. Obviously huge COI issue here as well... the author's feelings are at this stage well-known, so replying to every comment is unnecessary. Wikipedia is not a forum for self-publicity. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blackmetalbaz, The FT and the Economist are blogs?Erdosfan (talk) 16:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The FT and Economist links you have provided are indeed to blogs hosted by those papers, yes. Hint: read the URLs. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So because they are blogs hosted by the FT and the Economist, does that mean they do not satisfy the requirement of independent secondary sources? That seems unlikely.
Yes, that is correct, for those reasons, they do not meet notability criteria, quite aside from the fact that a passing mention even in a reliable source does not confer notability on your blog. There is no significant coverage about your blog anywhere linked, meaning quite simply that your blog is not notable. If this is still hard to understand, please go back and re-read WP:RS. Much like here in Barnsley, it appears to be snowing here at Wikipedia. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If a third party would've written this entry, none of you would take issue. That much is clear. You are not citing Wiki rules but rather making conclusionary remarks about the notability of the entry. Each time you have asked that a requirement be satisfied, I have met it.
See WP:COI, please. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Going on delete here. Aside from the very obvious conflict of interest, I really don't see anything notable here. He writes blogs. So do I. OK, he's published in a magazine. Is he an authority? If yes, pics or it didn't happen. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis The Tiger, Wiki has standards for what is notable and what is not. I've met all of them. Your standards are irrelevant. Please give me an example of a standard which I have failed to meet.67.110.139.163 (talk) 20:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
""He's published in a magazine" is overstating the case, I think. Drmies (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm listed as an author on the Atlantic Monthly's website. [51] The website has heavier readership than the magazine. If you'd like, I'll ask that one of my articles appear in print. My blog is syndicated all over the web and is read by thousands every day. You don't think that's notable? And finally note that about half of those authors have wiki pages saying little more than where they went to school and where they blog.67.110.139.163 (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, we get it. You think you are important. No reliable sources agree with you. Can you please stop commenting on this thread as you have simply become disruptive; let the AfD take its course. Obviously we are obliged to assume good faith, but you're beginning to push into the realms of trolling. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, in this case, my standards == wikipedia standards. Consensus says you don't meet them, and I agree in this case. As important as you say you are, you have not at this point given us evidence of notability with reliable sources - and note the plural, please. Furthermore, your attitude is not at all helping your side of the debate. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Ordinarily (in the context of WP:BIO or WP:GNG, for example), I would be and have been suspicious of using citations to establish notability. The most directly-applicable notability guideline here appears to be WP:WEB, however, and its criterion 3 does the job: "web-specific content is deemed notable ... [if t]he content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster...." The Financial Times and The Economist are such media (although Megan's blog is not, since she is not independent of Davi: they both work for the Atlantic), and the article offers citations to Davi's work by them. Not every link by such a publisher to a story will constitute "distribut[ion]" of the content, but the examples tendered evince clear distributive intent, and that gets Davi across the applicable notability threshold - if only by a whisker. Lastly, WP:COI can amplify other concerns and problems, and will tilt the balance, but it is not an independent basis for deletion. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion; WP:COI ("COI editing is strongly discouraged" - but not forbidden). - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am asking a genuine question here (that may be slightly tangential to this AfD)... what exactly is meant in this context by "distribution"? I personally didn't read that as "there is a link to", but rather "we will host material for". But I am honestly don't know. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 01:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the ordinary meaning of "distribute" in the context of content on the internet encompasses the acts of dispersing through cyberspace; speading; spread; promoting to one's own customers (e.g. readers); passing or delivering to, or placing before, people who one has a capacity to reach. Cf. [52]. One tends to think of distribution in a physical sense, but application of the term to the internet has to take account of the physical realities of the medium - viz., that the medium has no physical reality. Suppose I write a memorandum, print copies, and place it in the inbox of various persons in my office; few would disagree that I have "distributed" the memorandum. Now suppose that I send the same people an email, with a PDF of the memo attatched, and say "please see attached memo"; this, too, "distributes" the memo, one would think. Now: if I place the PDF of the memo on our office file server, and send an email to the same people saying "please see the memo in such and such a folder on the file server" instead of "please see the attached memo," have I not distributed it? I would think the answer must be yes. Now suppose I simply state on the company's internal blog that the memo is on the file server... You see where I'm going with this. ;) - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do indeed see what you're saying, and it all seems very sensible in and of itself. However, I remain unconvinced that that is what the guideline is getting at, although that may be poor wording in the original. Ultimately, you cannot confer notability by basically saying, "Also, you might want to read this" in a blog post. There is no significant coverage about this individual or his blog, so I fail to see how he passes the general notability guidelines. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinarily I would agree with you, but in this instance, that's how I read WP:WEB, I see WP:WEB as the applicable notability guideline, and as I've said before, I think that a more specific guideline overrides a more general guideline. That said, in the link just given, I argued that a specific guideline that is more restrictive than the GNG must override the GNG, and I suppose that one could argue that this is somewhat different because (it could be argued) while it is less specific, the GNG's criteria are more restrictive than WP:WEB c3. I don't want to stake a claim to that position, but for now, I still lean towards keep, albeit weakly so.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't understand why you're saying that "COI shouldn't be indepedent basis for deletion" - no one has asserted that(except the article creator/subject as a defense of sorts) . Others have just mentioned it as an FYI. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 01:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 12:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster;[7] except for trivial distribution including content being hosted on sites without editorial oversight (such as YouTube, MySpace, GeoCities, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.)." Derivative Dribble definitely satisfies this requirement.

