< January 15	January 17 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TellEm T.V. The Mixtape[edit]

The notability guidelines for music specifically say that mixtapes aren't notable. My PROD tag was removed by an anonymous user with no explanation. Unscented (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, while mixtapes / remix albums can be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources, this one doesn't. Fails notability per WP:JANNMT. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable mixtape, insufficient 3rd party coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 'em, NN mxtape. JBsupreme (talk) 03:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nominator's interpretation of WP:MUSIC is incorrect, but this mixtape has not received any significant coverage that I could find, so doesn't merit an article.--Michig (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: With regards to my interpretation of WP:MUSIC, I am certainly aware that mixtapes can be notable if they have coverage in reliable sources, just like anything else, which this one doesn't. However, WP:MUSIC does say that mixtapes, unlike officially released albums, are generally not notable simply for being made. I paraphrased it for the sake of brevity.--Unscented (talk) 12:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blue moon Manga[edit]

No significant google hits for "Blue Moon" and "Jamie Leather" [1]. Clear COI (article created by User:Jleather); Wikipedia is not a place for Mr. Leather to promote his latest DeviantArt project. PC78 (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely there are better ways to determine whether or not an article is genuine than a simple 'Google search.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jleather (talk • contribs) 00:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Best have a look at what Wikipedia is not. I have no doubt that this is a real project of yours, but it is no way notable or encylopedic. Wikipedia is not a place for you to promote yourself or your pet projects. PC78 (talk) 00:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self-published things are seldom notable, no indication this is an exception. (It's also not a manga.) Edward321 (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self-published, non-notable, the only source is the author's deviant art page which is not reliable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 00:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Orbital Delegate (talk) 11:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Could not find independent sources to establish notability. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dropkick#Missile dropkick. MBisanz ^talk 04:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Missle Dropkick[edit]

Misspelt and non encyclopedic

Delete, if you're gonna create a non-notable article, at least spel it korecktly. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then redirect to the appropriate link, since its a plausible typo. Nothing to merge. Umbralcorax (talk) 07:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete first? The current content isn't causing legal issues or threatening someone's privacy. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. Vote changed. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect plausible typo. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dropkick#Missile dropkick. Plausible misspelling. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rock of Love. MBisanz ^talk 04:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jes Rickleff[edit]

Delete. Does not appear to be notable beyond winning a reality television competition. Other claims are made on the page, but most are uncited. Discussion on talk page asked for nomination for deletion. Plastikspork (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Fails WP:ONEEVENT; notable for only one event. Fails WP:Entertainer; has not had significant roles in multiple notable television shows. ~ Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rock of Love and merge a reduced amount of relevant, referenced material. Deleting this would mean readers searching for her name would find nothing, while it's reasonable to assume that they'd be looking for what she did in the reality (since she's done nothing else). - Mgm|^(talk) 13:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I belive the article should stay up because first it has been up for awhile and also Jes is a winner of a major tv show on a major station in the United States. Most other as far as I know American reality tv show winners such as Flavor of Love and other shows the winners had an article made about them. Who knows what Jes Reckleff could do in the future? MarkDonna (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. Fails WP:BIO, and POV with nothing to salvage. » šᾦῥъ^{τ • ¢} 04:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There have been many Shows in the U.S.-TV and hopefully there will be many more to come, but not every winner of each and everyone of them has to be mentioned in an Encyclopaedia, I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JakobvS (talk • contribs) 20:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple independent sources about her satisfies WP:BIO. ONEEVENT shouldn't apply to an entire TV season. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, hoax, and snowballing discussion. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Myers[edit]

I cannot find any reliable sources that discuss or even mention the artist to the extent that I cannot be sure the article isn't a hoax. The website linked from the page ([2]) gives a picture that says "Coming soon" and the following Google searches give no meaningful results: "Christian Myers" AND "CZA", "Christian Myers" AND "Record Collection", "Christian Myers" AND "Wu Tang Clan". Additioanlly the Record Collection label to which it is claimed the act is signed, does not list them as one of their artists ([3]). Currently there is no verifiable information on which an article could be based and no evidence that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the specific guideline for music related articles (or that they even exist). Guest9999 (talk) 22:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding PROBABLE CAUZE to nomination - same story, looking at the creating editor's contributions - I'm pretty certain these are hoaxes. Guest9999 (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: User added a November 2008 dated tag themselves, perhaps to sidestep a speedy delete. Proofreader77 (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for both. Absolutely no sources for either of these claims.--Woland (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clear hoax. --Amalthea 01:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Note that the page creator of PROBABLE CAUZE inserted their own November 2008-dated Refimprove tag (diff) after they created the page (today/yesterday) ... which appears to have (successfully) slowed down what would have been a speedy delete. Proofreader77 (talk) 05:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Walled garden and hence delete both as both being clear hoaxes. MuZemike 05:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - nom's evidence is conclusive. Also block the author who has no constructive edits and is already at vandalism warning #4. JohnCD (talk) 09:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely fails notability guidelines. I came across this page and wondered why it wasn't speedied. Chamal ^talk 15:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Snoopy, Come Home. MBisanz ^talk 04:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lila (Peanuts)[edit]

Non-notable fictional character, no reliable sources found. Only appeared in the strip a few times, mostly as unseen. Doesn't seem worth merging. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep and merge All named characters who make an actual appearance in a famous comic like that are worth merging. Nobody is likely to defend it as a separate article. Even for t hose who think it might not quite be worth the merging, I'd suggest they consider whether it isn't easier and less contentious to do so than to try to delete--and thu smore in keeping with the common goal of improving the encyclopedia ? DGG (talk) 22:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very minor character, but seems real and WP:N nonetheless. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It should be worth noting she was an important character in the movie Snoopy, Come Home.SPNic (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Snoopy's original owner and a major character in the Snoopy, Come Home film, clearly notable. RMHED (talk) 00:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If she's a major character in that, she should be mentioned in that article - the question here isn't whether she should be mentioned in Wikipedia, but whether she should have her own freestanding article. Pointing out that she appears in a film isn't an argument for her having a separate article, in fact if that is her primary reason for being notable, all the more reason to just mention her in the article about the film and not cover her separately. --Minderbinder (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Minor, non-notable character, certainly no significant coverage in reliable sources. The article is some plot tidbits strung together by listing her infrequent appearances. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 00:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She's the little trivia-haired girl. She can be merged into the Peanuts minor characters. She rates a mention in the article about Snoopy, and of course is already mentioned in Snoopy, Come Home. The way I view it, she's only the answer to a question that nobody's asking ("You mean Charlie Brown wasn't the original owner?"). Look at the Peanuts template: "Charlotte Braun • Charlie Brown • Sally Brown • Franklin • Frieda • The Great Pumpkin • Kite-Eating Tree • Lila • Little Red-Haired Girl • Marcie • Patty • Peggy Jean • Peppermint Patty • Pig-Pen • Schroeder • Shermy • Snoopy • Snoopy's siblings • Linus van Pelt • Lucy van Pelt • Rerun van Pelt • Violet • Woodstock • Minor characters". There are many memorable characters who became notable outside of the comic strip. Then there are posers, put in there because someone wanted to be the first to give them their own article. Charlotte Braun? Peggy Jean? Shermy? Give me a break. Mandsford (talk) 02:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the page. It is fine the way it is. 68.34.4.143 (talk) 03:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom too minor to be noteworthy. JBsupreme (talk) 04:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of minor characters in Peanuts per ample precedent. faithless (^speak) 04:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of minor characters in Peanuts. Doesn't seem notable enough for separate article. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as WP:JNN and WP:PERNOM are not compelling reasons for deletion, but most significantly, the subject is indeed verifiable through published books and given that we're talking about the original owner of one of fiction's most notable dogs, the information is at worst worthy of a merge and redirect, wich would be a discussion for the article's talk page. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not suitable for merger to comic strip character list because, as noted by SPNic, more siginificant in movies than in comic.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No reason has been given for why this information shouldn't be in Wikipedia. How the information is organised , i.e. whether it should be merged somewhere or in a separate article, can be discussed on the article talk page. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - The character doesn't appear notable enough to deserve their own article but anything regarding the Peanuts comics should be kept Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge To List of minor characters in Peanuts. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge To List of minor characters in Peanuts. I note that the merge has already happened, so at this point I'm fine with just redirecting to the appropriate part of that article. --Minderbinder (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. List of minor characters in Peanuts should be merged itself because it seems to entirely be made up of original research. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 19:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with the sentiment, it seems to be more based on primary sources, mainly the comic strip itself more than OR. While it's bad to rely too much on primary sources, especially when specific citations to collections of strips, or individual dates for the strips, it isn't OR if you can go back to the primary source and verify the info. --Minderbinder (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of minor characters in Peanuts. That's what such articles exist for, after all. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 01:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Snoopy, Come Home, if there is anything that isn't redundant with the main article. THF (talk) 00:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It took less than a minute to find 60+ books that at least mention this character, at least a few would help here just fine. This article can go into detail less appropriate for a movie article as well and can cover anything not deemed notable enough for the movie article. -- Banjeboi 02:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:HEY. Bearian (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recognition of Marital Rape in Pakistani Law[edit]

Long and elaborate essay, full of original research. Probably written for some other use, so possibly a copyvio. Was prodded by me, removed by creator (then prodded again, which I removed, because AfD is the appropriate next step for a contested prod.) gnfnrf (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is almost certainly a copyvio, and so the text should be removed, but I believe that the subject itself is notable enough for an article. I wonder if anyone is willing to save it. SMSpivey (talk) 07:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I believe the problems with this article can be fixed by editing by somebody with a reasonable knowledge of the subject (i.e., somebody who has some knowledge of Pakistani law). As such, it should be brought to the attention of the relevant wikiproject(s), rather than deleted. I see no grounds to believe that this is a copyvio, other than that the style is not appropriate for wikipedia, which is really the only problem with the article. JulesH (talk) 09:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the point of copyright violation: please read the "introduction" that was in the first version of the article. Uncle G (talk) 14:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete soapy, original research filled personal essay. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Obviously a personal essay but has a lot of research and information on a very notable subject Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article appears to come from an external source but that source is not specified. I might change this !vote if the origin of the material is clarified. Looie496 (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've removed the text of the article that seems to be copyvio/original research and am rewriting the article/adding sources. SMSpivey (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Nomination. The article has been fundamentally rewritten, and while the new version needs work, it isn't a clear case for deletion. If it doesn't work out, such a discussion should be had in a new AfD, since nearly all of the commentary in this one is now obsolete. gnfnrf (talk) 02:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Chicago Shamrox season[edit]

Team suspended opeations and is not playing this season. Jc121383 (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article now describes something that does not exist. --MrBoo (talk, contribs) 21:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From the article: "On December 21, 2008 the team suspended operations because of financial troubles, and its players were dispersed in a draft". It looks like the team no longer exists and neither does this season. The information about the team folding is already in the Chicago Shamrox article. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 21:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sudden folding of the team before the season has rendered any season article moot. Reso lute 22:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article basically says they went splat before they could play. The team's article can cover that quite nicely, tendjewberrymud. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is this what they call a snowball? I think an admin can close this one. All editors involved in this page have chimed in. Mitico (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He shoots, he scores. Delete Mandsford (talk) 02:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there's no season, there's no article. Also a major need to update the Shamrox main article to de-present tense the team as currently existing. Nate • (chatter) 05:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proper Format for Titles of Politicians, Academic Degrees, Numerals and Time for print and online media[edit]

This article seems to be a how-to guide to AP Stylebook formatting, but as we have a page for the AP Stylebook, I'm unsure of the necessity of this article. Lastly, it's an orphaned page (no incoming links), and unlikely to be found by many readers with such a long and unwieldy title. Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 20:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete its a how-to guide that is redundant to information already in the AP Stylebook article. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 21:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as title is inherently POV, and subject covered elsewhere. JulesH (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary. Who is this intended for? Journalists who work at a newspaper that has no editors? I kinda liked it that the example under "Time" came from "Time magazine". Mandsford (talk) 02:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. LOL WUT. JBsupreme (talk) 04:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BJAODN — yes, I know this is obsolete, but wow. MuZemike 05:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obsolete because it's already covered elsewhere and it has a title so long no one would ever find it in a search. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 04:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taffin Khan[edit]

Being junior chess champion of Guyana is not notable enough, given the very low number of chess players in this country. SyG (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete:Actually I wasn't convinced of the notability of this one. He featured heavily in the 2008 Guyanese tournament which could be considered nationally of note and won the junior championships but probably as a player isn't of a level yet to be worth including. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 20:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Has some sources to draw upon, but not enough. Doesn't meet notability or WP:ATHLETE. Maybe when he gets out of the jr league. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 01:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:ATHLETE says that, for sports in general, a person needs to compete at the top level, i.e. not just junior competition, to be notable. We follow the same principle in chess, that success at the senior level is required. A rough guideline, which has been used in the past, is that this usually means being a Grandmaster or a national champion (men's or women's). So being a national junior champion, while a fine achievement, doesn't bring enough notability. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He won a national competition. It's called "junior", not because the event is not notable, but because of the age of the participants. Calling him not notable because of his age is discrimination. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing discriminatory about it. As I understand it, a younger player is allowed into the senior level chess tournaments if they are good enough. The junior tournaments for players under a certain age are not the top level of competition. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Can't find any independant sources reporting on him. However, being a chess player is obscure and not covered by most publications. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:ATHLETE, has competed at the Guyana National Chess Championships and won the junior category, 1, 2 --J.Mundo (talk) 04:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Guyanese junior championship is a nice achievement, but the restriction on age makes that tournament considerably weaker than the regular national championship, and so winning it is not the kind of achievement which garners notability as a chess player. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is no consensus for an outright deletion of this article. Many who request its deletion cite WP:NPOV concerns, but to the extent that the article has or had such deficiencies (on which I express no opinion), they are in principle remediable by editing. The article has in fact undergone substantial editing since its nomination, making POV-based arguments even harder to assess. Accordingly, these comments count less in this closure (as, incidentally, do the "keep" comments who do nothing but complain about censorship). Similarly, the WP:SYNTH-prone assertion of this being part of a larger global conflict has now been edited out. In view of this, there is currently no consensual basis on which to delete it, but this does not prevent continued discussion about merging or renaming it, as perceived appropriate by editors. Sandstein 07:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008-09 Israel–Gaza Foreign involvement[edit]

This is an extremely blatant POV fork so that an editor who was unable to force his non-consensus POV upon the article '2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict' has free rein to put in whatever that editor wants. For background, see Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Iranian_sources.3F and Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict#.22Temporal_Context.22.3F. This editor will not debate the issues with the consensus of opposing editors, since s/he considers them to be "fascists". The Squicks (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warning that all users commenting here fall under special sanctions[edit]

As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here.

This AFD could, if an uninvolved administrator thinks it warranted, be closed under these sanctions without recourse to the below comments. Hopefully no such action will be necessary. NonZionist (talk · contribs) and The Squicks (talk · contribs), as key parties in this discussion, are both reminded particularly reminded of these sanctions. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

I am happy to debate and I am committed to dialogue. I even attempted to debate on your user page. My participation in the Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict discussion is extensive. In the talk page for the article you challenged, you made no attempt to debate the issues. In the main talk page, there was no consensus on whether the material can be used as the basis for a subarticle -- the subject was not even addressed. NonZionist (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article, from the lead-- "Because foreign powers are involved in the conflict, providing military and/or diplomatic support, the Israeli offensive should not be seen in isolation. It is part of a larger global conflict, involving a series of military operations -- the 2007 military strike against Syria, the 2006 aggression against Lebanon, and the 2003 aggression against Iraq."-- down is one big fat original research synthesis. The creator of this article has a pet conspiracy theory, which he described here, saying that some dastardly gang of puppet masters has a secret evil plan to take over the middle east. Since s/he was not able to shape '2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict' to include his or her theory, s/he created this page. The Squicks (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article presents no theories, only well-established facts. My personal beliefs are not relevant here. The discussion at Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Iranian_involvment_cont. pertains to Richard Perle's 1996 "Clean Break" plan, as published at an Israeli site. Again, this plan is fact, not theory. Not liking the facts presented in an article is not grounds for deletion. NonZionist (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Perle is not God, and just because he wrote a book ten years ago does not mean that every single fracking event in the Middle East in the past ten years has been orchastarted by puppet masters.

The article presents no theories, only well-established facts. My personal beliefs are not relevant here. Marxist professors in the 1960s and 1950s wrote books about critical theory that advocated gay marriage in America. Therefore, all efforts in the years afterward to legalize gay marriage is nothing but a Marxist conspiracy! It's a part of a Marxist master plan to destroy American moral values, as articled by this book. Again, this plan is fact, not theory. Not liking the facts presented in an article is not grounds for deletion. Do you see that? It's the same silly kind of conspiracy mongering. The Squicks (talk) 04:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I say that Richard Perle orchestrated ANYTHING?! Please don't put words in my mouth, Squicks. And why are you even talking about "Clean Break"? It was mentioned in the talk for the main article, but it is not mentioned in the article we're currently dealing with. There is no "therefore". You are seeing something that isn't there.

Let's make your analogy more realistic, Squicks. If a highly influential gang of Marxists with access to the highest circles of power developed a plan to use gay marriage to sow division in America, and gay marriage was subsequently implemented and did prove divisive, then one might reasonably ask to what extent the plan influenced subsequent events. That is not the same thing as saying that that Marxist gang totally orchestrated everything that happened over a ten year period! Using such a hysterical claim as a strawman would indicate an unwillingness to look realistically at the degree of influence the Marxists exerted.