The rules state that "web-specific content[3] is deemed notable based on meeting any ONE of the following criteria:" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WEB 67.110.139.163 (talk). Therefore Derivative Dribble is clearly notable web content. 67.110.139.163 (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Erdosfan, Forgetting to sign in again? Thanks. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 22:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Thank you, counselor, you may step down now. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: Following the rules makes me a lawyer? (Which I am). Why don't you just accept that you're irritated that I wrote an article about myself. The very thought of that offends you. The fact that my blog clearly meats the standard for notability does something even worse to you. Not sure why you should care at all. The rules are clear on this point, and you should apply them dispassionately. Erdosfan (talk) 06:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - That comment, Erdosfan, was not directed at you, but at Omarcheeseboro. Dennis, growl if I'm wrong please. Drmies (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[Undent] Comment: Well, Mr. Davi, you say that your blog "clearly meats" (sic.) the standard for notability, and I agree, but we're not talking about an article about your blog. The article at issue is about you, and that might be an important distinction. As I said in explaining my keep vote above, it seems to me that the applicable notability guideline is WP:WEB. Nevertheless, WP:WEB in terms applies to "web-specific content" (emphasis added), and one could surely make the argument that by those terms, WP:WEB is inapplicable, because the article is about an author rather than particular content they have created.

Consider that although we have an article on Apollo 13 (movie), and its notability is evaluated under WP:MOVIE, we do not have an article for Al Reinert, who co-wrote the screenplay. That a movie he worked on is notable under the guideline applicable to the movie doesn't make him independently notable (see WP:NOTINHERITED). Instead, his notability is evaluated independently under WP:BIO, and he apparently fails.

Now, I would have to have concluded above that WP:WEB applies, but perhaps you could tell us why that's correct: why should an article about you should be evaluted under the notability guideline for a particular kind of content? Or, in the alternative, can you tell us why you - not your blog - meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Dodd, that's a fair point and the two rules are distinct. If it suits everyone, for now I'll create an article about the blog and not about me. 98.14.139.154 (talk) 23:57, 7 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 Classical guitar. MBisanz ^talk 02:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Guitar article reflect popular misconceptions[edit]

Delete request for "Spanish Guitar" on grounds of WP:Content forking. The article's information incorrectly ascribes the term "Spanish Guitar" to Archtop guitars. "Spanish guitar" is synomous with "Classical guitar" (modern classical types that originated with the work of Antonio Torres Jurado). The second edition of the Oxford English Oxford Dictionary defines the "Spanish guitar" as "the standard six string (orig. five-stringed) non-electric guitar, used for both folk and classical music." The online Collins English Dictionary defines the "Spanish guitar" as "the classic form of the guitar; a six-stringed instrument with a wasted body and a central sound hole." [53]. These definitions contradict that in the "Spanish Guitar" article but are very much like that of the "Classical guitar". A review of the guitar history books will confirm this (talk) 00:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, especially if you are an SME and the author of that article can't provide valid, reliable sources as to his assertions. Can you provide backing for your argument? Not being difficult here, but your argument for the AfD rests on opinion at this point. §FreeRangeFrog 01:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no guitar books to hand at the moment - if you check encyclopedias like the Britannica and the articles even in the Wikipedia on Archtop guitars and Antonio Torres Jurado, you'll quickly see this article's mistakes Provocateur (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article should be a redirect then. §FreeRangeFrog 19:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect following Marshall's argument. ~~Weak delete~~--this is not a very well-formed nomination and low on argument. The last sentence of the first paragraph basically states the case; some of the rest is a bit confusing, and I note that the first nay-sayer votes based only on authority. But a cursory search using Google Books (and indeed, as nominator suggests, WP's own articles--Modern classical guitar, for instance) indicates that nominator is correct. That the article in question is completely unreferenced doesn't help either. Drmies (talk) 04:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Classical guitar, as this article was until recently. JulesH (talk) 11:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per JulesH. I just want to say: "Unreferenced" doesn't mean "delete", it means "search for references and cut any material you can't reference". "Poor quality content" doesn't mean "delete", it means "write better content". In this case "Spanish guitar" is a likely search term and so definitely should not be deleted.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- After consideration, I agree that a redirect is probably the best thing to do--Marshall is right, it is a very valid search term. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless Provocateur can produce some sources that make a case to redirect to classical guitar. I don't like the idea of deleting an article that would surely pass a notability test just because it has some potentially poor content. The solution is to correct the factual errors and not delete the article all together. Furthermore, with no sources given for either side of the arguement I don't see how anyone can in good conscience support either position. We shouldn't be making an un-informed content decision and blindly accept one editor's point of view. At this point, the best thing to do is tag the article for original research and not to delete it. Hopely Provocateur or another editor can then come along and make a decent article out of it. To some up "an ill-informed decision is a bad decision".Nrswanson (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who's making an ill-informed decision? I'm certainly not.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that "Spanish guitar" is not only a likely search term but also a "likely article" even if it does currently have bad content; a fact which nobody has proven to my satisfaction. The content could be accurate for all we know since nobody has presented any sources confirming or denying the content. I think anybody arguing for deletion based on content reasons is drawing on an assumption based only on the point of view/personal opinion of the nominator. That is an ill-informed decision. Meanwhile, an internet search on google brings up 10,000s of sites which include buisnesses that only sell Spanish guitars, Spanish guitar conferences, Spanish guitar sheet music, Spanish guitar CD recordings, etc. This seems to me like a topic that deserves its own page.Nrswanson (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that but the question is who has the burden of proof. Is it for other people to prove the article has bad content, or is it for us to prove it's good? Wikipedia has a policy on that called WP:BURDEN. It says that unreferenced material should be cut mercilessly. Therefore the default assumption is that this unreferenced material has to go. The only way to change that is to provide verifiable references from reliable sources that supports this article being retained.

Even if this is done, the new material has to be substantially different from the material in classical guitar because we don't want a lot of articles that say the same thing. JulesH was pointing out (in Wikipedia shorthand) that the material in spanish guitar wouldn't be different enough to the material in classical guitar to warrant having two separate articles. And I agree with him, which is why I suggested the redirect.

Does that make sense?--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point to think about We also have an article called Flamenco guitar.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly does make sense but on the other hand we have tags such as Template:Unreferenced and Template:Original research which to my mind would have been more appropriate measures to take before taking this to an AFD. Further, although I wouldn't consider this an authorative source, this article [54] claims that the Spanish guitar pre-dates the classical guitar. I am trying to find some more reliable sources on the topic as we speak. What this article really needs is some people with good music related sources to come along and fix it up, not delete it. I say tag it until the article is fixed.Nrswanson (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is a benefit of the redirect vote. The AfD will continue to run, because that's established procedure; but if the outcome is a redirect, then the article gets redirected to classical guitar while you build up your article on spanish guitar. Once you have good, referenced material, you can replace the redirect with your own page (you don't need to ask the admin or anything, you can just do it; if someone reverts your edit, we can take it to the talk page to build consensus).

If you'd like to do this, I'll help you.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Classical guitar page - good idea. Changed my mind.Provocateur (talk) 08:47, 9 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 01:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Rowe[edit]

Notability in Question

The link pointed to is a music festival
The festival that was referenced should have probably been the Green Man Festival which really is the Utopia Film Festival
In 2006 there was not a submission for that individual noted. ttonyb1 (talk) 01:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No information on this person exists per the nom. Perhaps this person does not exist? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Gsearch for "Jesse Rowe" + "film festival" (to cover any film festival which might confer notability) doesn't come up with anything useful.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red Snow (Novel)[edit]

Article is about an apparently non-notable, self-published book. Google returns very few hits and the ones it does return to seem to be ads for the book. Rnb (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Came across page when patrolling. Author is obviously the author of the book as well, so WP:COI but fails notability and no tertiary sources anyway. §FreeRangeFrog 01:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable source coverage, fails the general notability guideline. Book is not listed at the Library of Congress and is published by createspace, a borderline vanity press; it therefore fails the threshold standards of WP:Notability_(books). Baileypalblue (talk) 06:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above plus it is evident that the links that exist for the article as well as much of the article itself are an attempt to sell the book. Valley2city^‽ 07:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've removed the obviously spammy order links. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Self-publishing note: (Createspace) "What's new about CreateSpace is the free ISBN and direct link to Amazon with no up-front costs." Proofreader77 (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yes, self-published and no reviews, etc... But noting (to myself) that "self-published" may apply to many notable books in the future. Proofreader77 (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Other !votes say it - CreateSpace, the publisher, is kinda like Lulu.com. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CreateSpace is nothing like Lulu. They're trying to attract clients by making it harder for other self-publishers to sell with them. They're using their monopoly to put others on the sideline. (Disclosure: I'm a Lulu forum volunteer) - Mgm|^(talk) 09:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While a self-published book could in theory be notable, there's no indication that this one is. Edward321 (talk) 03:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wiki article was not being used for self-promotion to sell copies, but it was a mere start since I plan on publishing a series of books, and sending off my works to actual publishing companies, which would be acceptable by wikipedia.org terms. You can remove the purchase links if you like, but all I am asking for is a page for my novel. Okay, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JaymeK1990 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on Wikipedia need to meet notability requirements; the requirements for books are available at WP:NB. You may also wish to review WP:COI. Rnb (talk) 00:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darrell Williams[edit]