Anyway, thanks for giving me this much debate. It seems to me that some people here are afraid to even raise the issue of foreign involvement, afraid to even ask the question. If that is true, then you have shown more courage than most by daring to respond intelligently to me. NonZionist (talk) 07:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note This article was previously 'proposed for deletion' by me on 15 January. The Squicks (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The previous request was removed by another user without my knowledge. NonZionist (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--In the current form this article is an example of WP:POVFORK and WP:OR.--J.Mundo (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:

This article contains WP:RS material that was moved from the main article, 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. See Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Section_titled:_.22Iranian_involvment.22. It is under development: It will expand as new countries become involved and new sources are found. The proponents of deletion have made no attempt to balance the POV or remedy perceived shortcomings. They've offered no constructive criticism or discussion.
The article casts light on the hidden participants in the conflict in Gaza. Discussing the conflict without mentioning these larger powers would be like discussing the 1960s "conflict" in Vietnam without mentioning the U.S.. The assault on Gaza, moreover, could easily expand into a regional or global war, in which the covert involvement of other powers will become overt. If that happens, the information in this article will be useful as background.
The article addresses involvement and differs from International reaction to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. The latter addresses verbal reaction, which occurs after the fact, and it focuses on parties that are uninvolved. This article focuses on parties that have allegedly or actually contributed in significant ways to the conflict or its resolution.
Suppressing WP:RS information about the context of a situation amounts to censorship. That suppression is inconsistent with the purpose of an encyclopedia and inconsistent with wikipedia policy. See WP:UNCENSORED. Is Israel acting alone, or is it supported by other powers? How can that information not be of interest to encyclopedia readers?
Much as censorship may appeal to pro-war forces, it is ultimately ineffective. In this age of the internet, the information does eventually get out, if not through wikipedia, then through dozens of other sites. But the delay in making the information widely available results in an additional loss of life. For those who sat on the story, there is also a loss of credibility. Wikipedia has an opportunity to be at the head of the curve, promoting the humanitarian philosophy of the original Encyclopedists. That opportunity should not go wasted.
NonZionist (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's WP:SYNTH and extremely POV. Clearly belongs on a blog instead of Wikipedia. Graymornings_(talk) 00:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree completely with Graymornings - this is a POV-fork on topic which is better covered in other articles (eg, articles on the Israeli Defence Force and the equipment it uses, etc). Nick-D (talk) 03:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 03:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatant POV fork, as said above. Bsimmons666 (talk) 03:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is more POV in this article than there was for the entire 2008-2009 US Presidential election. ~~The article isn't even properly formatted.~~ TomStar81 (Talk) 05:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to fix the format, or describe your objection to the format or offer constructive criticism. NonZionist (talk) 07:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the formatting (for what good it will do). TomStar81 (Talk) 08:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No censoring. Brunte (talk) 15:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOV, and is an obvious POV fork of the main article. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Again We should use our common sense to pick a side, as i am sure you will agree with me that nearly any one who goes on wikipedia is clever enough to make his own mind and tell the difference between fact and opinion and wikipedia has a NO CENSORSHIP policy thus this page should remain. NeMiStIeRs (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2009 (GMT)
Delete - but violating NPOV is not a reason to delete. The reason is that this is a WP:POVFORK from another article. If we were to delete articles simply for being non-neutral, we wouldn't have more than a thousand articles. --Cerejota (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Violating neutrality policy is a reason to delete if the very existence of the article is POV. There's no way this article could be written that would make it NPOV, no matter how neutrally we worded it. Graymornings_(talk) 19:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree. Foreign funding of a State is clearly a neutral, encyclopedic topic, that if it warrants its own article should deserve it. This article isn't. It is a WP:POVFORK attempt to eliminate the material on Iranian involvement from another article.--Cerejota (talk) 04:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, let me clarify my wording - I think we're on the same page here. This topic could definitely be presented neutrally if it did warrant its own article, but the intent of this article was bad to begin with, so the article (i.e. its existence) can't be neutral because it's a POV fork. Graymornings_(talk) 09:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Firstly for WP:POVFORK - it's beyond reprieve. And secondly because wikipedia is not a newspaper. Thirdly, if we're going to have a neutral, informative article like this (which is definitely a notable topic) the best way is to salt the Earth Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a "POVFORK" then where is the other side of the fork? TO be a "fork", one needs at least two POV's or tines. This information is presented nowhere else, and is based on mainstream WP:RS. It was moved out of the main article to reduce the length of that article, not to create a separate POV in opposition to the main article. NonZionist (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit that I don't know the intricate details of the history of this article. It would appear to me from it's bias that it has forked from the main article to push a POV. If it was moved from the main article to reduce its length I would suggest that the person who moved it had an agenda (as opposed to the people who called for it to be moved deliberately setting out to make a bias article). Similarly, whilst I accept your comments in good faith (and I hope you will do the same for me) your username suggests that this is an article you may have a personal stake in. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 01:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response, Panyd. I do have a personal stake in the Middle East peace -- as do we all! My taxes go to support Israel, and war-making in the region could draw in the entire world, and could even go nuclear. To fix the problem, we have to know what factors are contributing to the problem. That's why I am making an effort to keep the notable RS information in the article from being deleted. That is my POV and my agenda. Although I created the article, I do not own it: Anyone can edit it, change phrasing, and add or subtract POV. Some of the material already in the article comes from someone with a POV very different from mine.

I'm really disappointed by the knee-jerk rush to delete. It makes me wonder how anything at all political gets published here. Instead of deleting each other's work, shouldn't we be making an effort to collaborate and improve things together?! NonZionist (talk) 03:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject is notable, that the article is currently non-NPOV is not basis to delete, rather it is basis to improve the article. There is no room in the main article for this information, so I would support a subarticle. Though I do think it is not currently NPOV. Nableezy (talk) 01:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do you propose we fix the article? The very foundation of it is rotten. It was created solely to promote a user's own personal POV. See WP:POVFORK. The Squicks (talk) 01:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just as any other article, we go through and remove unsourced information or find sources for it, making sure to keep in mind UNDUE, and try to create an article that presents an encyclopedic account of foreign involvement in this conflict. I think too many people are trying to delete it based on the motives of the creator, but just ask yourself this, is the topic notable? Are there RS that discuss this topic? I think most would answer yes to those questions. This article has a long way to go to be NPOV, but the topic is notable. Nableezy (talk) 02:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I try to make my wikipedia participation a learning experience, so that something positive can be taken away even when deadlock arises. Your comment, Squicks, points to a general problem I find when editing controversial articles, especially articles pertaining to Israel. It is all too easy to stereotype people and assume we know their intentions. Palestinians are often victims of this, and I seem to be a victim of it too -- because I use a taboo word, "Zionist", in my id. But this "problem" is also a great opportunity, an opportunity to move beyond stereotypes and assumptions about motives. You will find that I am reasonable and willing to listen and respond to your concerns about the article. Yes, I have a POV -- I care about justice, peace, freedom, life -- and that inspires my work here. But that doesn't have to be an obstacle. We can still find things to agree on, and, when that fails, agree to disagree. Anyway, I hand the article over to you: Make it your own! But if you simply delete it, I'm confident that someone else will repost it, in some other form perhaps, because the foreign involvement in this conflict really is worth noting. NonZionist (talk) 04:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, problems with formating and POV pushing can be fixed through editorial improvement, thats how wiki works and its not grounds for deletion. I think this issue does deserve its own page as it is only going to grow as an issue worth noting as more facts emerge and these will not be properly addressed if left a sub section on the main article. Work on this article, dont delete it. Superpie (talk) 09:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really think this can be fixed quite rapidly with some editing, deleting seems a little knee jerk because its off to a rocky start Superpie (talk) 09:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article, although it may need heavy rewriting to comply with WP:NPOV policies. The subject (foreign involvement in the 2008-9 Gaza conflict) seems to me a notable one; I don't accept that it's a POV fork of 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, as that article doesn't contain much information on this specific topic (and besides, it's long enough already). The question here is not 'is this article, in its current form, worth keeping?' but 'is this an acceptable subject for an article?', and I would have to agree that it is. Terraxos (talk) 15:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would it be an acceptable compromise if the page was blanked, and started again completely from scratch? The Squicks (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunetly, no. If the page gets blanked then it qualifies for speedy deletion. It is possible for the page to be recreated IF AND ONLY IF the article is rewritten from scratch and presents a Neutral Point of View. Why? Where you planning on rewriting the article? TomStar81 (Talk) 21:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to rewrite the article—a good idea if you can find enough neutral sources—it might be a good idea write an entirely article instead of trying to rescue this one, since it'll essentially be a completely different article. Graymornings_(talk) 09:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It does a disservice to the "2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict" article to have a link to this one at the bottom of the page. This page is rife with grammatical errors, formatting problems, and POV phrases like "U.S.-supplied weapons have facilitated the killing in the Gaza Strip". Really one of the worst examples of blatant POV pushing I've seen on wikipedia.Kaylorcc (talk) 17:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (warning first wiki post ever so if i mess anything up sorry in advance) - ok-this is a complete unnecessary fork as has been mentioned many times. it's not censoring to delete this whole thing completely it is -redundant- heavily from information already available in the main topic. as i've seen its entire purpose has been propaganda based POV from the beginning - example: the amount of money that US provides Israel a year is irrelevant to the involvement in the Gaza war .. another example: where the drone parts are made.. this is completely propaganda to the extreme. i'm surprised that the author didn't mention that IDF's soldier's beef jerky was made in spain and that their fine boots were manufactured in Italy by Versace... and the battery packs came from China.. you get the point. this post presents VERY VERY little NEW information that has not been presented in the main article - actual involvement of various governments has been mentioned and the fork serves very little purpose in it's current form - (did i do this correctly?) Sereneami (talk) January 18 2009 —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

This article actually does discuss things that there is no room for in the main article. Nableezy (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

anything that hasn't been covered in the main article is already under "international reactions". so yes everything in here 90% is already been covered elsewhere. look under syria does it say anything -new- that has not been covered in the main article or the international reactions page? same goes for turkey - nothing new. really if there is tell me what new information they have. again out of everything there is on here.. tell me what relevant information there is here that's not covered anywhere else. the 3 billion aid from the US is not relevant to this particular war - there only for propaganda. the amount of aid israel receives has other pages to go under- not relevant here whatsoever...and again the section under britain is propaganda.. and has very little relevance to this conflict at all --Sereneami (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the main article or the international reactions article cover any type of information that the topic of this article covers. There is no mention of aid or military support given to either Israel of Hamas from other countries in either of those articles. Nableezy (talk) 22:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the main reason I support keeping the article, beyond me thinking the topic notable, is because I dont want this stuff clogging up the main article. There have been attempts to tie this conflict to Iran in the very first sentence of the main article with a citation to an editorial, I personally would rather send all that nonsense to some periphery article and let it be dealt with there. Nableezy (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For this same reason, the page should be improved as the first option, but the information has correlation with the 'parent' article and so if deleted we should find room under the section titled "International reactions" for the inclusion of the 'information' in question. I vote to keep it because i see the world not as a stage for the strong or the battleground for the evils of this world but as a sick place where sick things happens all the time. Cryptonio (talk) 05:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Foreign involvement in the middle east, or something similar. Far broader in scope. Would make for a good article. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I see that others have made significant improvements to the article. Now that much of the POV has been eliminated, it may be easier to reach a consensus on the article status. NonZionist (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chester R. Davis[edit]

Flunks WP:BIO; only reference is from a 53-year-old org chart. NB: There are several Assistant Secretaries of the Army. The first few I checked from the current roster do not have Wikipedia entries, including Davis's current successor as Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial Management), Peter Kunkel. No NYT obituary, no Ghits of note. THF (talk) 20:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His papers are part of the Eisenhower Presidential Library. Having ones' papers archived by a significant library is a pretty clear indicator of notability.--ragesoss (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it just means that the papers are in the library. Lots of non-notable people have papers in presidential libraries. THF (talk) 20:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep find a score of (pay) articles in the NYT referencing him including what is likely his obit. Also in WaPo archives search. [4] establishes him as a banker of some power. Active in American Legion [5] and a bunch more. Notability established. Collect (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see Chester R. Davis in the NY Times. I see Chester C. Davis, who is a different person. Can you name for me a single Senior Vice President of Chicago Title and Trust in Wikipedia? Or, indeed, a Senior Vice President of any bank whom we have graced with a page? THF (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 20:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Assistant Secy's of these departments are major policy making positions and therefore notable, even though there is more than one of them. WP covers not just the present, so every person who ever filled any of these positions is appropriate for an article. 22:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 2009-01-16 22:57:05
[6] (pay) etc. all from NYT for "Chester R. Davis" (this one is definitely the right person as it is about the bank). 381 googlebooks hits. [7] Chicago Tribune featured obit. (over 200 hits in CT archives). Headed fund drive for USO. Still notable. Collect (talk) 23:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete:~~ Keep: You shouldn't of mentioned the lack of sources in your nom, now people are arguing over that detail. The real argument is; that he was one of several Assistant Secretaries and hasn't done nothing extra-ordinary notable when compared with his peers. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Actually sources are the important issue. Notability guidelines are about significant coverage in reliable sources, not doing anything "extra-ordinary". Phil Bridger (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Extra-ordianry", see notable. I have struck the offending comment, statement still rests. Being reliably sourced does not make you notable. As pointed out above, you can prove practically anyone's existence with loads of reliable sources, that does not mean they should have a Wikipedia article on them. If you can find a reliable source stating that this man did do something notable in his career (none of the stuff mentioned above please, that's not notable when compared with his peers), then I'd be happy to change to !vote. Ryan4314 (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The requirement for notability is absolute, not relative. There's no need for any subject to be more notable than its peers. There's no reason why all of these assistant secretaries shouldn't have articles if they all have significant coverage in reliable sources. Note that I haven't said "keep" here, because I haven't seen evidence of notability, but I'm just pointing out that this particular argument for deletion is invalid according to Wikipedia guidelines. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Actually I believe it's relative, not absolute. Nothing in Wikipedia is absolute, it all requires some common sense consideration. If it were absolute that would mean anyone with significant coverage in reliable sources would be totally justified in having an article. Inclusion is actually validated by consensus (like this AFD).
        We're getting off topic here, and I don't fancy an argument just for the sake of it. I can't see you changing your mind, so it's best to just leave it at; "you believe what you believe and I'll believe what I believe", it wont matter until were both !voting on an AFD like the one described. Ryan4314 (talk) 06:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Your belief is incorrect. You should read Wikipedia:Notability and User:Uncle G/On notability. You have completely the wrong idea of what Wikipedia's criteria actually are. The nominator is quite right to focus on the issue of sources, and you are quite wrong to attempt to divert the discussion onto your subjective estimation of whether someone is important or famous or unique — a discussion that is irrelevant to our Wikipedia:Deletion policy and to AFD. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Calm down mate, I'm not "wrong to attempt to divert the discussion onto [my] subjective estimation of whether someone is important or famous or unique" lol. The first paragraph of WP:BIO says; "The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." Neither of you have stated what makes this guy so special? Ryan4314 (talk) 21:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The important words that you seem to be ignoring are "...or to be recorded". It has been shown that the subject of this article has been recorded, so this applies. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You have ignored my above question numerous times. My answer to yours is; being recorded (or in this case name-checked) does not make you automatically notable. I reiterate; what has this man done that is "worthy of notice, significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". Ryan4314 (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The authors, editors and publishers of the reliable sources cited in the article have decided that this man's achievements deserve attention and to be recorded. That's what we go by in Wikipedia, not our own subjective judgements. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I did not realise the article had been significantly rewritten since I !voted. At that time the article simply stated that he was one of several Assistant Secretaries of the Army and only had one source, a name check on a government list. I agree that these numerous references from various sources indicate he is notable. Well done on the rewrite THF and Uncle G. I also notice that all the "delete" !votes were made before the rewrite, might I suggest politely notifying those !voters and even the nom, as they maybe inclined to change their !vote. Ryan4314 (talk) 00:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: This guy doesn't seem to meet the notability standards. He has done nothing notable to stand out from other assistant secretaries.WackoJacko (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Our standards are the existence of multiple, independent published works documenting this person's life and works in depth, not a Wikipedia editor's subjective opinion of how unique or special this person's achievements were. Uncle G (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:Note. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator is wrong. There are at least 14 sources to be had, and yes that includes at least 4 NYT articles. This person's life and works do appear to be a part of the permanent, public, historical record, and it appears to be possible to create a biography of him, because one has been created. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is substantially better, and about as well-sourced as it could be. Which is why I stand by my delete position. Your edits effectively try to slant the debate; if one adds proper wikilinks, what one sees is a sea of redlinks. WP:NOTNEWS and Wikipedia is not a directory. The passing mention in a number of sources doesn't add up to the significant coverage in multiple, independent sources required for WP:N. That adjective is all too often ignored in these discussions. Davis held a non-notable position, and then was appointed by a non-notable body to a subcommittee of a non-notable committee. This is not encyclopedic: even if Davis qualifies for a Who's Who directory, he doesn't qualify for a Wikipedia biography. THF (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Writing a sourced article is not slanting a debate. Don't be ridiculous! It's your additions of daft links to the article (such as turning "Committee of 49" into a link — clearly without having read the source that supported that content) that are the attempts to slant the debate, if anything. If the activities of this person were so non-notable, there wouldn't be the sources that have noted them, as there are. That you tagged the word "decorated" as questionable, when it was in the very title of the source cited (as well as in the body of one of the later sources), and that you are arguing about "news" coverage on a biographical article covering the achievements, dated between 50 and 80 years ago, of a person who has been dead for over 40 years, shows that you are grasping at straws now with your edits and arguments. Uncle G (talk) 17:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - 1. You can't say that he's notable because he was appointed to a subcommittee of the Committee of 49 and then complain that it's not notable enough to merit a wikilink. One or the other, but not both.
      2. There isn't a source for the claim. So how can I read the source?
      3. I tagged "decorated" as questionable, because there's no indication that it's a notable decoration. Decorated with what? Millions of soldiers get decorated every year. Army brass have rows and rows of decorations. The fact you can't identify the decoration demonstrates my point that it wasn't a notable decoration.
      4. And, need I repeat, WP:NOTNEWS. Just because it's in the local newspaper doesn't mean it's encyclopedic. THF (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Where did anyone say that the subject is notable "because he was appointed to a subcommittee of the Committee of 49"? This is simply part of the biography of a subject who is notable by virtue of significant coverage in reliable sources. The source for this statement is cited at the end of the paragraph, and can be read by consulting the book at a library or by following the ISBN link to Google Books. And are The New York Times, The Washington Post and the Chicago Tribune local newspapers? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        This is ludicrous bootstrapping. The claim is that he's notable because of a putatively significant mention of him with respect to something that everyone agrees is not notable, to the point that people are complaining that I've pointed out that the subject of the story is a redlink. To repeat for the third time, which no one has acknowledged or addressed, WP:NOTNEWS. Stringing together a series of trivial mentions in a series of sources does not add up to notability. If we delete everything in this article that isn't related to something notable, the article would be empty because this fellow is not notable. We don't have a Category:Vice Presidents of Chicago Title & Trust or a Category:Assistant Secretaries of the Army or even an article about the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial Management). THF (talk) 20:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You say "if one adds proper wikilinks, what one sees is a sea of redlinks". "Proper" wikilinks are links to subjects that either have an article or are clearly notable enough to have one. Adding links to subjects that you consider to be unnotable in an attempt to make the unnotability rub off onto another subject is a clear violation of WP:POINT. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough sources have been found to show notability. Even without reading them it is clear that several of these are substantially about the subject, as he is referred to in the headlines, so they do amount to significant coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ponzio's[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ponzio's