An article about a military man whose only claim to notability is he was "...selected as 1 of only 5 individuals to provide emergency communications 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for the Vice President of the United States of America..." This however is unverified and no outside sources exist besides his own site (this is not counting this one part on him on a school site, which uses text from his own site). Kwsn (Ni!) 00:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn, vanity. JJL (talk) 02:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious WP:N and WP:RS issues; there aren't multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Firestorm (talk) 02:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if verifiable because there's apparently more than that. DS (talk) 02:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject seems to be someone who has been good at his job, but I don't see how being a communications official provides any sort of inherent notability, even if it's for the vice-president of the United States, and I don't see any evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:45, 7 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 02:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Immortal Cities: Nile Online[edit]

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

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

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

Non-notable webgame. Only a single reliable source consisting of an interview with the developer in which the game is mentioned. The rest is all trivial or blog coverage. Delete as per WP:WEB and WP:CORP Peephole (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Weak Keep - In addition to the one on GamersHell, there's also a ~~review~~ interview by GameSetWatch, part of the Gamasutra network; and [Ed. a review at] Macleans.ca, which according to its About page seems pretty reliable. SharkD (talk) 03:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed with SharkD.--Agamemnus (talk) 05:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are also news items at WorldsInMotion as well as Blue's News and 4Gamer. SharkD (talk) 04:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: You call that reviews? Seems more like glorified press releases to me.--Peephole (talk) 04:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - They are not reviews nor are they press releases!--Agamemnus (talk) 05:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are correct in that the GameSetWatch article is not a review. Also, I pasted the wrong link. The others are exactly what I said they are. SharkD (talk) 06:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Immortal Cities: Children of the Nile, which is what this is adapted from according to the Worlds in Motion piece, surprised that it's not linked within this article. If what's here is it as far as sources are concerned then there's no reason not to include it in the parent article (the original game was reviewed in all the magazines and is perfectly notable). Ahh, my legs, I'm quadrapilates :S Someoneanother 15:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a completely different game than CoTN. Instead of merging, maybe a link instead would be good.--Agamemnus (talk) 05:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're separate games, yes, but related and merging is a damn sight better than deleting. Looking again at the sources the two usable reviews (one of which, the one by the student with no apparent background in journalism let alone game journalism, and is extremely weak) don't provide enough material for a reception section which every video game article should have. The interview is just that, a platform for the developer to speak, not analysis from a third party, it's certainly useful but it's not outside opinion. If the other article wasn't there I'd be leaning delete. Someone another 04:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are the criteria for being notable exactly? Hpelgrift (talk) 04:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- The general notability guideline says it best. MuZemike 04:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and change the Wikipedia notability policy Far too many articles that are important to niche groups are being deleted, making wikipedia weaker as an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are meant to be all-including. I am not saying that every single thing in the world should get an article, but this game has 3,829 players at the moment. Also, news coverage, while an indicator to the notability of something, is not a hard guide; there are enough of things out there that have weak coverage but are very notable to prove that what I say is true. Specially since most news coverage on the net is American, and a large part of the following of this game is European. --Andrelvis (talk) 04:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please discuss the notability guideline at WT:N; do not soapbox about your dislike of it here. MuZemike 04:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The WP: SOAP applies only to the articles themselves, not pages like this one. What is the point of indicating me to a link you didn't even read properly? This is a perfectly viable place for expressing contempt on wikipedia's policy of notability. --Andrelvis (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - No it isn't. That is what WT:N or starting a request for comment to change the guideline is for. MuZemike 22:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have put in a review by a Wall Street Journal gaming staff writer, Krish Raghav. (reference 5)Hpelgrift (talk) 06:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)— Hpelgrift (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .[reply]
Keep the wiki page has had some notable improvements since it was flagged for deletion, mostly by the Nile Online community. Also, merging Nile Online with Children of the Nile is a very bad idea. They are made by the same people, but they are totally unrelated games.Erenath (talk) 14:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- — Erenath (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep — it looks like a minimal amount of notability was established. There are a couple of reliable secondary sources in there, particularly in the Gamer's Hell and the review from the Wall Street Journal online blog (which I think is authoritative enough to pass as reliable). MuZemike 04:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the flood of new users !voting to keep sets off my alarm. Stifle (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Non sequitur.--Agamemnus (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My account here at wikipedia is from 2005, Hpelgrift's from September, 2008 (which is to say, before this discussion was even born), Agamemnus's is from 2006. Only Eranath's is from after the discussion was started. Please review your knowledge of things before saying them. --Andrelvis (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a lot of red around and only two SPAs from what I notice. We don't have a flood of them as a result of off-wiki canvassing/rally cry because someone on a forum noticed the big red tag on top of their article and posted ZOMG OUR WIKI ARTICLE IS BEING DELETED or something like that. MuZemike 22:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In my opinion, the amount of notability established is just too minimal. Also, what Stifle said. --Bonadea (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you delete this, you might as well just admit that this doesn't exist. As part of the Tilted Mill set of games (which earns millions per year in revenue), that will make the entry for Tilted Mill games incomplete. If you merge it with Immortal Cities: Children of the Nile, the two games will be confused. Therefore, you must keep.--Agamemnus (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For the same reasons I have already stated before. What is the point of an encyclopedia if it only gathers information that is already widespread on news coverage? --Andrelvis (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You don't need to repeat your keep/delete endorsement. The admin will spot it if you post it one time. --Peephole (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't know. I thought that when it was put as "relisted" there it meant that the votes before didn't count. --Andrelvis (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: Nah, doesn't need to happen. Also, remember that AfD's aren't meant to be votes, but discussions. --Peephole (talk) 20:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This isn't an unknown game being developed by a group of kids in their parents' basement. Immortal Cities is already a franchise; an official addition to that franchise which we are already covering should be unquestionably deserving of coverage on Wikipedia. Crazed Ewok | Talk 18:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The WSJ is adequate for notability. 4000 players is enough. I never heard of the game before 5 minutes ago, if anyone wants to know. DGG (talk) 01:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article might qualify for a stub-class rating, but it's from a notable designer and has at least two notable press mentions (Macleans and WSJ), so it deserves a second chance. Since the deletion tag went up, the response has been several editors working to improve it. I say let's let that play out. Somerut (talk) 02:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I'd prefer some professional reviews rather than these (albeit reliably published) blog entries. That is, a review that gives an overview with both positive and negative criticisms - rather than the "Hey, I've played this and you should too!" posts of WSJ and Macleans. Marasmusine (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you give an example of a free web-based game that has received, in your opinion, a "professional" review? --Agamemnus (talk) 07:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - For example, these [55][56][57] MMOHUB reviews of web-based games follow the classical critical format. On the whole, games magazines (either paper or web) don't give a lot of attention to this genre - but Wikipedia coverage should reflect that. Marasmusine (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, those reviews is only slightly more encompassing than a few of the sources given for this one. Also: I don't think Wikipedia "coverage" should reflect the commercial interests of review sites...--Agamemnus (talk) 05:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ioana Vasile[edit]

This cinematographer is not notable. While she may be in the future, she is simply not notable today—I have been unable to find any significant coverage of her at all (a process complicated by the fact that the name is a common Romanian name).

The only cinematography award I have been able to identify for any of her films is at the Fair Hope Film Festival, a festival for which there were fifteen entrants and eight awards.

Not a single one of the films for which she has been credited as DP or cinematographer has been widely reviewed (let alone has had a review comment on the cinematography).

No disrespect is meant to the subject of the article, nor to the projects upon which she has worked. However, they simply are not close to rising to the level of notability. Bongo matic 22:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 14:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy with respects back to the author. While she's easy enough to find, Without a Postcard
A thousand Hills, Asheville Film Festval, and LIFT, among the many others only WP:Verify her existance and her works. I cannot as yet find any special notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:26, 1 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 00:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while she certainly exists and has worked on a lot of films, the coverage so far has not been non-trivial. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Superbrowsergame Award[edit]

Webgame award. No reliable sources attesting to notability. Peephole (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 23:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Article appears on German Wikipedia. I would not say the article meets WP:Note "Significant coverage", but, I must question, are we following WP:Note policy? Tagging the article with ((notability)), and alerting the article creator? Sephiroth storm (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Appears on German Wikipedia" is not cause to keep an article. Wikipedia:Notability is not policy, and there is no requirement to tag with ((Notability)) or alert the creator. If a thorough search for references was performed and did not turn up anything, it is perfectly acceptable to move straight to AFD. Pagra shtak 15:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is, but the phrase "No reliable sources attesting to notability.", to me, means that no such references are in the article. It doesn't give any indication the nominator did the sort of thourough search you mentioned.- Mgm|^(talk) 10:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am aware that WP:N is not policy, but a guideline, however, it is the topic before us today, as the requestor has claimed that there are no sources atesting to notability. In any case, allow me to quote from WP:N "Although articles should demonstrate the notability of their topics, and articles on topics that do not meet this criterion are generally deleted, it is important to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be." I am not arguing that the article cant be deleted without these steps, just that I think it would be approprite to do so in this case. Sephiroth storm (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you called it policy in your comment, and implied that tagging ((Notability)) was required by policy. I just wanted to make it clear that neither is the case. Pagra shtak 19:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appoligise, I am still relativly new to AfD discussions. Sephiroth storm (talk) 00:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable stub. Tcrow777^Talk 10:49, 4 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 00:38, 5 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 02:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Khwaja Najamuddin Ahmed[edit]