Non-notable eatery. One review in a local paper does not amount to significant coverage in reliable sources. ukexpat (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A quick Google search shows that it's very notable in that area.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable company. Schuym1 (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article might just scrape notability, but if it does, the article needs to be fundamentally re-written (or, if no-one is prepared to do it, reduced to a stub). I can't see anything in this article that isn't trying to promote the place. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 21:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 21:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per [8], [9] , [10] which should confer sufficient notability. Also a bunch of NYT mentions including [11] Collect (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the secondary coverage found by Collect.--Oakshade (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Week delete While I think the found sources establish at least some marginal notability for the diner, I am concerned that the article in its current form reads more like an advertisement than like an encyclopedia article. If a fundamental re-write were done to improve the article, I would say keep. Otherwise, I'm forced to give it a week delete until such time as someone rewrites it in an encyclopedic format. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a matter of editing and article improvement, not notability. --Oakshade (talk) 22:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed it to be a notability issue, what I'm saying is that this is a borderline candidate for ((db-g11)) "Pages that exclusively promote some entity and that would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." Yes, it can be fixed by editing and article improvement; but unless someone actual fixes the issues, the article in its current form is better being purged until someone with enough interest comes along to write a true encyclopedic entry. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. —SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to be mentioned by many secondary sources Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per the sources found by Collect. Other issues can be fixed by editing, WP:No deadline. --J.Mundo (talk) 04:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Homescape[edit]

Website seems to have no notability other than being part of an ad network owned by a group of large newspaper chains. There is no news coverage -- significant or otherwise -- that meets WP:INTERNET. Flowanda | Talk 12:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. The single reference provided links to a pay site apparently targeted at real estate brokers, and as such may not be a reliable source and at any rate is difficult to evaluate. A non-notable, non-consumer business unlikely to be much noticed in general interest publications. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:10, 7 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) 00:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see further evidence of notability on this topic. Homescape reference may be self-promotional, or a COI. Recommend additional notable content, and external references to 'newsworthy' information about Homescape. 67.83.85.236 (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete. One article from a periodical is way below notability standards. Difficult to tell if there is any evidence of notability on Google because there are a lot of other things called Homescape, but this AfD has been around for days, and if no-one prepared to supply evidence of notabiltiy, I don't see any point in keeping this. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:WEB. Schuym1 (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep / Rename - As of last week, this company appears to have changed its name to HomeFinder and there were a number of articles around this change. This appears to be a press release that got picked up with articles. Given this I think notability could potentially be established. |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 18:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've had a better look at this article now. It appears this was originally written by an single-purpose editor who has since left in horrible marketing jargon. After the editor left, all the marketing jargon was stripped out. As a result, we're now left with an article that doesn't really say much at all. However, I've now had a look at the scale of the business, and I think there's a reasonable chance of establishing notability. As a result, I suggest Keep if someone is prepared to change this into a worthwhile article, or Merge to its parent company's article if not. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've added some additional references and content. The article is still fundamentally a stub but I would reiterate a Keep and then Rename to Homefinder.com |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 22:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This appears to have been originally written off-Wiki so I'm not going to move it to user-space.. Nick-D (talk) 04:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Necessary Labour Concept of Classlessness[edit]

Original research. WP:NOT a webhost for essays. Sandstein 19:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as above. Eve Hall (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:SNOW. Not a chance this will ever be encyclopaedic. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Chris Neville-Smith Peridon (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Some pieces might be preserved in 100 years... 100 laughs of sorts. I liked the switch from subsumed bankers to quantitative Balance (sic) between Men and Women'... NVO (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Offer to userfy Else we run clearly afounl of WP:BITE on a zero day old page from a one week opld contributor. Let him play with it even if we do not think it is an article. Collect (talk) 21:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. We are not a playground and not a webhost for original research, BITE or not. Sandstein 22:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 00:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Greatest Pharaohs[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:NF. Schuym1 (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 21:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found reference to a documentary by the same name, the same year, which aired on A&E. However, since all sources are subscription-only, I can't figure out whether it's the same documentary, so I'm not voting either way, just providing the possible sources. See: [12]. Raven1977^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 21:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 4 of those 5 refs are just program guides. Schuym1 (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - We can ask someone to dig up #5 using Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange - Mgm|^(talk) 13:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOTAGUIDE, WP:NOTADIRECTORY. JamesBurns (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it's current state is abysmal, but it is also about potential. Did the program win awards? Did any notable people work on it like Zahi Hawass? There just might be potential here, but we'd need the final ref to check it. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That potential source is 196 words long and not completely dedicated to this subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Didn't we already establish that even if a film includes a notable person, that does not make the film notable in itself? JamesBurns (talk) 01:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The 4-part series was actually aired on A&E beginning in July of 1997, not History Channel in 1996. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per now greatly expanded and sourced article which shows that the film meets the general notability guidelines of film notability in that it the film is part of the sylabus at accredited universities and colleges as part of anthropology and archaeology courses. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After the improvements by Michael Q Schmidt, sourcing and notability are no longer a problem. Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 06:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Expanded article shows it's been used to teach academic courses which means it meets criteria. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7. I don't care that A7 doesn't cover this specific article type, it's unsourced and a ~~silly~~ unnecessary addition to the project. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Liebowitz Day"[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/"Liebowitz Day"

Non-notable, something that was made up one day, references are all self-refs to MC's newspaper. ukexpat (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Midd student here: No reason to delete this posting, if the individual suggesting deletion had attended the college, he would be aware that this is a long-standing tradition. I am in the process of adding more photos and links... give us some time, the individual suggesting deletion made the suggestion about 2 minutes after the article was posted. Geez. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.233.207.153 (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My college has its own holidays and traditions, too, but they don't need their own article. Unless it's gained notability outside the Middlebury community, delete. (Alternately, create a section in the Middlebury College article on "Student activities and traditions," as other colleges have, and merge.) Graymornings_(talk) 19:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, give us a chance to finish writing the article, we just wanted to get a template up. Judge it when you see the finished product. -Creator —Preceding unsigned comment added by RaginAlbanian (talk • contribs) 19:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Non-notable local event. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would have nominated for speedy if there was an appropriate criterion. – ukexpat (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of those reasons why we need to make A7 broader. Not saying that this particular page would definitely meet the criteria, but we seriously need an A7 for hamsters, pairs of pants, made-up holidays, and other stuff that isn't a person, organization, or company. Graymornings_(talk) 00:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you think there's any chance of this article ever qualifying for notability, I suggest copying it to your userspace and submit it to WP:DRAW when you think it's ready. I have to warn you, however, the chance of a college event that has only been running for a few years meeting Wikipedia's standards of notability is very very slim. Sorry, not prepared to wait for finished product, Delete. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, local interest only, not notable. JohnCD (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Would an admin please snowball close and delete this one please? – ukexpat (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are just a few !votes and the potential to merge the material in the school article, I think snowballing this would be a bad judgement. It's better to consider a merge in more detail and close it after the regular 5 days. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Take that, fame-seeking students from McGill University, Quebec. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cunty (drinking game)[edit]

Non-notable drinking game, no references, WP:NFT. Delete. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Strongly suspect inventors of game trying to publicise it. Also remove entry from template. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More student nonsense. Peridon (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - another drinking game made up one day. JohnCD (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 21:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Made up crap. JBsupreme (talk) 04:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete — as a madeup drinking game. Ah, the drinking days… MuZemike 05:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tsunamaclus[edit]

Contested PROD. Non-notable neologism. It's referenced, but the reference is not easy to verify; meanwhile the term gets precisely two google hits - it can't therefore be that popular. role^player 18:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't buy these references at all, esp. given the sophomoric quality of the article. A boy's band's work making it into Webster's Dictionary of Synonyms? Prove me wrong--but with the book in hand, please--and not the 1984 edition, which is the only listed on Merriam-Webster's website. (That is, there IS no 23rd, 2008 edition.) Hoax. Drmies (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two google hits from the same sales website no less. I doubt it also. If someone's trying to popularize this, I can only say that it's too hard to spell, too long to text, too uncertain how to pronounce without sounding foolish. I remember back in the 80s when people, in order to express the idea of "just kidding", would run a hand back over their head, and say what is listed most often as "Sike!!". Nobody was really sure how to spell it (si-eek, psych, sike, psike, etc.). However, until google says, "Did you mean ______", it's clear that this isn't even popular enough to be misspelled. Mandsford (talk) 18:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NAD and WP:NEO#Articles on neologisms. JohnCD (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 21:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Tamfang (talk) 03:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True.Origin Archive[edit]

Obscure creationist website, unaffiliated to any major creationist group. Appears to mainly republish articles previously appearing in more prominent Creationist publications. At time of nomination the article is almost solely sourced to the website itself (sole exceptions are two citation to TalkOrigins Archive pages, neither of which gives more than a bare mention of the website or its creator). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found one reliable source here - they were mentioned in Library Journal. Other than that, I've searched and I can't find anything else that justifies inclusion. I'll hold off voting and see if anyone else can find sources, but I don't think this mention gives it notability on its own. Graymornings_(talk) 18:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have found some weird reviews in Library Journal clearly written by people who weren't familiar with the subject of the book. dougweller (talk) 18:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, it's a prominent trade journal and counts as a reliable source. I don't, however, think that this one mention makes the site notable - in fact, no assertion of notability is even claimed in the article. Graymornings_(talk) 21:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've researched enough into the site that I can safely vote delete. Doesn't look like any other sources are forthcoming, and the article still doesn't claim any notability beyond being mentioned by Talk.origins. Graymornings_(talk) 02:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable website. Schuym1 (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 21:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the only creationary website that talk.origins bothers to respond to. It has many links to replies and rebuttals on True.origins. True.Origins houses articles specifically written to rebut Talk.Origins written by members of the major creationary groups. It also has guest articles written by the same authors and many others of most prominent creationary organizations. While it is not affiliated with any major creationary group, in order to post most of the guest articles it must have approval from the organizations. This proposal is nothing less that blatant, biased, censorship. Christian Skeptic (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. Being mentioned by a notable web site doesn't make this particular web site notable. Wikipedia has plenty of articles on notable creationist sources; this one just happens not to be notable. Think before you accuse Wikipedia users of censorship. It's simply policy. We'd do the same for any non-notable site. Graymornings_(talk) 23:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Skeptic, do you mean the Talk.Origins Archive? They have rebuttals of claims made on several websites besides True.Origin, so that doesn't make True.Origin special in any way.Sjö (talk) 06:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep , major website , perhaps, as mentioned just above, the major one of its sort. As an incidental issue, keeping information about it here makes many of the WP discussions on this topic more manageable. DGG (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a list. It's hardly mentioned anywhere by either creationist or science websites. Seriously, this is just not notable. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Adds no information not already available within other wikipedia articles. Babakathy (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

This is an article about a website that presents arguments against another website (in terms of its own publicity e.g. Wallace). I do not see how it meets any notabilitity criteria. Babakathy (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question DGG, ChristianSkeptic, anyone, how does this website meet the criteria at WP:Notability (web)? Until evidence is shown that it does, I will vote Delete. dougweller (talk) 08:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm surprised that anyone would feel that this proposal is censorship, it's just a non notable web site, I can find no evidence to make feel otherwise. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 15:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable and not worth an article. Aunt Entropy (talk) 18:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, per WP:SNOW. (NAC) --J.Mundo (talk) 02:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Planets proposed in religion and ufology (neé Hypothetical astronomical object (non-scientific))[edit]

Whoa boy. What do you call something that is hypothetical and non-scientific? I'd call it a bad compromise. Inclusion criteria essentially requires original research to determine that the planet is "hypothetical" (rather than fictional) yet "non-scientific" (rather than "scientific"). We have plenty of lists where these things can get merged to, the obvious being List of fictional planets. However, this list seems only to serve as a POV-platform (that is, an illegal WP:POVFORK) for those who are mad that there is no scientific evidence for their imaginary proposals. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Since these planets are claiming to be real based on non-scientific criteria, a merge to Planets in science fiction (to which List of fictional planets redirects) would not be appropriate. The question remains, however, whether this list is a useful way to organize information. Certainly many people have proposed Atlantis-like planets, but they are essentially unrelated to each other. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand per Tim Vickers, below. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move, the title is the problem, not the content. This list does not overlap with Planets in science fiction, so I'd recommend renaming it to Planets in religion, ufology and mythology. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please, please please don't delete this article. I don't like it either, but it is the ONLY way to keep crazy people from swamping List of hypothetical Solar System objects with crackpot planets. Never mind that there's no scientific evidence for any of them, people still believe they exist, and so they're not fictional.Serendi ^pod ous 18:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been BOLD and moved the article to a new name. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but make sure all planets included in the list meet notability and are discussed with NPOV. Conspiracy theories are generally accepted in Wikipedia provided they have been covered in reliable secondary sources, even if the only notable thing about it was the fact that someone debunked it. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but get some sources. Useful article that isn't covered in Planets in science fiction or List of hypothetical Solar System objects - they aren't fiction in that they're not from Star Trek etc., but they're not hypothetical in that the scientific community doesn't recognize them. I don't know if the name change works; it sounds like we're trying to say "Planets and their role in religion, ufology, and mythology." How about Planets proposed by religion, ufology, and mythology or Hypothetical planets in religion, ufology, and mythology? Graymornings_(talk) 18:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Hypothetical' was terrible. It is now called Planets in religion, ufology and mythology which is possibly the best and most accurate title. dougweller (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I think "mythology" in the new title is too ambiguous, as the first thing that "Planets in mythology" brings to mind is mythological accounts of the actual planets. How about "Fictitious planets [not the same thing as 'fictional planets'] in religion, ufology and mythology", or even "Imaginary planets in …"? Deor (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No; people actually believe these planets exist. If we call these planets fictitious or imaginary, then we're just as guilty of POV as those people who say all religions are stupid and that anyone who believes in them is psychotic. Serendi ^pod ous 20:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we need some way to distinguish these planets from the ones everyone can see in the sky. The article doesn't mention mythology at all, so the "mythology" part of the title can just be dropped. "Planets postulated in religion and ufology"? Deor (talk) 20:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That seems fine though I would say, "proposed" rather than "postulated". Serendi ^pod ous 20:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lilith isn't related to UFOs or religion. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it isn't a planet either. And probably should be in list of hypothetical solar system objects, since it was claimed to have been observed through a telescope.Serendi ^pod ous 20:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved Lilith to List of hypothetical Solar System objects Serendi ^pod ous 20:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Worthwhile article outside of the debate rgarding it's name. Artw (talk) 21:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep actually makes more sense than one would guess from its title, I suppose. Meets a need, which I postulate as a reason for keeping an article. Collect (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Agree with above arguments. It meets a need that isn't fulfilled by other articles on planets. The title is close to a catch-all for Planets in non-scientific belief systems.—RJH (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Howden Moor Incident[edit]

A lot of original research went into attempting to "document" this "incident" with the excuses made in the article that the evidence is all classified. No third-party independent sources verify that this is a major incident. Just because Helen Jackson brought it up in parliament, that does not mean we've got ourselves a notable event. Merge a sentence or two to Helen Jackson and Dark Peak if you can find independent media corroboration or the records from the House of Commons. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "Just because Helen Jackson brought it up in parliament, that does not mean we've got ourselves a notable event. " - Why not? Seems like a perfectly fine starting point for establishing notability. Artw (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that said the article definately needs reliable sources in order to meet WP:N - The bibliography here would probably be a good place to start. Artw (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not supported by any reliable sources and, given the nature of the topic, unlikely to ever meet WP:V. Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it is admitted that it was a qy in the House, then there will be records, s there always are. DGG (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could you please find some? Thousands of questions get asked in the British House of Commons each year and are put in writing to Ministers. Few attract any media attention. Nick-D (talk) 06:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep:~~ This article is bad and it is full OR, but the event is notable and therefore worthy of inclusion. Conversely being full of OR is not a deletable offence, saying that; I fully support the removal of any unsourced content, or stuff not reliably sourced. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - topic is notable, per DGG and Ryan. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The only material supported by a reliable source is the parliamentary question, and that's supported only by a link to the parliamentary records which, by itself isn't enough to show that this is notable in isolation (I note that this was a written question, and they normally get much less, if any, media coverage than questions asked during parliamentary sessions). This reference, moreover, doesn't verify any of the UFO material in the article as the minister stated that this 'incident' was a routine military exercise and that the Ministry hadn't received any UFO reports. What reliable sources demonstrate notability or verify that this 'incident' has a significant place in UFO-folklore? Nick-D (talk) 06:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I was wondering this, I did some Googling but what counts as a reliable source in the UFO world lol? I am starting to wonder if we trimmed out all the unreliable content and original research (which I condone), what we would have left? Ryan4314 (talk) 09:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of serious academic papers, books and newspaper articles have been written on the belief that UFOs exist - these cover topics such as what motivates this belief, prominent incidents and the like. If any of these covered this 'incident' they would make a very suitable reference for demonstrating notability. Nick-D (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought about it and I think it's best to strike my vote until we see some improvement of the sources (to the calibre mentioned above). Ryan4314 (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The implications of a source as Nick identifies above is that the article itself would also need to change significantly, moving away from a sequence of events towards a discussion of the nature of the reports and their impact. I think that would more usefully fit into an article about spurious UFO reports in general, rather than the specific about one.