Only claim of notability appears to be "Khwaja Najamuddin Ahmed was a very famous saint of his time ". No references support notability. It appears that the author may be trying to illustrate his family tree in these articles. No pertinent ghits. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 00:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Apparently a notable sufi saint. The article needs a re-write, not deletion. Baileypalblue (talk) 02:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My concern here is that the apparent notability comes only from the assertion within the article. It seems that WP:V is a problem. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 15:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'd like to hear from those more familiar with this field, we do have problems with systematic bias. I'm not bothered if the author is related to the subject as long as we get a good article out of it. In many MidEast countries, families do trace back like this so I could see it in this case. -- Banjeboi 00:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (for now) I agree with Benjiboi. This one needs an expert. It looks like it was transwikkied from WikiIslam, and I'm willing to accept good faith that he is ineed notable for his culture and religion. In the hope of WP:CSB, we might give this one a wait. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To administrators of Wikipedia[edit]

These articles are for the purpose of better understanding of the spread of Islam over the ages.If any one of them is deleted , it becomes very difficult for the reader to understand the rest.The people who have been described in these articles, are the corner stones of Islamic progression from one area to another But most of the literature about them is limited to the sub-continent,and is written by local authors.It is very difficult to find international books,particularly about the lesser known individuals(which in my opinion is no excuse to stop further research into a better understanding of their role in spread of Islam) Therefore, the books that have been used as references for these articles are mainly local books but complete information is provided about them in said articles.

It is difficult for a western author to understand asian culture,neither are there books availible in English about every aspect of it.Here a new language is spoken every 100 kilometers and it is not possible to find english translation of books in all these languages.Opinion about articles by asian authors should not be only taken from american or european authors.

Any help in improving my articles and preventig there deletion would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maqsoodshah01 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 9 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. Article totally rewritten, big up for the G-man. (NAC) RMHED. 21:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heterography[edit]

Dicdef already included on wiktionary —Felix the Cassowary 17:46, 30 January 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 00:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Simple dicdef and would be transwiki'd, but it already has, so nothing left to do but delete. The odds are against it becoming an article worthy of inclusion.
Strong keep. Currently redirects to Heterography and homography, which is an acceptable article and far more substantive than the one-line entry on wiktionary. Jd4v15 (talk) 07:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks nothing like a dic def. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good article save by User:Uncle G. Baileypalblue (talk) 03:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mgm. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as changed it's much more useful. Thanks to whoever that was. —Felix the Cassowary 07:48, 7 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 Al Fateh University. Redirect to Al Fateh University, and a hatnote on that article to Manar University of Tripoli (non-admin closure) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 00:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tripoli University[edit]

No third party sources seem to exist for this institution as distinct from Al-Fateh University or Manar University of Tripoli; however, neither of them seems to use 'Tripoli University' as an alternate name consistently either, so I don't think it merits becoming a disambig for those two. Gonzonoir (talk) 14:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Al Fateh University. This is the previous name of Al Fateh University - see here, for example. Also see here. I can't verify any university currently using this name. TerriersFan (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was previously converted into a disambig between the two aforementioned Tripoli universities, but the creator reverted to its current state, apparently asserting that it's a separate institution. So I'm slightly concerned that turning it into a redirect would cause ambiguity. Gonzonoir (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you consider that there would be ambiguity then stick a hatnote on the target article. TerriersFan (talk) 02:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, hatnotes are intended for linking to other articles with titles that might be confused with that of the present page. I thought they explicitly weren't meant to be used to link to non-existent articles- which is what this would become if it were deleted.

Basically, I think this article is about an institution that either doesn't exist or isn't notable, with a name distinct from that used routinely by any other university: that's why I think it should be deleted. Gonzonoir (talk) 12:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are absolutely no grounds for deletion; this is the previous name of a notable institution and a valid search term. TerriersFan (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, fair enough. I'd have liked stronger refs for this being Al-Fateh's former name than a school newsletter and an architect's promotional design notes (which don't overtly make the claim of synonymity - they're arguably being generic in the page title), but I can live with disagreeing. Gonzonoir (talk) 23:07, 4 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 00:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as disambiguation page: I can also offer links to demonstrate that "Tripoli University" is used to refer to Al Fateh University ([58], [59], [60]) but Manar University of Tripoli is the more popular wikipedia page, so simply redirecting to Al Fateh University would be inappropriate. In any case the page should not be deleted, because it is a useful search phrase; the fact that neither institution formally uses the phrase is not relevant, so long as the public uses it. Baileypalblue (talk) 04:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Guttag[edit]

Non-notable. Vague assertions of work in major markets, but search reveals no modeling credits or reliable secondary sources. Citations used are mostly just red carpet pics for minor events or info on her father. Prod deleted with claims that Guttag "hosts" for Dailyfill.com and MySpace (whatever that means), but neither site returns results on her. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 20:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FunPika 00:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Threshold notability at best. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:48, 7 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. Stifle (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duet (2006 film)[edit]

I can find no evidence in reliable sources providing notability criteria. There are links showing that it was shown at several film festivals, but as it didn't seem to win any awards at those festivals, this isn't enough to prove notability. Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 19:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 19:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While there are some external links at the bottom of the er, "article," it still seems to fall short of the WP:MOVIE bar. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep While I just improved the article through cleanup, and it is now encyclopedic, it needs Iranian sources to which I have no access. I could only do so much with English, but am willing to accept that such sources may exist. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:08, 23 January 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) 00:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question Was there any sort of editorial decisions on any of the listed festivals? If the film was officially selected to appear because organizers saw it (rather than the film being submitted) it might just scrape by in the notability department. If the director is notable, it would meet WP:NF for having significant involvement of a notable person, but I'm questioning the notability of that person more than the film at the moment. -- Mgm|^(talk) 10:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The notability of a film and the notability of its director are two separate issues. A notable director can have non-notable films if there is no independent coverage in reliable sources. Simply having a showing in a film festival is generally not sufficient (with the rare exception in which the film has won an award) as there are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of film festivals every year (it seems there is about a dozen in the Miami, Florida, area, for example - how notable is the one that's going on there this week? I don't know). Press releases in themselves are not considered reliable sources by Wikipedia standards, but independent (non-blog) coverage of them is. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 06:50, 31 January 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 00:17, 5 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) 12:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Al Ansar Charity Association[edit]

The only references on the web that I've found that mention this all come from the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, which is affiliated with the Israeli military. This should not be confused with Osbat al-Ansar, which is in Lebanon, and Ansar al-Islam in Iraq. Both of these organizations have a strong presence on the web. Also, the article was created by an account with only two edits, and the other seemed pretty anti-Palestinian. JaGa^talk 02:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I've heard about these types of charities before in the news myself, that is, charities dedicated to helping the families of dead terrorists. I'd say error on the side of caution and leave the article for now. Your arguement for deletion seems mostly based on the inactivity of the creator's account and I'm not sure how that or his other edits effect this pages viability, which seems like they could be alright with a bit of work. --Pstanton (talk) 03:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, my main argument for deletion is that there are no supporting sources for this beyond a single source that could easily be biased. This article makes very serious, very negative allegations and we should not allow it to stand if we cannot properly source it. --JaGa^talk 05:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This clearly fails WP:Org as I could come up with no third party sources and also appears to be problematic with respect to WP:Spam and there is really nothing in the article to suggest the notability of the organization. The article is completely unreferenced and unverifiable and probably should have been speedily deleted several months ago.|► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 00:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 06:51, 31 January 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 00:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not come up with any consistent description in english.. There may be material in other languages, but I cannot work with it. DGG (talk) 19:53, 5 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 01:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xenia Tchoumitcheva[edit]

non notable, written like a magazine bio. Samuell Lift me up or put me down 22:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: quite unknown and written like a promotional ad —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itemirus (talk • contribs) 12:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Borderline notable, enough for a stub. Remove non-encyclopedic personal comment. Was created as self-promotion, but we don't delete as a punishment. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 07:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed non-encyclopedic personal comment. [61] --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:23, 2 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 00:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - runner-ups of notable pageant contests are notable. Wandering Courier (talk) 02:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:50, 7 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 02:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Combat Zone (Studio)[edit]

Non-notable pornography producer. Has already been speedied, but was recreated. Taking it here because I suppose being nominated for an AVN Award is an assertion of importance, somewhat. I am of the opinion however, that such awards confer notability on the films themselves, rather than of the producer, and that in any case getting nominated for (not winning, just nominated) for "Best Oral-Themed Release" isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No credible assertion of notability at this point. — Ched (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a reference to help boost the credibility and keepability of this article! Thanks for your consideration —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremycolp (talk • contribs) 06:27, 4 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 00:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is getting coverage within its quite competitive industry. It will never be featured in New York Times, but it has notability where its notability is expected to be. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:42, 9 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 02:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bombadil Publishing[edit]

Non-notable publishing company Blowdart | ^talk 12:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Some coverage of this publisher in news sources: [62] [63] JulesH (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Those would appear to be copies of press releases, as would the rest of the sources found by a Google News archive search except possibly for this one, which is only a brief mention. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:46, 1 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 00:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only 13 books so far, at least according to the website. DGG (talk) 19:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I checked WP:BIGNUMBER and WP:SMALLNUMBER were irrelevant to policy. Rather than arbitrarily cutting things off based on a number, we should look at coverage of the company and which books they released. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this publisher is notable, it's more for their charity work than for the books they've published. JulesH (talk) 09:46, 7 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 [[Peace Mala]]. Merge and redirect (non-admin closure) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 00:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pam Evans[edit]