Getting hold of anything credible which does anything more than identify this as one of many spurious reports is probably going to be the difficulty. Conspiracy headbangers are reporting these kind of things with monotonous regularity, it keeps duty COs occupied at weekends.

ALR (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:V because there is only one source, ~~which itself may not pass WP:RS~~, thus WP:N also fails. Mjroots (talk) 09:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hansard, as an official government record, clearly passes WP:RS. What it does not pass, I think, is the requirement in WP:N that the sources in question be secondary sources. JulesH (talk) 09:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - My error, have struck that section. Mjroots (talk) 09:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, it's perfectly secondary. The government had nothing to do with the people who directly claimed to have observed the incident. If it fails WP:N it is because it lacks MULTIPLE secondary sources (two refs from the same source are still ONE source). - Mgm|^(talk) 13:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:N would absolutely be met if the references in national and local newspapers mentioned by the article (and in the bibliography to the David Clarke article above) could be confirmed. Google has not been helpful on that. Artw (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is recent enough that we could expect reliable sources to be available online if the subject was notable, but searching for "Howden Moor"+ufo in the Google News archive finds nothing, Google Books only finds a "believe or not" piece of trivia and a Google web search finds nothing outside of conspiracy theory forums and blogs. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the scrambling of aircraft, extensive searching and the mere fact of clasification combine to provide a decent amount of notability. A Google search does turn up a few sources; it appears to be well enough known amongst those who follow such events. Here is one source discussing the subject in great detail (it calls it "what was to become one of the most controversial incidents in British UFOlogy"), this looks pretty reliable and talks of 999 reports of a large explosion the source of which was never identified - something I find notable given the attempts to do so - so, in short, there is some real evidence of this being a notable incident. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Independent; reliable; non-trivial; I can find all three, but not in the same source. - Eldereft (cont.) 06:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep (reluctantly) -- I do not believe in flying saucers, but some people do passionately. There appear to be credible sources for this, though more citations are needed. The allusions to "lack of official sources" should be removed: this is typical conspiracy theory stuff. The rational explanation is that official sources are not available either (a) becasue there are none or (b) due to the normal 30-year rule, though this is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. I suspect that if the article is deleted, it will be recreated under anotehr name by those who believe in UFOs. It may thus be better to keep the present article, and get it properly sourced, ideally with any explanation that may exist for the allegedly observed phenomenon. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a parlimentary question on low flying training does not make the article notable. Happy to change to keep if it had any sources about sightings, police press statements or even local newspaper stories but without it is WP:OR and not notable. MilborneOne (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non story, a potential air to air is reported, investigated and nothing is found. The fact that a politician asked a question in the madhouse about it doesn't make it any less of a nonevent. No evidence of corroboraiton therefore fails notability. ALR (talk) 14:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 00:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Menger[edit]

I do not think that this particular person is notable enough for an entire encyclopedia article. He seems to fail WP:BIO due to WP:ONEEVENT associations. Some UFO believers find him interesting seems to be the only claim to notability this chap has. Merge any useful content to contactee. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep He gets hits from abovetopsecret and torrentreactor (note to self - filter Google while at work), and a trivial mention at How Stuff Works]. His books are apparently out of print, and not widely held in modern libraries. He was active decades ago, so we should not expect too much of a web presence outside of non-RS fringe pages. On the other hand, Aliens in America describes him as among the "most prominent contactees". - Eldereft (cont.) 18:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:BIO1E to Contactee. Springnuts (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep author, and mentioned in a slew of books (over 100). Even made NYT [13] Meets notability requirements for sure. Collect (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add sources, that NYT one in particular. Artw (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you remove Menger, you might as well get rid of Reinhold O. Schmidt, Dana Howard and Orfeo_Angelucci who also played small parts in the contactee movement. From a Ufological perspective, they were notable speakers in events such as Giant Rock conventions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrsdonovan (talk • contribs) 20:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The 99 Google Books hits include books published by Cornell University Press (ISBN 9780801484681), Smithsonian Institution (ISBN 9781560983439), Oxford University Press (ISBN 9780199107827), Indiana University Press (ISBN 9780253190062), Duke University Press (ISBN 9780822324409), and University of California Press (ISBN 9780520239050). Phil Bridger (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is established by the reliable sources found by Phil Bridger. --J.Mundo (talk) 04:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Porn for the Blind[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This is a procedural nomination due to a contested PROD. Per request of nominator, article is about a non-notable website which cannot be verified. I am taking no opinion of this article as I am sending to AfD to assist nominating editor. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. In addition to the Nassau Weekly and Wired articles already listed as sources, there is this. Jfire (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete There is no evidence this is a legitimate charity organization. A "whois" on the domain goes to a student's dorm room. It is also not really notable...how many people use this site? What makes it notable? If it were so notable, why can't the owner even identify himself in the "Wired" article? He uses a pseudonym. No publications relating to blind individuals have mentioned this, and no porn publications have mentioned it either. The Nassau Weekly author was obviously gullible to believe this was real (and I've never even heard of Nassau Weekly - when did that become a standard for information?). Also, maybe you should go to the website yourself and play a clip and see if you think it is arousing. That's not "original research" - that's called common sense...ok... Why would you defend something so much that is CLEARLY a joke website? You honestly believe it's real? Thanks. Angelatomato (talk) 09:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe issue here is not whether it is a joke site, but whether there is enough in the article to meet WP:WEB. Wired obviously is a reliable source as it is one of the biggest tech 'zines out there. The Nassau Weekly reference is debatable, as it is a student-run literary paper from Princeton, and I'm not 100% sure on it's reliability, as it appears to be more of an op-ed paper than a journalistic one. Keep in mind that we aren't debating whether this is a "joke" site or not, but whether this is notable enough of Wikipedia. As I said in my nomination, since I helped in filing the AfD, I'm going to abstain from giving my opinion. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has enough independent coverage. Epbr123 (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThis is a growing industry in it's infancy from everything I've been able to research, which, admittedly, is not much.Critical Chris (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Totally ridiculous, but it does seem to meet WP guidelines. Collect (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep procedural nominations are ~~a nonsense~~, an annoyance, if the user who applied the prod (incorrectly) wanted deletion then it's up to them to nominate. RMHED (talk) 00:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC) Subject seems to have just enough sources to meet the GNG. RMHED (talk) 01:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Snow has fallen. JBsupreme (talk) 04:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why is this joke website so important for you to keep, but widely known people such as the Canadian actress and comedian Deven Green (article i started) was deleted IMMEDIATLY. Also, Alexyss Tylor (YouTube sensation with over 2 million views and several published books) was also deleted after I started her page. People - can you get some perspective?? When I go to rewrite those 2 pages, I hope you all rush to my defense with keeping them on here since this page is about a billion times more ridiculous. Seriously, am I missing something that you all see? I went to Harvard and walked by Dunster all the time on my way to the science center from the T stop - ok? (wait - correction...that was staughton...i forgot... dunster is on the river) Seriously. The people doing this are full of crap...do you want me to personally email him? Will that make you happy? I assume he won't reply. I looked on facebook and the owner is an '06 alum and in my network...so...how would that work for you? i cannot believe I care this much over something so stupid, but it's really am amazing thing to see people defending this joke when I have not been able to create articles about notable people because a few random wikipedians thought they were "NN"...but a million other people know who they are. Angelatomato (talk) 09:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with very slight reservations. Although my previous position was that the site was a non-notable hoax, it seems that the sources linked above indicate notability. Whether or not the site's intentions are legit could still be an up-in-the-air issue, but I think it's also a moot one. Sorry it upsets you, Angelatomato, but I do my best to call it like I see it. If I saw legit sources in the articles you're frustrated about, I'd defend them, and if I didn't, I wouldn't. If a million people know of something, it theoretically shouldn't be hard to prove it. - Vianello (talk) 15:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of position: Notable hoax/joke. - Vianello (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Vianello, what makes a notable hoax? The 2 articles (one of which is a school newspaper) don't call it a hoax. They somehow thought it was real (or were having a slow news day). Also, there is no traffic count for this website, and no hoax magazines or joke websites refer/link to it. Using this standard, then there are probably 100,000 hoax websites that could be added to wikipedia. Angelatomato (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response. I would say being covered by notable news agencies would make something (likelier to be) notable, and being a hoax makes something a hoax, and together they form a notable hoax. As for not being noted by major joke websites - those aren't generally taken to be reliable sources. However, it has been "covered" by SomethingAwful, a fairly major one. - Vianello (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - Is not registered as a non-profit organisation with the US government's official database 78 if nothing else it shouldn't be noted as one. I'm going with a hoax here! And an extremely stupid/offensive one at that Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 23:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if it's not non-profit, I'm very, very close to deleting it as a hoax, regardless of the tally at the end of this AfD. No reliable sources beyond Wired (Metro is a rag, much like the national enquirer in the US), and Wired as a source isn't enough. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the consensus of this AfD, you would delete it as a hoax? And what policy would such a deletion be made under? However ridiculous the site/organization might seem, we have reliable sources that treat it as serious, and no reliable sources that claim it's a hoax. Overriding a consensus here would quickly, and quite rightly, be taken to DRV. Jfire (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd make it under the guide to deletion, which states Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). This article is most likely a hoax, and a rather blatant one at that. AFD is not a vote, and the closing administrator makes the final decision. Why are there no blind person magazines or websites mentioning this site? Why, in fact does the IRS not have any mention of it being a charity? Surely that's enough to suspect things. Have you listend to the clips on the site? They don't use 'naughty words', instead only describing the scene clinically. Let's take any one of the 'descriptions' (which are totally unchecked) - some are blank, and one seems to be a song. Some of them are of the infamous two girls one cup, and one of them is a description, by two college students, one of whom is laughing about the horse being red, about a video where two men receive anal sex from a horse. You cannot be seriously suggesting that this website, released during April Fool's week, is a real, 100% honest website. Try listening to it. I'd be surprised if even a horny blind person could get off to any of it. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yay!! Thank you - a sane person finally speaks. It is obviously a hoax website for all the issues you mentioned (and I mentioned) and you make a good point - the strength of the argument is what matters. Angelatomato (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The problem here is that the article describe the website as a non-profit organization, yet we don't have any evidence of the organization. The website doesn't have any information or a name to contact, WHOIS list the registrant organization as "Patrick Swieskowski", and the sources doesn't provide any information about the individuals responsible for the website.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 00:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hollow Moon[edit]

Hollow Earth at least appears nominally notable. Hollow moon, however, seems to have almost zero notability. This article may be a complete hoax, in fact. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say it might be a hoax? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the entire article is WP:OR except the in fiction section. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Found one source here. Other than that, nothing. Doesn't look like even the conspiracy community recognizes this theory. Graymornings_(talk) 18:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of nuts maybe, but 62K googlehits on ""hollow moon" and "theory" seems notable. [14] and a few hundred more book mentions. Notable even if you do not believe it, but belief is not, last I checked, relevant to WP standards. Collect (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as marginally notable and cleanup. There appears to be several papers in the mid-60s about a "hollow" Moon paradox [15] and references therein. -Atmoz (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as in terms of early SF literature (see references to Edgar Rice Burroughs and H.G. Wells amongst other who reference a hollow moon in some of their stories) the idea had some note. I would also argue that that section ought to be expanded. Agreed that it could do with a re-write in general. Captmondo (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is well written, NPOV and sourced. A recurring theme in SF literature. ~~No idea, though, why this is described or categorised as "pseudoscience" - article doesn't say this idea was ever put forward in mainstream or fringe science.~~ Even if "hollow moon" is not notable as a pseudoscientific theory, it is clearly notable as a SF literature theme. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have re-written the article, putting the "in literature" section first, and removing some duplication from the science section. If this is notable as a pseudoscience theory then the science section can discuss the pseudoscience "evidence" and the mainstream refutation. If this is not notable as a pseudoscience theory then we can drop the science section and the article becomes soley about a recurring theme in SF literature. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we have lotsa "pseudoscience" theories in Wikipedia such as Global Warming, Evolution, Oort Cloud etc. And there are lotsa websites and books bout it too.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems okay to me as discussion of pseudoscience as it's now written. Tim Ross (talk) 16:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon E. Williams[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. Only claim to notability seems to be that he was harassed by Georgina Bruni. That doesn't seem to rise to the level of deserving of a Wikipedia article to me. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in agreement with SA. Non-notable. Drmies (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything useful to Rendlesham Forest Incident or Georgina Bruni. Artw (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 21:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 21:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. dougweller (talk) 19:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ghostock[edit]

Pretty sure that this particular annual convention has not garnered the attention required for a Wikipedia article. Let it gain the fame and notoriety necessary so that third-party independent sources have reported on it and then it can have an article. Do we have a WP:CONVENTIONS notability guideline? We should. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, completely non-notable per WP:GNG. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not assert notability.Synchronism (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (NAC) --J.Mundo (talk) 05:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Glaskin[edit]

Borderline case. Guy wrote a dozen books, most of them not very popular. He also wrote a book that was banned in Australia. Can't see if that really makes him notable. I'm on the fence, but leaning towards this guy failing WP:BIO. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he seems to be a notable enough author in Australian literature. His passing was noted by a newspaper obit. The google news snippet from a New York times article reads "Censorship was not a joke to playwright Gerald Glaskin, from Perth, Western Australia. He insisted th, at he would renounce his citizenship if the Mr. ...", so he notable enough to have caught the attention of the NY Times. Much of his work predates the internet and I suspect might be in paper sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has an entry in Gale's Contemporary Authors, which seals it for me. He also appears to have a profile in this book, but you can't really see much from the Google Books snippet. Zagalejo^^^ 19:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment - His name turns up quite a lot int he Google Book search, but the material is not in viewable so it's hard to gauge the level of coverage. But it certainly is indicative of paper sources being available. -- Whpq (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable per NYT. Notable per books written. Amazon even has the one I checked in the top million. Collect (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the documentation above (and everyone in Gale's various literature Series' is notable), an admission in the nomination that something is borderline notable is a reason for keep not delete. DGG (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is no question as to his notability. There are significances and notability in the local Western Australian literary community alone - and in turn to do with Australian literature. To focus on the labels of sci fi and new age ideas is a total misreading of his context as a writer - first and foremost he was a closet gay who survived a very nasty era in Perth where anti gay attitudes and inhibitions were strong - then he was a prolific writer - the later new age and other tags are peripheral to the body of his main work - see http://henrietta.liswa.wa.gov.au/search/X?SEARCH=Gerald+Glaskin&searchscope=1&Da=&Db=&p=&SORT=D - Satu Suro 02:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable, I had no trouble at all finding secondary works which discuss his contribution to literature, including: Overland vol 164 Spring 2001 p74-77; 169 Summer 2002 p55-58 and Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide 14.6 (Nov-Dec 2007) p17-18, and that was just on a first online search on a journals database with his name. Also a West Australian article on 20 Dec 2001 which says "WA WRITER Gerald Glaskin's A Waltz Through the Hills was one of the most popular children's novels of the 1960s." I'm sure were I to look in literature journals either not surveyed by the database (Academic OneFile-GALE) or before the start of its coverage, I'd find even more references. (If those working on the article wish for copies of these pieces, send me an email and I'll send them by return.) Orderinchaos 08:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources listed above, clearly there is enough secondary coverage of Glaskin and his work that an article is justified. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Private Schools in Bacolod City[edit]

Redundant copy of List of tertiary schools in Bacolod City.

Delete. - Redundant list. User234 (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is not a copy of List of tertiary schools in Bacolod City. The criteria for the lists are different and there are significant differences between the two lists. Yes, there is a good argument for combining them into a new List of schools in Bacolod City page but that is for discussion elsewhere. TerriersFan (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is better as a list. JBsupreme (talk) 04:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful, informative, direct and a better list of all Private Schools in Bacolod City.Mmaasia (talk) 00:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The term "private schools" is used in the Philippines as privately-owned learning institutions that offer kindergarten to high school education. In that sense, the list is not redundant to List of tertiary schools in Bacolod City. Starczamora (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert C. Davie[edit]

Flunks WP:BIO. Google books result turns up nothing notable. The one reference in the article leads to a web page that only makes mention of Davie in passing in the context of the 136th Finance Detachment, which has no article. His 1997 death passed unnoticed by the New York Times. THF (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the prod, then spent a while rewriting the article to better show notability... during which time the AfD was constructed. Have a look. DS (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is substantially better (though the opening sentence seems like Wikipuffery to establish notability; I've added a fact tag). But I'm not persuaded that Davie doesn't flunk WP:BIO. There are over a million U.S. soldiers who won the Bronze Star, and I don't support creating a million orphan articles for each of them. THF (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you assign some inline citations please. I haven't decided on this myself yet, but a common mistake made with articles about veterans is that people assume their claim to notability is based on what award they've received. Their notability is in fact based on various actions they've made in life that may or may not have occured on the battlefield. Ryan4314 (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nick-D (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: also per the nom's searching. Ryan4314 (talk) 09:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NOTE. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Razhel Mengullo[edit]

Fails WP:CSD#A7.

Delete. Non-notable subject. User234 (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7. THF (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. JJL (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts#Notability_guidelines for martial artists. jmcw (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete material IMHO JBsupreme (talk) 04:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Even though this looks like a super-obvious delete or speedy delete, I suspect the article writer could argue that the media coverage plus the awards, etc., ought to constitute notability. But there's no assertion of notability ~~, and I think the reasoning in these cases really has to be "covered b/c notable" not "notable b/c covered" (this is a problem I've noticed in other discussions of notability, too)~~. Jlg4104 (talk) 12:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC). Woops, ok, I realize what I just said sort of confuses the very idea of "notability" as applied in WP ("significant coverage" itself is indeed on of the criteria). I have to think some more, but not about this nomination-- it's still a delete for me. Jlg4104 (talk) 12:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Why doesn't this person qualify under the criterion: "finalist in a significant event"? No one comment on the significance of the events and to make a well-educated final decision the closing admin needs reasons for that, rather than votes without an explanation. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You raise a good question, and I'll have to withdraw my "delete" suggestion while I think about it. I really don't see the point of including every person who wins some medals in some events somewhere, since that could result in millions of (to me) pointless pages, but I don't yet see the WP guidelines sufficient to marshal here in my favor. If somebody could help me with the policies and "caselaw" here, I'd be delighted, since I still see no reason for such an article to exist ("She won this and that and this and that..."-- to what notable outcome? a record-breaking performance? the youngest ever to do XYZ? the first X person to do Y in Z event? etc.) J L G 4 1 0 4 01:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the events in question are not significant. She is an 11 year old elementary school student who won or placed in one of many, many divisions at some local tournaments. Press coverage is trivial, passing mentions in long lists--where is the coverage about her? JJL (talk) 01:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Seems to have won some arguably notable events, I've tried to wikify the page somewhat. I can't find any coverage of these events though so I'm unsure as to whether they actually qualify as 'significant' but considering that one is Olympic I am going by the assumption that my sport-reference-finding powers are not exactly well honed. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 00:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - National winner in the country. Philippine Olympic Festival is one of the anticipated and established national sports events in the country with the full support of Local Government Units, National Sports Association and the Philippine Olympic Committee.Mmaasia (talk) 00:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sports achiever and won numerous medals including national championships in the Philippines. Notable athlete in the country and the official flag bearer of Visayan delegation with secondary sources backing it and with Online Citation in the Philippine Olympic Website; http://2007.philolympicfestival.com/default.asp General points

Reliable sourcing is the most important factor. Assertions of notability must be sourced from somewhere other than the individual or organisation under discussion (see secondary sources); if referencing a tournament title, the organisation which ran the tournament would be the first stop; if the subject of an article is an author, the publisher or ISBN of the subject's work should be given. A single local newspaper article is probably not enough to assert notability, but national mention with some details or multiple local sources that "make a case" for notability. A lack of any sources after looking around is a warning sign that an article may not be notable enough for inclusion.Jjskarate (talk) 03:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Please consult the related AfDs Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Guanzon, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Seth_Jego_Balibalos, and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aaron_Lubrico, and the former AfD for the school at which these kids study, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/JJS_Karate_Dojo. JJL (talk) 04:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Secondary sources are substantial.Pinoynewbreed (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 15:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Jego Balibalos[edit]

Fails WP:Notability.

Delete - Non-notable subject. User234 (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn; more advertising from the people who brought you Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/JJS_Karate_Dojo. JJL (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts#Notability_guidelines for martial artists. jmcw (talk) 23:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why do the events he won 4 gold medals 4 not count as significant based on the guidelines? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- National Winner with online citation: http://2007.philolympicfestival.com/default.asp Mmaasia (talk) 02:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - pass notability guide. General points

Reliable sourcing is the most important factor. Assertions of notability must be sourced from somewhere other than the individual or organisation under discussion (see secondary sources); if referencing a tournament title, the organisation which ran the tournament would be the first stop; if the subject of an article is an author, the publisher or ISBN of the subject's work should be given. A single local newspaper article is probably not enough to assert notability, but national mention with some details or multiple local sources that "make a case" for notability. A lack of any sources after looking around is a warning sign that an article may not be notable enough for inclusion.Jjskarate (talk) 03:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Please consult the related AfDs Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Razhel_Mengullo, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Guanzon, and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aaron_Lubrico, and the former AfD for the school at which these kids study, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/JJS_Karate_Dojo. JJL (talk) 04:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has won several awards up to national level competitions making him notable.Mmaasia (talk) 08:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Were the gold medals received from the Taekwondo World Cup or the Summer Olympics? Starczamora (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Course not, but that's because those competitions don't allow kids and it conveniently leaves out national competitions as competitions that establish noteworthy-ness. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notable perhaps in the local scene, but not in Wikipedia. Starczamora (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines has never won gold medal in Taekwondo World Cup and last summer olympic in Beijing, China the delegation go home empty handed. So, perhaphs we'll consided new breed of athetes and support all the way from local, national up to international competitions.Mmaasia (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Secondary sources are substantial.Pinoynewbreed (talk) 00:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - National Athlete at an early age.空手道 (talk) 07:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable enough for a Wikipedia article in my opinion. — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• ^Speak! 08:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Guanzon[edit]

Failes WP:Notability

Delete - Non-notable subject. User234 (talk) 16:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete-WP:CSD#A7 Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 16:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. JJL (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts#Notability_guidelines for martial artists. jmcw (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This kid appears to have won multiple tournaments. If this is to get deleted, someone should clarify either how the tournaments aren't suitable or how secondary sources backing up the content can't be found. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Article from Visayan Daily Star Newspaper: James Inno Guanzon, team captain of JJS-PHHC campus, ruled the boys’ 12-13 years old kata and kumite category for his two-gold finish, duplicating his feat in the 2nd Philippine Olympic Festival Visayas recently held in Dumaguete. Aside from being captain of the JJS-PHHC karatedo team, the six-grader Guanzon is also a Junior Black Belt.http://www.visayandailystar.com/2008/September/27/sportnews1.htm Mmaasia (talk) 01:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - pass notability guide. General points

Reliable sourcing is the most important factor. Assertions of notability must be sourced from somewhere other than the individual or organisation under discussion (see secondary sources); if referencing a tournament title, the organisation which ran the tournament would be the first stop; if the subject of an article is an author, the publisher or ISBN of the subject's work should be given. A single local newspaper article is probably not enough to assert notability, but national mention with some details or multiple local sources that "make a case" for notability. A lack of any sources after looking around is a warning sign that an article may not be notable enough for inclusion.Jjskarate (talk) 03:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Please consult the related AfDs Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Razhel_Mengullo, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Seth_Jego_Balibalos, and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aaron_Lubrico, and the former AfD for the school at which these kids study, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/JJS_Karate_Dojo. JJL (talk) 04:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has won several awards up to national level competitions making him notable, play hard in martial arts not with the kid.Mmaasia (talk) 08:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable athlete in the Philippines, won many national tournaments and one of the Palarong Pambansa delegate this summer.Pinoynewbreed (talk) 01:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Lubrico[edit]

Fails WP:Notability

Delete - Non-notable subject. - User234 (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy - Again, WP:CSD#A7 Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 16:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. JJL (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts#Notability_guidelines for martial artists. jmcw (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Winning several significant events is one of the notability criteria. Now, I admit I'm not an expert, but someone should explain how the events listed in the article do not meet the critera, instead of making a blanket unsupported statement about the article. - Mgm|^(talk)
- Karatedo Gold Medalist in the Visayas with online citation on Philippine Olympic: http://2007.philolympicfestival.com/pofgames_sportprofile.asp?pofgames=VISAYAS&sportid=16&sportname=KARATE-DO Mmaasia (talk) 02:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - pass notability guide. General points

Reliable sourcing is the most important factor. Assertions of notability must be sourced from somewhere other than the individual or organisation under discussion (see secondary sources); if referencing a tournament title, the organisation which ran the tournament would be the first stop; if the subject of an article is an author, the publisher or ISBN of the subject's work should be given. A single local newspaper article is probably not enough to assert notability, but national mention with some details or multiple local sources that "make a case" for notability. A lack of any sources after looking around is a warning sign that an article may not be notable enough for inclusion.Jjskarate (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Please consult the related AfDs Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Razhel_Mengullo, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Guanzon, and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Seth_Jego_Balibalos, and the former AfD for the school at which these kids study, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/JJS_Karate_Dojo. JJL (talk) 04:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has won several awards up to national level competitions making him notable with online citation on Philippine Olympic.Mmaasia (talk) 08:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No actual arguments for deletion are on the table. Whether it should be split, merged etc. can be discussed on the talk page. Sandstein 07:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requirements for becoming a president[edit]

Duplicate page of "Requirements of a president". Elm-39 (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a duplicate but the main article to be discussed, the other one is a redirect as I've moved the page. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Requirements of a president. –Capricorn42 (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected as such. However, this article ("Requirements for becoming a president") is still better explained elsewhere, on the articles for the specific presidents. Elm-39 (talk) 16:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) The article surely is a copy-paste job, I just thought this could be a nice comparison when I first saw the page. Let's hear some other opinions :) –Capricorn42 (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to President. Actually interesting information. But as it stands it is just a list of information. It would be better to talk about it in the main article on the office of president, then background information on why these requirements are, well, required could be added making a much better article. (I just checked out the President article and "Requirements for becoming a president in different countries" would make a nice section.)Redddogg (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 21:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It could use a better title, but I get the point-- it's a list of the constitutional requirements that different nations have for being the President of that nation. Encyclopedic topic, easily sourced, easy to put links to, no original synthesis or OR necessary because it's usually written out in a pretty concise form. In the U.S., it's about 60 words from Article II, Section 1 ("No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."). I would be surprised if this isn't already in here somewhere, but this type of arrangement helps in the comparison of the legal qualifications for office-holders in various nations. Mandsford (talk) 02:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is. See President of France#Election. President of the United States#Election, Article Two of the United States Constitution#Clause 5: Qualifications for office, President of Germany#Qualifications, President of Ireland#Selection, and so forth. Diving the subject up by country/state/territory/so forth is how sources divide the subject up, too. Uncle G (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep = Yeah, this is a really good idea for an article, and it can be strongly sourced and it's definitely notable! It can have details which would be overkill in the general President article. It probably needs a better title, though, as mentioned above. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 03:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that sources generally don't split the subject this way. I have both read and accrued … erm … let us just say a fair number of sources on the subject of constitutions, and comparative constitutional law, over the years, and I don't recall any of them dividing the subject up this way. The division is usually a vertical one, dividing up the subject by country/state/territory/so forth, rather than a horizontal one such as here, dividing the subject up by individual aspects such as eligibility requirements for an individual office taken across all countries/states/territories/so forth. So whilst such an article would indeed be very interesting, the reason that it would be interesting, to people such as me, is that no-one has yet done this sort of side-by-side tabulation. So it's interesting because it would be novel. And because it's novel, with no sources to guide the presentation of the subject, the question then becomes where to stop with this novel presentation. What gets excluded? Provisions on number of terms? Suffrage? Economic and historical factors? Informal, but nonetheless real and documented constraints such as racial prejudice? Party machines? Where is the line drawn around the subject? And if the answer is to "include everything", how does that not become a total overlap with our articles on the individual presidencies (e.g. President of France), which divide the subject up vertically, as the sources do? Uncle G (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Split into the various articles for these heads of state. I don't see the need to duplicate the information here or the need to divide it as explained by Uncle G. --Deadly∀ssassin 23:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manos: The Grasp of Fate[edit]

Non-notable fan film that fails guidelines at WP:NF. The film has less than 800 views since its YouTube release in August 2007.[16] –Dream out loud (talk) 19:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources in the <40 ghits for the film's title. JulesH (talk) 09:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. decltype 16:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 800 youtube views in 1.5 years alone is a good sign that this is incredibly nonnotable. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note This AFD was apparently not listed until this point of time. Also, an IP user removed the AFD banner from the article with the comment "Article is relevant as there are stage productions of the original 'Manos' mentioned under cult films"[17] which should probably be interpreted as a keep !vote. JulesH (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While "notability isn't inherited" doesn't always apply (WP:MUSIC is one exception). In this case, the existence of a notable stage production is pretty much a given, since fanfilms have to be a fan of something. It does nothing to make the subject of the article notable or otherwise stand out. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 21:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of general notability. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it ever attains the notability of it namesake let it come back. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 00:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless a fan film is considered notable, I don't see why it can't be deleted. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cantonese independence[edit]

Seems non-notable political movement. Article created by a new user with clear political agenda. Renata (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~--The Cantonese independence movement has existed since the 1930's: 1, 2. I can't find any confirmation that the movement is active, except one sentence from this book (scroll down to #27). I don't know if the lack of sources to establish notability of the present movement is due to the Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China. Finally, any POV concerns can be addressed through editing.= Change to Delete per Flopsy Mopsy. --J.Mundo (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Almost no prominent (Western) sources can be found to support this as an independence movement. In order for an article of such topic to exist, somewhat reputed sources needs to be cited. Juding from the two sources presented by J.Mundo above, if the article was to be about historical events in the early 1910s instead of current movement, more needs to be elarboated.--Balthazarduju (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of the article Nationalist320 has added two sources to the article. However, none of them are about "Cantonese Independence", the issues concerning with it or if there is indeed an active movement like this. The cited two sources are also incomplete, as there is only a title of the article and of the publication; no given authors, no page numbers and no links.--Balthazarduju (talk) 07:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article is OR. It was created by a new editor who wants to use WP as a soapbox. Check his contrib history.[18] Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:HongQiGong, I suggest that you stop pretending that Cantonese people are somehow ethnic Chinese, particularly on your user page. Otherwise, I will report you (so that your agenda can be exposed once and for all) and I will make sure that your user page gets deleted! Nationalist320 (talk) 05:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack is very not nice. You can post your comments but don't go after users and attack them in this manner.--Balthazarduju (talk) 07:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete = Wikipedia is not the place for propaganda. Article is a WP:SOAPBOX full of original research and wishful thinking, from an editor whose contributions show that he was screaming madly at other Chinese editors before and after he wrote the article. I can't tell if this is an angry and misguided nationalist or a really clever troll, but in either case the article is propaganda and original research, and needs to go. An article on the early 1900s independence movement would be a good idea; however, I don't know enough to write it. :) In any case, the title of such an article wouldn't be "Cantonese independence," it would either be the (transliterated) Cantonese name of that century-ago independence movement, or it would be the term used by Western historians when referring to it. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're dealing with a very clever troll. He claims to want anyone who goes against the UN Declaration on Human Rights killed, which means he's either trolling or he's advocating killing people for interfering with your right to take a vacation (see Article 24). --Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 05:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow, this is unsourced from start to finish. "Today, few people are even aware of the existence of such a movement." This ain't helping things. Mandsford (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A subject of this magnitude would need to be well-sourced, and there are no sources here at all.--Danaman5 (talk) 06:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After reading through the article, it cites very little sources actually relating to the movement, but saying how the Cantonese are different from other chinese. And also, suffers from strong pov such as Determined to subjugate and enslave the Cantonese people, Qin armies, victorious from their earlier conquests, advanced on modern-day Guangdong and began one of the world's worst genocides.

and Supporters of Cantonese independence still continue to have an extremely difficult time convincing the wider community that the Cantonese people were victims of genocides at the hands of the Chinese., and I haven't found anything calling the Guangdong invasion a genocide. Despite having no links to support it, putting anything in the view of non-cantonese people, or Also, seems to be used for Propaganda and full of OR. Deavenger (talk) 05:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lol, please, I can't be the only one who thinks we are dealing with a troll here...Oh, ok. Thx Flopsy Mopsy. TheAsianGURU (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peace Cup[edit]