Subject's sole notability is as founder of Peace Mala - not a terribly large organisation in itself (to be blunt, it's a charitable company in Swansea that makes a bead bracelet) - and I don't think there's sufficient notability separate from this organisation to merit a bio article. There are strong conflict of interest aspects - what we're no longer allowed to call WP:VAIN - to this article's existence: see WP:COIN#Pam Evans. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect unless multiple reliable sources are produced to verify notability. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:15, 3 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 00:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, ~~Delete,~~, Blank, Redirect: In case that sends mixed signals - what I mean is take the useful information that is not already included in the Peace Mala article, and is not self serving, and work it into the Peace Mala article. What is left simply ~~delete~~blank and than redirect the Pam Evans namespace to the Peace Mala article. According to the talk page there was discussion that indicated it was "suggested that the page be merged with Peace Mala" in 2006. Where that discussion was is not clear. Was this article ever deleted before? Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In order for a merge (was typo) to be valid, the edit history of said material needs to be retained. All edits should have a paper trail that records who added what to WP. Deleting the edit history of a page after merging would be a violation of GFDL and pretty useless since you're already suggesting a redirect anyway. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think what I said was pretty clear. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A miscommunication by terminology, I think? Mgm is noting that we can't delete the page if we copy any material from it. We could do a history merge, but we can't simply delete the attribution history if we move content from Pam Evans to Peace Mala. Generally, after a merge, we simply redirect the article, placing it in Category:Redirects from merges. If necessary to prevent the article's being restored, the redirect can be protected. I suspect that your use of the word "delete" here is non-Wiki specific, and you simply mean to remove/erase the information, not delete the page, and redirect? Please correct me, either of you, if I'm wrong. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two things - one related, one not so much. 1> "you simply mean to remove/erase the information, not delete the page" - 100% on the mark. 2> Mgm also left a msg on my talk page as well as in another discussion I am involved in and the combinations came across as they are implying that (for the other discussion) all material in userspace should be kept and never be deleted and (Msg here and on userpage) mainspace articles should never be deleted because it would be a "violation of GFDL". Perhaps this is not what the user meant but due to the current state of deletion discussions and "Keep" arguments it is very hard to maintain what users follow and why. (i.e - can't delete because it violate the license, can't delete because it isn't in mainspace, can't delete because there is no time limit, can't delete because it is a invasion of privacy, can't delete because it is interesting, can't delete because the user is active on Wikipedia, etc) Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which discussion you are referring to but articles in userspace can be deleted. There is no time limit for improvement, but different people have different ideas on how long people should be allowed to keep articles in userspace before it is no longer reasonable to assume they're trying to improve it (rather than violating policy by keeping a copy of deleted material). "Can't delete because it is an invasion of privacy" is something I never remember saying. If anything, deleting material protects someone's privacy. Nevertheless, I readily admit that my interpretations of policy lean towards the inclusionist side. This particular case is not really negotiable. Policy dictates that every edit should be accompanied by an entry into an article history so editors can link every single bit of material to the author who added it. It's a basic sense of accountability at work. Besides, invoking AFD when you could create a redirect creates a lot of extra work that really isn't neccesary. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that the editor was not thinking about a merge or a redirect when they made this AFD. Likewise you are harping on a non-issue. Nobody has said the edit history is to be deleted, it was not even hinted at until you brought it up and than repeated it on my talk page. Moonriddengirl cannot be the only person who understood what I said can she? Either way I am striking the link to my talk page you posted below as it is really nothing more than a rewording of what has already been said here and the slight fork has nothing to do with this AFD. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that the editor was not thinking about a merge or a redirect when they made this AFD

This has got into ludicrous overcomplication. The article looked to me borderline between a candidate for complete deletion and one for merge-and-redirect. I chose to nominate for AFD because it covers both options (merge-and-redirect being a common recommendation arising from AFD). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"This has got into ludicrous overcomplication" - I agree. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also see User_talk:Soundvisions1#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FPam_Evans. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(This is just the same core conversation as here. Add nothing new or relevant to this topic) - unsigned edit by Soundvisions1 12:35, 6 February 2009 NOTE: This has been cut and pasted form where it first appeared. It was directly after my post in response to MGM. It was moved, "auto signed" as it had been now moved, and un-striking by another editor. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge minimal information into Peace Mala and redirect. Ty 11:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge basic information into Peace Mala and redirect. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:26, 6 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) 16:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wesleyan Symposium on the Perspectives of Social Anthropology in the Teaching and Learning of Music[edit]

Article composed almost exclusively as an agenda for a symposium. The presentations look nice, but I don't think this qualifies as notable. Tavix (talk) 21:14, 31 January 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 00:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unless there's something incredibly important that's not stated in the article, I see no reason that this conference is individually notable. Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless a symposium is a regularly returning event and highly regarded in its field, I see no good reason to have an article about each individual event. Also, if this was anything else that would fall in the A7 speedy criterion, it would've been speedied for not establishing its relevance. Just existing isn't enough. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:14, 5 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.