Non-notable series of football (soccer) games. WP can not cover every sporting event. Redddogg (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:INDISCRIMINATE #5 -- coverage appears to be solely "routine news coverage of such things as announcements [&] sports" -- specifically who's participating and who won. Little or no attempt (either by the article or the underlying news coverage) to examine the topic in any detail or explicate its significance, if any (heck, it doesn't even explain how the participants are chosen). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep-- Extensive international and significant coverage, [19], ~~New York Times~~, The Washington Times. Finally, eight articles in different foreign language Wikipedia, far from routine news coverage. --J.Mundo (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That NY Times article is actually talking about the Copa America, not this Peace Cup. sassf (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the Washington Times is owned by the Unification Church which is behind the Peace Cup, making its coverage hardly independent. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Keep by precedent to other Wikipedia sports entries. Wikipedia has room for articles about fourth-string centers on NCAA basketball teams, and 20th-place Olympic finishers in speed-walking, it has room for a football tournament played by top teams. Any tournament that Real Madrid and Juventus is in is notable. Unless we're doing a big housecleaning of Category:International_club_football_(soccer)_competitions, this tournament is at least as notable as a couple of dozen others with Wikipedia entries. THF (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: but if we cleaned out Category:International_club_football_(soccer)_competitions we might lose such compellingly-encyclopaedic articles as Copa Independencia & Mohammed bin Rashid International Football Championship (the latter of which is an improvement over the Peace Cup article in that it at least gives a selection criteria). What a tragedy that would be! Bad precedents (that have no basis in policy) will 'keep on keepin' on' unless and until we get the courage to reverse them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a battle to be had at the WP:N level. I wouldn't disagree with changing the existing policies to more explicitly exclude thousands of articles than are currently in Wikipedia (WP:MUSIC is especially appalling in bootstrapping notability), but given the existing policies, it's disruptive to have these futile battles over individual articles where deletion will happen only by accident. It's amusing to see Wikipedia be utterly completist when it comes to Pokemon characters and exhibition football tournaments, yet fail to have coherent articles about basic legal concepts, but I've given up trying to swim against that current. THF (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've yet to see a notability guideline that didn't require significant third-party coverage. It's just that AfDs continually WP:IAR and ignore them, and this becomes a 'precedent'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - international competition that receives wide independent coverage in the media each summer. Participating clubs are from the major leagues around the world. If there is content you would like to see in the article, why not add it? robwingfield ^«T•C» 17:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: what "wide independent coverage"? And how can it be "each summer" when it is only held every second year? And the reason I don't add "content you would like to see in the article" is because nothing of any depth exists in WP:RS on this subject. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Being a member of the Unification Church and also not knowing much about the world of football (soccer) it would be hard for me to judge the real importance of this event fairly. Sports Illustrated, USA Today, and Yahoo Sports News are cited, as well as some others that I don't recognize. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. The event does gain international press coverage and it is slightly prestgious for a preseason competition. There are citations here and the article seems organized. There are also German, Spanish, French, Korean, Italian, Hungarian, Japanese, Portuguese, and Finnish WP articles on this event. Now should we have any articles about preseason tournaments? Probably not. But I don't think this is the place to start deleting. --Tocino 18:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I never heard of it, but if it's been noticed by the folks at Sports Illustrated, and if it's including such teams as Real Madrid and Juventus, it's notable. Mandsford (talk) 02:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nomination states "Non-notable series of football (soccer) games. WP can not cover every sporting event.". The article has plenty of reliable sources to pass the first assertion, and WP:NOTPAPER applies to the second. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete completely meaningless pre-season competition. - fchd (talk) 09:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The citation cover is fairly good and professional teams take part. Seems to cover the basics for a qualifying article. Govvy (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems notable to me. Giant Snowman 17:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable invitational pre-season tournament contested by fully-professional clubs, as is the Amsterdam Tournament. --Jimbo^[online] 23:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pixie Lott[edit]

Delete non notable bio Mayalld (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability not established WP:MUSICBIO. JamesBurns (talk) 02:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all as non-notable case law by clear consensus. Biography also fails rules on living persons.Bearian (talk) 23:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander v. State of Alaska, et al.[edit]

Delete as a WP:SOAPboxing attempt by the plaintif in this case. Mayalld (talk) 14:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My attempt to prod this conflicted with Mayalld's bringing it here. I'm unable to find any reliable secondary sources covering this matter; Google and Google News just turn up the usual legal records (and not many of those). I agree with the nominator about the soapboxing, as well. Deor (talk) 14:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An unreported lawsuit that established no significant precedent; a purely private matter. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Objection OBJECTION TO DELETION verification source/link of information contained in proposed article (http://www.courtrecords.alaska.gov/pa/pa.urd/pamw2000.docket_lst?27022304); (https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?380892); (https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?440408442970955-L_801_0-1). The 1st link will allow immediate viewing, the other 2-links require a US District Court "Pacer" account. Futhermore, it is my guess that neither one of the opponents to the proposed article are impartial or legal oriented. How many Pro Se litigants does either one know who have prevailed in a jury trial against a licensed attorney, especially against a State Attorney General? The proposed article is not a personal opinion or idea, the proposed article is of a factual - verifiable legal nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenneth Alexander (talk • contribs) 15:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC) — Kenneth Alexander (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Kenneth Alexander (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment nobody is claiming that this is untrue. Merely that it is not notable. As such, proving the truth of it doesn't address the fact that this isn't notable, that you have a serious conflict of interest, that the article is written only from your point of view, etc. etc. Mayalld (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's actually not anything like as rare as you would think. The court system is designed to find the truth, not who's best at debating a point, and anyone of reasonable intelligence with enough time on their hands to do the necessary research should be able to represent themselves reasonably. JulesH (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everyone but the creator of the articles. The case existing does not make it notable. Edward321 (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as completely non-notable.TJRC (talk) 15:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While Mr. Alexander seems to have won a well-deserved victory against his state government, I can find no secondary sources that discuss his case or its relevance to anyone beyond those directly involved. Without such sources, the case is not notable. JulesH (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for grandstanding on a not so notable case--and in very non-encyclopedic language (and it's not "legalese" either). Drmies (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Based on the above, I invoke the snowball clause. Let's close this. TJRC (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 00:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Wooreddy's Prescription for Enduring the Ending of the World[edit]

Notability, while the article meets some of the threshold standards of Wikipedia:Notability (books) with an ISBN and available in the National Library of Australia it doesnt meet the basic criteria of being subject to multiple independent reviews, recieved any literary awards, motion picture etc, or a subject of instruction. The author Mudrooroo Nyoongah, got a state award 10 years after the book he doesnt appear to offer any inheritance value to this article. Gnan garra 14:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Gnan garra 14:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. 14 pages of this book are devoted to the subject, and there's more coverage here, here, here and in loads more books and scholarly articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Phil Bridger above, and offer a friendly suggestion that the nominator check Google Books before nominating; often there will be good sources on there that are not in the regular Google web index. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets the notability criteria per the sources found by Phil Bridger. --J.Mundo (talk) 05:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Pascal.Tesson. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lei Liang[edit]

Not notable and looks promotional. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some group shows [20], [21], but nothing major, so fails WP:CREATIVE. And he wasn't an official artist at the Liverpool Biennial, as implied in the lead.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 02:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chesley Sullenberger[edit]

WP:BLP1E. Should be a redirect to US Airways Flight 1549, but not an article on its own.

Then withdraw the deletion, merge any information, and redirect the article. No need for an AFD to do this. Bjelleklang - talk 14:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article has already been redirected and the redirect subsquently overturned by some overeager individual. No, unfortunately this needs an AfD. 78.34.145.54 (talk) 14:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he meets the notability by having co-authored those papers. I think that as more comes out about him, there will be more notability for him. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 14:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as notability has not been established outside the US Airways Flight 1549 article. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC) Keep based on snowball effect and new arguments. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe that the academic and professional work in accident investigation are notable. The crash certainly enhances this, but I believe notability was established before that. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 14:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep His notability existed prior to the recent event for expertise in aviation safety.Synchronism (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Daysleeper. -- Sozi (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He has some important events and accomplishments to his name, even other than the US Airways Flight 1549 incident. I think this article should be included. Chamal ^talk 14:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Mr Sullenberger has now become an historical aviator - the first pilot to successfully ditch a large commercial aircraft with no fatalities. A place in history should equate to one's own wiki page. --Space cadet65 (talk) 14:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then, but at least now we know. Withdraw AfD. 78.34.128.236 (talk) 14:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and snowball it- the guy's notable enough for his own article. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have already withdrawn my AfD nom. 78.34.128.236 (talk) 14:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry. Didn't mean to seem like I was piling on. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Basics[edit]

Wikipedia is not a text book. dougweller (talk) 13:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Instruction guide, textbook, FAQ and catalogue all in one. No encyclopedic value here. Valuable as it may be for someone who is looking for such things, Wikipedia is not the place for them. Chamal ^talk 14:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like a copy and paste from someone's class notes. A fairly long how-to manual. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it appears to be a copy-paste FAQ and glosssary -- Whpq (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Borderline patent nonsense. decltype 17:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above (nonsense, cutting and pasting, unreferenced, WP not a manual, etc.) and the prediction of snow melting rapidly. Drmies (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete heaps of snow has fallen here. The author mistook what Wikipedia was all about. JBsupreme (talk) 04:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this nonsensical 'article.' --Leoboudv (talk) 05:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as long as you love me so. JuJube (talk) 11:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A how-to manual, and not a very good one at that. Tim Ross (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ubertrophy[edit]

Article is on an obscure trophy in a video game, with no sources to provide notability. Failed PROD, as the author removed the tag. Author's only edits have been to this page Parler Vous (edits) 13:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable videogame tournament with no coverage in reliable sources. Website is a myspace page. Wikipedia isn't for things made up one day. -- Whpq (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable game contest. JamesBurns (talk) 01:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G3. Garden. 22:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ghostboy (2010 movie)[edit]

Probable hoax. A google search for the film's title and lead actor produces no hits outside Wikipedia. Prod removed by anon user. PC78 (talk) 13:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 13:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:SD#G3; clearly a hoax with zero results from a search engine test. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. No information exists, verifiable or otherwise. Steve ^{T • C} 15:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Hoax. Schuym1 (talk) 18:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Pascal.Tesson. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Localizationism[edit]

WP:OR and possibly WP:Advertising. Either this is the artist's own term for his own work, in which case it's probable non WP:Notable, or, if it's a more general term, then this article is inappropriate because it explains the topic entirely in terms of one person's work. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless better references produced. No results on a search of the Liverpool Biennial site, but not all artists involved in some way will be notable [22]. If the artist is notable, this should be converted to a much reduced bio. But I rather doubt that he is. Johnbod (talk) 13:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. A quick reading suggests almost all of the article is direct quotation from the artist concerned, and is therefore a copyvio. JulesH (talk) 14:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete since Jules's suspicion is confirmed here. Gotta love the rolling lave and the flying steed that is art, though. Drmies (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, webcontent with no indication of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor evil pants[edit]

Hoax. Check the creator's contributions for plenty of vandalism. This is a contested prod. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 11:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, as nominator. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 11:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability at all, no one named is notable, and no expectation that this anything more than game-playing on WP. Collect (talk) 12:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Savaidis[edit]

Fails to state why they're notable, No reliable and verifiable sources. Just because they're a radio DJ doesn't make them notable. Bidgee (talk) 09:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Bidgee (talk) 09:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep [23] albeit not "very notable." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collect (talk • contribs)
keep [24] show some media interest in her move to a national broadcast program, which in itself is also another factor in establishing notability. Gnan garra 14:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this link indicates that there was an article published in the Adelaide Advertiser in March 2008, but no actual details, just notes the image was used in the article. This snip in September 2006 indicates that shes at least get some coverage over a 4 year period. Gnan garra 15:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Savaidis is now a radio host on 2MMM [25]. Sydney is a major radio market, notability per WP:ENTERTAINER. WWGB (talk) 00:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. I'm finding a number of hits on Google News but they are all to radio schedules which isn't significant coverage. 2MMM link above is broken. The only news hit I'm finding that isn't a schedule is a simple one-line story about her last career move, hardly what would pass as "significant".--Rtphokie (talk) 15:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Update. Link to 2MMM is repaired [26]. WWGB (talk) 22:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wek Keep YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 04:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus with erection[edit]

Article covers single printing of a set of pictures of Jesus with an erect penis. This did not receive coverage outside of a single piece on WorldNetDaily and possibly local newspaper. Contested prod where the remover suggested that it was "interesting" and did not have a policy backed rationale. Suggesting removal per WP:NOTNEWS and failure to meet WP:NOTE (specifically the GNC). Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only notable for being the Outrage of the Day among cable news and trying to rouse up some people, and which quickly flashed by. Every stupid thing some artist with a sophomoric sense of humor does to decipt Jesus like this thing doesn't need attention or an article here. Nate • (chatter) 11:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP does not keep an archive of every editorial cartoon, and this should not be the exception. Collect (talk) 12:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability established the usual way. Even those arguing delete can't help but admit it's notable... Wily D 14:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops, you forgot that "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability." Never mind this article never reaching the requirements of the GNC. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm, it meets the GNG without difficulty. It's probably also worth familiarising yourself with other bits before quoting them. While NOT#NEWS is worth noting de temps en temp, it's not a be all and end all that needs to be applied mindlessly. The issue of routine vs. nonroutine coverage is clearly "would merit usual inclusion". Of course, one can look at the bigger goal, as say "Can we write a neutral, encyclopaedic article?" - here the answer is clearly yes (as we already have). "Is it a asset to the encyclopaedia?" - again, yes. So what's to delete for? Just WP:IDONTLIKEIT is left as an argument for deletion, and it's not compelling in the least. Wily D 14:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One blurb on WorldNetDaily certainly does not meet the GNG. It is not substantative nor significant. Seriously, you're trying to protect a reactionary blip on the radar. This is not wikijoke, this is an encyclopedia. Perhaps this should be mentioned in the article it is related to, the Jyllands-Posten cartoon controversy, but it is not worthy of a standalone article. Another possible merge location would be the Controversial newspaper caricatures list. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 15:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please familiarise yourself with policies before quoting them. Substantive contrasts trivial. The WorldNetDaily story is substantial - not only that, but so substantial that one can't honestly and informedly argue otherwise. Subjects aren't about "worthiness" or "unworthiness" in whether or not they deserve an article on an ethical level - the point is whether or not having an article is a) possible and b) valuable to us. You might well feel it's stupid (and you're correct in that), but that's neither here nor there. We're not supposed to be trying to impose our values on readers (see WP:NPOV), but writing a comprehensive neutral reference work. The Jyllands-Posten cartoon controversy is such an enormous subject that it necessitates many articles (if only to make them loadable in a reasonable time for those of us with 300 baud modulators/demodulators), forcing us to write many spun out articles for simple organisational purposes. Until you forget "worthy/unworthy" and stop trying to impose your values on the reader, it'll be hard to see, but "Does having this article make Wikipedia a better reference work?" has a clear answer "yes". "Does this meet the usual guidelines for what's included?" has a clear answer "yes", and it is because these two are supposed to be the same question. Wily D 15:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The English Wikipedia isn't the only one with an article about this subject.SPNic (talk) 15:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)^{[citation needed]}[reply]
- Why "citation needed?" All you have to do is look at the "In other languages" section. You'll see that it's also available in German, Simple English, and Alemannic? If it's gotten coverage in more than one Wikipedia, I'm pretty sure it's notable.SPNic (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some students publish a silly cartoon as a stunt. They attract attention from William Donohue, Bill O'Reilly, and other usual suspects. Step one does not equal notability. Step two does. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Care to back that up with sources? The article does NOT. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability and WP:NOT#NEWS. A student creates a provocative cartoon and it is published by a student newspaper, it gets mentioned in World Net Daily, a conservative paper. Not every silly cartoon which gets mentioned by conservative bloviators needs an encyclopedia article. Edison (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if people don't riot, pillage, and kill over your offensive cartoon, it's not as offensive as you'd like and not notable either. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - coverage is of a single event with no lasting impression. -- Whpq (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has been on the O'Reilly Factor, which is one of the most watched TV "news" programs in the US. --Raphael1 17:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks the multiple substantive, reliable sources needed to establish notability. Deor (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per, for instance, Deor. This is the only hit on Google news, my yardstick for this kind of thing, and it's from the U of Oregon campus paper. Comparing this to the Danish cartoons is a bit specious, since those are well-covered in the news. This isn't, no matter what O'Reilly claims--of course, if he rants about it continuously this may change, but until then, out it must go. Drmies (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep in mind, that this story is almost 3 years old. Back in 2006 it has definitely reached substantial notability. --Raphael1 19:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't leave a dent in the news archives. Drmies (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a totally notable Free Speech issue.Critical Chris (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Note that it is now much better sourced than when this deletion discussion started, and passes the notability threshold unambiguously.--ragesoss (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing that it's much better sourced. Two blog reports (major blogs, admittedly) have been added to the references (notes 2 & 3), but their focus is on O'Reilly's reaction, not on the cartoon that is nominally the subject of the article. Note 4 is a reference to what? an entire year's worth of the O'Reilly show?—in other words, a useless and unacceptable citation. The reference cited in note 5 has nothing to do with the topic of the article, and note 6 cites the work of another blogger, though this one appears to be a "videoblogger," whatever that may be. I'd like to see some mainstream coverage, please. Deor (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The O'Reilly coverage and the Media Matters reaction constitutes significant coverage. Obviously note 4 is vague, but that's a problem with the article itself rather than the topic's notability.--ragesoss (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable free speech controversy, extending over a considerable period. An absurd use of not news. Some of what's in the news is notable. The citations should of course be improved to be as specific as possible. DGG (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom this is hardly "totally notable" its just a news item. And we're not a newspaper archive. JBsupreme (talk) 04:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would agree with Edison that this is a case of WP:NOT#NEWS. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Notable per reliable sources (O'Reilly/Fox;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 00:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suzuki Kizashi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Wholly unsourced article about a possible planned car from Suzuki. WP:CRYSTAL also applies here. Cirt (talk) 08:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per [27] -- Susuki has announced the car. [28] covered by press. "Suzuki is currently building a new assembly facility in Sagara, Japan, and this car will be built there once construction is complete. Suzuki also intends for all three Kizashi concepts to serve as the blueprints for a future line of flagship vehicles." Clear. Collect (talk) 12:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:N, notability is established the usual way. Wily D 14:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — neuro^(talk) 17:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of phrases from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of phrases from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Despite the original editor's statement to the contrary, this does appear to belong on Wikiquote, and is not encyclopedic content. Ipsenaut (talk) 07:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The section on 42 seems like a very interesting rundown of the history and meaning of the inclusion of The Answer to Life, The Universe, and Everything in Adam's work. The rest is slag. Therefore, I suggest we Merge the "42" section into The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy or (if that article is already to large) rename to 42 (The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy) or 42 (Douglas Adams) and dump the rest. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 08:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a reasonable fork of the main The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy article. The subject is notable, the article is better referenced than most, and the writing is both clear and informative. This is more than a mere assemblage of quotations; instead it also puts those lines into context both in terms of the complex fictional universe as well as real world usage and impact. - Dravecky (talk) 09:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Über-Keep. HH has had a big impact on many people and if the article is deleated there would be no way to find where the quotes came from in an encyclopedic context.

Also: if none of the quotes are notible why wasnt the article removed a long time ago?

Also Also: (to counter CaveatLector) 42 isnt the only memorable quote that people remember and some consider others (eg "almost, but not quite, entirely unlike") more memorable.

Also III: If the article is deleated then it removes part of something that many people concider part of thier culture. rdunn 13:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First you argue that this article has had an impact on people, so it should stay. This argument is null. Then you argue if the article were deleted there would be no way to find where the quotes come from. Wikiquote serves exactly that purpose. And finally you again appeal to the article's importance, which is subjective. I know not everyone uses Wikiquote. Could you suggest why this article needs to be on Wikipedia? Many articles have a link to their page on Wikiquote. Ipsenaut (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: This article has some good stuff in it, but also some rubbish. I'd say merge the minor mentions i.e. "Knowing where one's towel is" to Wikiquote, and merge the big stuff i.e. "42" to the main article. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a collection in itself, its nonnotable. I highly recommend creating an entirely new article for the answer to life, the universe, and everything; as I believe that subject has attained real-world notability, but a "list of phrases from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" is pure fancruft (and I said it) and adds little to the encyclopedia as the topic is too broad and trivial. The information contained within can be used better in other articles (Hitchhiker's guide, 42, etc). Themfromspace (talk) 10:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well written, well sourced, clearly encyclopedic and notable, and a perfectly reasonable themed spin off with the H2G2 set of articles - sits alongside Places in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and Technology in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gandalf61 Tavix (talk) 11:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Though I created the article, I don't think it's quite in the spirit that I originally intended it, which is probably unworkable anyway. The article was probably inspired most by Not entirely unlike X in The Jargon File -- the idea being that the article would be about phrases that evolved meaning above and beyond the original context in the series. The 42 thing certainly has, but the other things are more obscure except to people who are already fans of the series. So most of this stuff is noteworthy in an in-universe context rather than a real-world context. Whether that's good enough for an encyclopedia here, I don't really know, so I'll decline to pass judgement. - furrykef (Talk at me) 12:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The unusual language of these books has had a major influence on certain segments of culture. Article has 4 independent reliable sources, plus a number of other sources that are not independent of the originator of these phrases. A well sourced article about a notable subject. JulesH (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Looking at it, I'd say maybe a rename is in order, since its more of an article than just a list. But aside from that, there's no real reason to delete. Plenty of references throughout, and the imact of the language of HHGTTG is undeniable. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Not an Earth book, never published on Earth, and until the terrible catastrophe occurred, never seen or heard of by any Earthman. Nevertheless, the article is sourced and the subject is clearly notable. The article has been around since 2004 without no one proposing deletion until now.
Keep Sources listed include sufficient reliable sources to demonstrate that the article meets the GNG. Jclemens (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diversity_and_inclusion[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Diversity and inclusion (2nd nomination)

Complete OR, sources either don't mention the "concept", or are advertising. I can't think of a way to turn this into an encyclopedic entry. Dendlai (talk) 06:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC

Delete It appears to be WP:synthesis if not original research. The subjects are already covered sufficiently by Multiculturalism and the other articles linked to the disambiguation pages Diversity and Inclusive. It also appears to be largely redundant given the article Diversity training.Synchronism (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or speedy delete as a copyright violation of http://www.boston.com/jobs/nehra/043007.shtml.Synchronism (talk) 15:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. But I don't see that this page is a verbatim copy of substantially all of the boston.com article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essay, original research (or original synthesis of research, in any case), and hopelessly POV. KleenupKrew (talk) 05:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hippiecore[edit]

No sources in the article. A Google search yields very little. Most likely a neologism. Graymornings_(talk) 04:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a joke. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It looks like it might exist from a google search. But I can't find any reliable sources, just blogs and forum entries. Fails WP:V and WP:RS. --JD554 (talk) 09:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ben 10: Alien Force. MBisanz ^talk 04:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ben 10 Alien Force the Movie[edit]

Explicitly fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has begun. Suggest merge/redirect any useful content to source material's article. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Be bold and merge. The article obviously doesn't have enough material to stand on its own, but covering plans for a film in the article about the source material is common and acceptable. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article for now, as I have just followed Mgm's advice and merged what little was there into Ben 10: Alien Force. When more is known, the article might easily be brought back. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since production has not yet begun with no prejudice against recreation if it is reliably sourced to have begun. The content related to the film at Ben 10: Alien Force could use some sourcing, though. —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite agree. But the merge seemed to make sense, since that is where the information might best be expected to be found. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, no problem with the merge of details. Just not crazy about the "Confirmed by IMDb" kind of wording. —Erik (talk • contrib) 03:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Just changed the merged wording from "confirmed by" to "as listed on". With the film not yet released, the cast is not "confirmed"... simply listed... and only a few can be WP:Verified elsewhere. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:15, 7 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 00:22, 11 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 04:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge and redirect to the main article for the franchise. At this point in time, the movie is not at the stage of development where sufficient reliable sources can be provided to support an article on the subject, but it is an important development in the history of the franchise. At the point in the future where more reliable sources exist for the movie, the content can simply be split out again. -- saberwyn 07:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maxacapan[edit]

I don't see how an ejido deserves an article. For one, it's just a co-op community, not an established city or town. The article says that the town is known for its snails which are actually found in Laguna Catemaco. I say delete or merge with a better article. (Laguna Catemaco) Undead Warrior (talk) 02:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I could see a merge, but I don't think delete is a good idea. The community is mentioned here [29], "Maxacapan, ubicada 6 kilómetros al sudoeste de la cabecera municipal 990 habitantes. dedicados a la ganadería, pesca y agricultura." ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - okay, not sure about the quality of the sources, but it seems to be a separate settlement within the administrative district of Catemaco. see [30] for instance. Catemaco covers 700 square km, which is much larger than typical cities in many places, This map also shows them as separate settlements. Wily D 14:36, 6 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) 00:06, 11 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 04:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears from the available source to be a village. The village also constitutes an economic community, a cooperative. Nonetheless, it eetains the political nature of being a distinct settlement. DGG (talk) 01:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Vaughan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Tyler McQuade

Non-notable person. No references at all in Google to verify that this person exists, is a boxer, or is in any way notable. Previously taken to AfD under Tyler McQuade but deleted via G7 when author blanked article. Somno (talk) 05:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:35, 9 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 00:03, 11 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 04:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources or google hits. Not notable, likely a vanity page. Mitico (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 04:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Joseph[edit]

not notable enough an amateur / NCAA basketball player. Not a statistical leader or starter on the team Mayumashu (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The article is clearly not notable upon and it should be deleted.--Ped Admi (talk) 01:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In the USA, members of Division I NCAA men's basketball teams play on a national stage. Each member of the team receives national (or at least regional) media coverage by reliable, third-party sources,[31][32][33] which is what our notability guidelines for people are meant to guarantee. Trying to determine who's a star and who's unlikely to see much court time is an invitation to speculation by Wikipedia editors, of the sort we're institutionally committed to avoid. All Division I men's college basketball players therefore compete on the highest level of their amateur sport, (and even beyond[34]) and as such meet current notability guidelines. For a more indepth archived discussion, please look here. GoCuse44 (talk) 01:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Joseph is a starter.[35]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:00, 9 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) 00:01, 11 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 04:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems notworthy as a college athlete. Hogvillian (talk) 06:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Defused[edit]

Nom - weak claims but no evidence of notability. Rklawton (talk) 04:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not signed to any major record label, no notable members, no national tour, etc. iTunes means absolutely nuttin'. Graymornings_(talk) 05:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you read the Music Notability page you'll see that this band qualifies. On the Music Notability page it talks about worldwide radio play. And plus, in my opinion the iTunes thing does mean something, but I don't see that in the music notability page. XM638 (talk) 12:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, iTunes isn't radio - it's Internet. Rklawton (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... I love how you don't even read the article but then try to get it deleted. Read it and look at the references. It has a link to the radio station's charts and whatnot. I'm fully aware that iTunes isn't radio. XM638 (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the article - it was silly of you to say that I hadn't since you obviously couldn't know. "DistortionRadio" - isn't radio. It's an internet site. And it's a very non-notable website at that. And it's certainly not an indication of this band's notability. Indeed, the "chart" page you've listed as a reference indicates a whopping 17 page views - two of them mine. Rklawton (talk) 17:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well you acted like iTunes was a radio station, no need to get hostile with me... So I'm curious: The band has been heard by thousands of people worldwide on that radio, that's a cold hard fact that's right on the artists page, and that doesn't count as notability even when the Music Notability page clearly says it is? It's your opinion that Distortion Radio isn't radio, times have changed and a lot of radio stations are online radio stations, this includes XM/Sirius radio who gets a good amount of it's listners from the internet. They license professional music like every other radio station, this band got played, got heard by thousands worldwide. I think that well meets the Notability requirements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)

7. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.

If the references are the problem, I can gladly get more, but this band meets both of the criteria I have mentioned above XM638 (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References are the problem - we need more evidence of notability. If you can't find sources to back up your claims that this band is the "most prominent representative" of a particular style/scene, it's unverifiable. Additionally "major radio network" has a generally-accepted meaning, and a non-notable internet streaming site is not one of them. Graymornings_(talk) 20:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage in reliable sources. Distortion Radio is not a radio station, and to call it anything else is being disingenuous. So I disagree that they meet the requirement of being placed on rotation by a major radio network. What they have is their song being requested and played on a internet music streaming site. I also fail to see any evidence that they are a prominent representative of a style or local scene. If you have additional sources that demonstrate notability, by all means put them forward. I can be convinced by sources. But I cannot be convinced by mere assertion notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:Music. Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I understand where everyone is comming from. However, I do not agree with Distortion Radio not being a radio station or something note worthy and I strongly disagree with the page being closed because of this. I don't see anything on the Notability page that says internet radio or "streaming" disqualifies it. Internet radio sites have to license the music, program the music, have shows, and everything else that the frequency stations do. And I'm not sure what others believe, but a major radio network to me is a station who gets a good amount of listeners or is something that can be heard over a wide range. XM638 (talk) 22:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In a context like this, a "major radio network" would be something like Clear Channel Communications or Pacifica Radio or the BBC. It doesn't necessarily have to be that huge, but certainly many orders of magnitude larger than Distortion Radio. I mean, just about any Joe Shmoe with a few hundred dollars can set up an internet radio station nowadays, including the cost of licensing. Wyatt Riot (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so if I can get ahold of some good references that show that Defused has been heard on other stations that meet this and an online article from the band's town newspaper talking about them would that be enough references? What do I need to get exactly? XM638 (talk) 00:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, just go ahead and delete it for now, I will restart it when I get some really good sources. If that's ok XM638 (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of meeting any of the WP:BAND 12 per above. tomasz. 19:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eng-tips.com[edit]

Procedural nomination. This article was originally nominated for CSD and I find that the allbusiness.com source to be leaning too far toward legitimacy to delete the article. The article is still promotional in nature and could probably still be deletable under G11 criteria. However, I'm taking it to the community to decide it's notability. Trusilver 03:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete.~~ Promotional. No reliable, non-trivial third-party mentions from what I could gather. Graymornings_(talk) 05:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is far from blatant spam. It was written in a neutral POV (even during the version you read). In that version, the article also contained one reliable source. Cunard (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry. I meant "few" reliable sources. Now that some reliable print sources have established notability/verifiability, I'm changing my vote to keep. I now have confidence that this article can be cleaned up and made Wiki-worthy. Graymornings_(talk) 18:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It may be a legit company, but I read the article as a promotional piece lacking notability. ttonyb1 (talk) 05:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Three magazine articles are cited to show eng-tips is notable. Lgmagone (talk) 06:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What can I do to make it non-promotional? I am not intending it to be a promotional article. 71.197.153.187 (talk) 05:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, what should be changed to make it non-promotional? I have cited three separate magazine articles discussing eng-tips.com71.197.153.187 (talk) 05:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding additional sources is not going to change the promotional tone that it already has. The wording of the content in the article itself needs to be changed in order to avoid having it has a promotional tone (see WP:SPAM). It can be as clearly notable as day, but if it's worded like you're trying to sell something, then it's not acceptable in an encyclopedia (this one or any one). MuZemike 06:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is this article promotional? This article has been neutrally written from the version that Trusilver brought the article to AfD. As a neutral, third-party who has no connections with this website, I am having trouble seeing the spam that you, the nom, and the above two deleters have purported to be in this article. However, I have no trouble in seeing violations of WP:BITE in this deletion discussion. Cunard (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So I am hearing three complaints:

It needs to be "wikified" at some point. (Question: Should the article be deleted because it is not wikified?)
Eng-tips.com may not be notable in accordance with wikipedia's guidelines.(Question: Do the references provided make it notable?)
The article reads more like an advertisement than like an encyclopedia article. (Question: If eng-tips.com is notable, should the article be deleted because of poor writing? Or should it remain and get rewritten?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lgmagone (talk • contribs) 16:56, 16 January 2009

Several of the references in this version of the article are not reliable sources. However, this one is. An article should not be deleted due to wikification concerns. Nor should the article be deleted if it's promotional (which it is not). Cunard (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This website passes WP:WEB (criterion 1) with the magazine article from Test & Measurement World. One of the other two magazines is a duplicate of the Test & Measurement World article, but this only shows that the article was circulated to a larger number of people. The third magazine article, though written by a forum manager, was published as a technology article in Light magazine, which is owned by PennWell Corporation. Another two magazine sources are from Sensors Magazine. Eng-tips is also given a very brief mention in Hilary Nickell's Surfing Your Career, which says that this site is a "site of interest" for those wishing to pursue engineering careers. Reliable sources from engineering universities that use this website include page 11 of Biomedical Engineering Society (BMES) written by Herbert F. Voigt, which provides an entire column profiling the usage of this website. This website is used by National Center for Appropriate Technology (NCAT) as well as over 200 colleges and universities in Australia and the United States. There are enough news sources and magazine articles discussing this website to pass the general notability guidelines. Cunard (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. The coverage mentioned establishes the site as notable. The advertising tone can be dealt with through editting. -- Whpq (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Article needs serious cleanup, but the references seem to warrant the article's inclusion. Drmies (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the fifth iteration of the article. The previous four were deleted within hours. The reason why it needs serious work is I am reluctant to put significant time into editing until I know that the article will not be speedily deleted. Lgmagone (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The current version of the article is not being considered for speedy deletion. It is going through a discussion for deletion process which normally runs 5 days. -- Whpq (talk) 19:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That statement is inaccurate. I have gone back through the deletion logs for this article and the article has only been created a single time previously, on January 14th, where it was speedy deleted... improperly I think. Trusilver 19:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lgmagone, cleanup (reference formatting, removing duplicate information, encyclopedic tone) really doesn't take that long. I just did it. Drmies (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first time eng-tips.com was pulled down I tried to create an article for the company that runs eng-tips.com instead, hoping that my error was trying to create an article for a website instead of a company. I attempted three times to create that article before giving up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tecumseh_Group Lgmagone (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Cunard: nice work. Drmies (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Nice save. Graymornings_(talk) 22:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nintendo Entertainment System. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NES Test Station[edit]

Hoax Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - Needs Deleting - Absolute cobblers at best, Complete B*llocks at worst :) Thor Malmjursson (talk) 04:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax, no such product exists. TJ Spyke 04:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 06:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — If not a hoax, then it's surely not verifiable; I cannot find anything on this at all. MuZemike 06:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, for goodness' sake. Here. That took me about 6 seconds on a search engine. I'll bet that's not all that's out there. Dancter (talk) 06:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - But even if you found a reliable source, it could still not be notable enough for Wikipedia. Also, that could, I said only could have been made by the article creator. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I didn't make a recommendation about whether to keep or delete the article yet. But the subject isn't a hoax, and its existence and features can be verified. That was the basis of every "delete" recommendation that had been made. Dancter (talk) 07:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - After examining the creator's other edits, I understand how this article could be considered a hoax. The article could indeed contain some subtle errors or inaccuracies (this seems to be the editor's MO), but I'm quite sure the unit itself isn't a hoax. Look up "Nintendo Test Station". The hoax would have to be pretty elaborate for the device to be fake, and that doesn't fit the pattern. Also, after looking at the pictures, I could swear I've seen these things before. It's as recognizable to me as the Nintendo M82. Dancter (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (and maybe condense) - The authors of Nintendo Entertainment System might appreciate this bit of info. SharkD (talk) 08:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Exactly the reason AfD exists; with sources an article's information is saved when it would be deleted usually. Good find by Dancter and an advisement not to delete before you try to find out if something is not a hoax. This product is too marginal to merit an article, but its use as a troubleshooting tool definitely merits a mention in the NES article. Nate • (chatter) 11:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably best to Merge into Nintendo Entertainment System. The information should be kept, but probably best kept within a larger article. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Bill and Nate. This is appropriate to be merged into the NES article, ~~with~~ may need a bit of rephrasing (changing). Versus22_talk 21:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It certainly isn't a hoax. A simple google search came up with a few third party sources and pics.--Adam in MO Talk 07:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 04:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eric de Sturler[edit]

Delete: Does not meet any of the nine criteria listed in Wikipedia:Notability (academics): e.g., on the editorial board, but not an editor-in-chief, ... Plastikspork (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article was first created by IP 128.174.245.145, which is at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Checking this first version [36] and an edit by "DutchMom"[37] who only edits this page[38], it looks like there could be a WP:COI. Just FYI. Plastikspork (talk) 03:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it's non-notable. FaerieInGrey (talk) 03:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment COI is not reason to delete, and all arguments on that basis are irrelevant. someone able to do so needs to analyze the importance of his actual work. DGG (talk) 04:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- response: Good point, thank you. I just read that section in WP:COI. Plastikspork (talk) 04:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Published in field per [39] which establishes, I suggest, sufficient notability. Collect (talk) 13:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since he does not meet criteria 2,3,4,5,6,7,8, or 9 in WP:Notability (academics), which only leaves criteria 1, but I see no reliable indication of impact by reliable sources. He is not known for any important algorithms or theorems. He has some publications, but so does every academic professor in his field. The WP:BLP appears to cite no sources beyond de Sturler's own webpage, which is questionable for a BLP. 76.199.2.120 (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Since he has well over 300 citations to his pubs, I would say he either meets or is very close to meeting WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed).--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment: Good point, but I would be careful with google scholar counts as they don't filter for self-citation, double counted preprint/tech-report versions of papers, etc. Better (in my opinon) would be to use Web of Science, but if an academic is notable, you would think there would be articles and press releases already written attesting to notability. For example, look at his advisor's page, Henk van der Vorst. Plastikspork (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - On the other hand, Web of Science's coverage of mathematics journals is not that good. However, here are the raw counts: 17 publications, 187 citations (top is doi:10.1007/PL00013391 with 85), h-index = 7. De Sturler's own publication list [40] has 42 publications. It also lists several plenary/keynote lectures and notes that he was on the panel for "Research Directions and Enabling Technologies for the Future of CS&E" at the SIAM Conference on Computational Science and Engineering, 2007. He definitely comes close, in my opinion. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not just that WoS has spotty journal coverage for this area. It's also that in the sort of computational science de Sturler does, a lot of the publications are in conferences rather than journals and WoS doesn't cover them at all; I haven't checked what of de Sturler's pubs are covered but I suspect his two highest-cited according to Google aren't in WoS. So I would be inclined to trust the Google scholar results. However, what I'm seeing in Google scholar isn't quite enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF #1, and there's little hint of a pass of the other criteria. Overall, I see this as a weak delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sedona method[edit]

Procedural nomination - nominator has no opinion. This was originally nominated for CSD. Although it is unsourced, a google search has revealed marginal evidence of notability, and although I'm not convinced it is enough to warrant inclusion, neither am I willing to delete it outright. This article has suffered from it's share of WP:COI and WP:OR issues, and even if kept will require a great deal of work. Trusilver 03:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Borderline G11 as promotional,and no evidence for notability. DGG (talk) 04:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely lacks independent references (even after more than 18 months in the wikipedia), hence non verifiable content.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 04:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem notable. Doesn't seem to provide any meaningful information. Bhimaji (talk) 08:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This particular brand of poppycock comes with personal endorsements from the authors of seriously horrible books. I presume that these are genuine, because I imagine that the legal penalties would be too great otherwise. Clearly this "method" is not notable in any substantive psychological sense, but it does seem likely that many well-meaning if rather dim people buy into this stuff. Do they actually do buy into it? I don't know, so no vote for now. Morenoodles (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep You did not do the book search -- where many separate books not connected to Levenson or Dwoskin refer to the "Sedona method." (83 hits on books.google.com alone). Clearly notable. [41] etc. The mathod may be wretched or not, but it is notable per WP standards. Collect (talk) 13:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That reference just mentions that it exists and roughly what it is. We're not denying it exists. It doesn't seem to me to confer notability, and they've never even tried it and are not a reliable source on it, it's not substantive.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This definitely seems to be snake oil of some sort: a self-help program whose claims are essentially untestable because it neither defines what it sets out to help nor sets clear criteria for success and failure. If you're a Homo sapiens, you probably shouldn't feel good about yourself anyways: self-esteem is self-delusion. But there is no lack of sources referring to this method and discussing it in some detail, which makes it notable by our standards. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give us a substantive third party reference then? Particularly if it's snake oil or pseudoscience I won't change my vote without it, because without it, the article will never achieve balance.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No non-trivial coverage by independent reliable sources = no article. - Eldereft (cont.) 16:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the sources in the article do not establish notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The blurb on this retailer's page for a book titled Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology presents (if you click a "reveal" link) an extract that says .... psychotherapeutic methods of unknown or doubtful validity are proliferating on an almost weekly basis. For example, a recent and highly selective sampling of fringe psychotherapeutic practices (Eisner, 2000; see also Singer & Lalich, 1996) included neurolinguistic programming, eye movement desensitization and reprocessing, Thought Field Therapy, Emotional Freedom Technique, rage reduction therapy, primal scream therapy, feeling therapy, Buddha psychotherapy, past lives therapy, future lives therapy, alien abduction therapy, angel therapy, rebirthing, Sedona method, Silva method, entity depossession therapy, vegetotherapy, palm therapy, and a plethora of other methods. I believe that "Eisner 2000" is Donald A. Eisner, The Death of Psychotherapy (Greenwood Press, 2000): Amazon.com's list of "key phrases" for this book runs: New York, Thought Field Therapy, Past-Lives Therapy, Strategic Therapy, Basic Books, Consumer Reports, San Francisco, Beck Depression Inventory, Alien Abduction Therapy, American Psychological Association, Implosion Therapy, Sedona Method, Spiritual Therapy, Top Dog, Carl Rogers, Jesus Christ, Los Angeles, Reassessing Freud, Emotional Freedom Technique, Entity De-possession Therapy, Fritz Perls, Clinical Research There, Guilford Press, Harvest House Publishers, John Wiley (some of which are surely innocent). "Singer and Lalich 1996" is surely Crazy Therapies, though the first-quoted author doesn't explicitly say that this book treats it. I've half a mind to hand over the $11.95 for this paper (linked from the Crazy Therapies article), which may or may not list it. I don't know what all of this goes to prove, really. Just that at least one researcher has thought that this is sufficiently silly and conspicuous to be worth at least a quick look. Morenoodles (talk) 10:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look, that Professional psychology, research and practice article mentions the therapy once, as one of several methods they eliminated from their study since these methods were not rated by enough of the people who responded to their questionaire for them to get meaningful data. If you want the Pdf please e-mail me. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 04:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DiskCryptor[edit]

AfDs for this article:

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. An admin told me that the article does not meet csd-g4. Schuym1 (talk) 01:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "...the first open source (GPL) full disk encryption system for MS Windows..." As raised before, what source attributes that statement? A self-published source? Sorry, this article was crap before and it's crap after its recreation. seicer | talk | contribs 02:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I just don't understand why all the haters about this article? It is extraordinary difficult to locate a citation for anything being the "first" (let's talk about first human flight for example or the many other things we are traditionally taught that one person developed it first and years later we find out that is not quite the case). I am not aware of anyone else making the claim they were available before DiskCryptor, certainly TrueCrypt came later. In this case I think it makes sense to give the author the benefit of the doubt as no one else has come forward claiming anything different. This is simply not the kind of thing where a source would even exist. Still, it is the case that DiskCryptor was first and is thus notable. Can you tell I am annoyed that we keep going over this? --BenFranske (talk) 05:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep.. DiskCryptor is notable as being first open source disk encryption system for Windows that allowed the user to encrypt the entire disk, including system partition. This is particularly significant and makes the article notable in itself, as there are very few systems which can do this which aren't commercial. As for being a "self published source", AFAIK the DiskCryptor WWW site doesn't actually say it was the first - the date of its release can be confirmed by checking the ITConsult PGP timstamps, which state its release date, and is in advance of any other system of its nature (full disk encryption). ISTM that a lot of the vitrol launched against this software centers around truecrypt fanboy-ism; a product which would have been the first free open source disk encryption for windows, had DiskCryptor not been released Nuwewsco (talk) 09:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless multiple independent reliable sources can be found providing non-trivial coverage of the subject. Sorry if that sounds rather "boilerplate" but this seems pretty straightforward to me. If this product is notable, it hasn't been demonstrated. If sufficient information has been published to source a verifiable article, where is it? Currently there are two sources, one first-party, both self-published. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's dispense with the concerns about notability which is generally a BS argument. If whole drive encryption is a notable topic, then the first open source whole drive encryption program is notable regardless of how popular it is among English speakers. I have added several more citations indicating that DiskCryptor was first, or at least was released prior to the TrueCrypt 5 release which would be the only other contender I know of. You can look all day but people don't often write articles saying that "X was the first" until they are looking back at the history of something some time later. What people say is "X is now available" and these are generally what I have cited. Unless someone can prove that something else was first it makes sense to assume that DiskCryptor was first given what we know. --BenFranske (talk) 18:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Uh, hate to inform you, but notability guidelines is what drives if an article is kept or deleted in this instance. If it's not notable, it's either selected for CSD or AFD. If we were to keep every passing article or crap about everything and anything, this encyclopedia would either be used as a driving vehicle for spam, or be filled with trivial, bad articles. seicer | talk | contribs 18:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, see the policy on verifiability: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: 1. the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject of the article" This seems to fit the case here, the dispute is about notability thus self-published sources should be allowed to show notability. --BenFranske (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Web-site forums are not reliable sources. I'm tempted to remove the self-published sources, given that they are not verified against other credible sources. seicer | talk | contribs 18:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm seriously loosing faith in the place of common sense in Wikipedia here. Obviously using only a web forum as a major source for an article is a bad idea. However, using one to timestamp when a product was made available makes a lot of sense as products are often discussed in forums shortly after the announcement. You have to use your brain sometimes to determine if a source is appropriate or not for the purpose of citing it. In this case it is completely appropriate that a web forum be used to timestamp the arrival of a product. Please cite any policy which specifically states web forums are unacceptable. I would think they would fall under self-published sources which (as above) are valid for discussions of notability. I fail to understand your holy war against this article and am becoming seriously ticked off. Regardless of what I think about notability being BS. The policy is clear, self-published sources are valid for discussion of notability. --BenFranske (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Regarding common sense: I do not think it is sensible to use "X is notable because X says so" as an argument for keeping articles. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Agreed, but I am not saying "X is notable because X says so" that would be if the DiskCryptor people declared themselves notable. I am saying X is notable because they were the first to do something. I have also provided several sources indicating they when X was released as well as discussing why few sources ever say something is first until years later. Not sure what more I can do for you. --BenFranske (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - So be ticked off. Article deletion is a common process, and no one article is more special than another in the spirit of notability and article sourcing. We strive to have articles that are reliably and adequately sourced, that are declared notable, and if there are disagreements, then the article is either repaired or wiped under consensus. Such guidelines and policies are not open for reinterpretation for each and every article, although you are free to attempt to have these guidelines and policies changed through discussion on their respective discussion pages. As a note, you should seriously read Self-Published Sources seicer | talk | contribs 19:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        My question then is this: would this article be notable if it is true that DiskCryptor was the first open source full drive encryption utility for Windows? If not then we are wasting time because I think that is what makes it notable. --BenFranske (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        No. It still wouldn't pass WP:N. Schuym1 (talk) 19:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Please be more specific about why it would not pass WP:N. Is it that coverage has not been significant enough? --BenFranske (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Restart) To quote:

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.

See also: General Notability Guideline for a breakdown of the schematics. seicer | talk | contribs 20:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So the problem is that the "mainstream press" has not reported on DiskCryptor (eg. most references are self-published)? Seems like a bad idea to dump articles because they are under-reported by the "press" even if they may be of legitimate historical interest. This also seems to disadvantage open source software which often receives little press coverage. See CrossCrypt, Cryptoloop, GBDE, Private Disk, etc. for examples of software which would appear to be non-notable, there is lots more. --BenFranske (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If it were of legitimate historical interest, historians would have documented it, and we could base an article on the sources thus generated. Wikipedia is not here to document something that the world hasn't documented, however interesting, significant, unique, groundbreaking, or otherwise you personally, and subjectively, think it to be. This is an encyclopaedia, not a publisher of first instance. If you want this subject documented in the history books, go and write a history book that documents it. And if you find other articles for which proper sources cannot be found to exist (after looking for them, yourself, properly), nominate then for deletion in accordance with our deletion policy. Uncle G (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ISTM that the main arguments for deleting this article are that:
1. It was previously deleted
2. It isn't notable
3. It can't be verified that it's the first system of its kind
Addressing these, however:
1. The reason it was previously deleted for two reasons:
  1. Some users thought it was a copy of another product ("Truecrypt"), which had similar functionality, but couldn't encrypt the disk the Windows OS was stored on (although Truecrypt added this abilit much later).
    It wasn't a copy; and this is pretty clear from the fact it predated the version of Truecrypt's which could do this.
  2. The first version of the article was little more than a copy/paste from its WWW site, so it did make some sense to delete it.
  However, if you look at the article now, even though it's just a stub atm, this is clearly not the case anymore. I'll look into expanding it to make it more comprehensive.
2. This software is notable. As other users have pointed out, it was the first ever open source disk encryption system available which allowed the Windows system disk to be encrypted, which is notable in itself
  This is a pretty major achievement, and one that shouldn't be ignored. There's only one other program which offers this, and it's long since been debated as to whether the licence under which it's released really does conform to the open source definition
3. From the looks of it, a number of references have been put forward to verify that it was released before any other full disk encryption program; a couple were based on forumn entries which, although perhaps not particularly good source of information, do back up the claim. The other references which remain are from independant sources
Given time, I wouldn't mind extending the article to add more information Raftermast (talk) 14:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Discussion forum postings from undentifiable people going under pseudonyms such as "jamie" and "Neowinian", whose reputations for fact checking and accuracy cannot be determined, let alone be determined to be good, are not reliable sources by any stretch of the imagination.
  And you clearly don't understand what notability is. It is not your personal, subjective, estimation of what is important, famous, groundbreaking, or significant in the world. It is Wikipedia:Notability, and it is not subjective. It is not based upon size, significance, popularity, usage, or fame. It is based upon sources. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of slang terms for police officers[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary or an indiscriminate collection of information. This is the 2nd nomination for this list. The last debate was held in 2005 and reached no consensus see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slang and offensive terms for police officers, a lot has changed since 2005. Deadly∀ssassin 01:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A lot may have changed since 2005, but has it done so in relation to this article? It may not always be wrong to put an article up for deletion a second time, but it is often not good practice to do so unless there have been significant changes. The one time I ever did this myself I was able to argue that discussions had moved on, and it was deleted. Wikipedia is not paper, this is an article of some legitimate sociological interest, more than just a dictionary or an indiscriminate collection of information. PatGallacher (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There have been changes in terms of how Wikipedia cosniders notability, and the emergence of other projects like Wikitionary which didn't exist back then. --Deadly∀ssassin 01:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are many such lists on the Wikipedia. --Mr Accountable (talk) 01:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: "Other Stuff Exists" is not a valid argument. See WP:WAX. Tavix (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This list is at least as good as any other. And it's not a dictionary entry, but a pop culture reference. Maziotis (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it as good as any other? In a deletion discussion, it would help to use facts and policies other than personal opinion. Tavix (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What I mean to say is that some people would want to delete this list for other reasons that have no link to wiki quality standards. If you look at it objectively, you will find nothing wrong, just as you won't with others. That was just a reaction, though. My argument to keep is my second sentence. I agree with PatGallacher. This has the value of holding a cultural reference. Maziotis (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you can't find your way to WP:NOT it's amazing you found your way to this discussion. Please don't accuse me of having ulterior motives in the future and assume good faith. Oh sorry, I mean WP:AGF, happy now? --Deadly∀ssassin 02:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply for Maziotis. Thanks for that additional assessment, it helps your argument a lot (at least to me). Tavix (talk) 03:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - DeadlyAssassin, I didn't mean you personally. But I'm sure a lot of people would want this list to go since this is a list about insults, not cartoon dummies. What I meant from the beginning was that if you look at it objectively, a list of dummies is as good as a list of insults. That's what I meant. Please take notice that you are reacting to a response. If you read what I wrote at the beginning, you will see no sting there for anybody. Thank you. Maziotis (talk) 12:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Point taken. Apologies for my sharp reaction, tiredness is my only excuse. --Deadly∀ssassin 13:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Any presently unsourced terms can be removed if reliable sources do not exist, or if the sources exist they can be added. Deletion is not a substitute for editing. Such unofficial terms have been used for police officers and well documented in reliable sources for over 200 years. Peelers: [42] , [43] . "Fuzz:" [44] . "Pig:" [45] , [46] , "County mounty" [47] , [48] , etc. Try Google advanced book search and Google News archive.Edison (talk) 02:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The original nomination didn't mention references, although as others have said the article is completely unreferenced. I don't see how this mitigates against the fact that wikipedia is WP:NOT a dictionary. --Deadly∀ssassin 13:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral as I understand where both parties are coming from and could see it go either way. Tavix (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a dictionary. The info is uncited and I see some mistakes. For instance in "5-0" a 5 liter car engine is not very large, 305 cubic inches vs a 350 cubic inch engine which would be what is really used on a police car. So it looks like people just put in stuff as they feel like it. A lot is also kind of mean-spirited. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the way to deal with mistakes is to edit; the way to deal with lack of citations is to add them. This is a possibly encyclopedic topic, and there's literature on it.DGG (talk) 04:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I mentioned the mistake because it is an example of the carelessness of the article's contributors. I have no special way of finding information on slang expressions for police officers. I certainly have no way of proving one doesn't exist. One the other hand someone could remove all the uncited material. Would you like me to do that? Steve Dufour (talk) 05:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The best' way to do it is usually to source what you can, then purge what you can't. People find this far less objectionable than blind purging. WilyD 20:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fair enough. If I decide to do that I will do a Google search on each item to see if I can find a source for it. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Police officer. Just throwing it out as a possible compromise in the discussion. I mean, when I look into an article about police officers, I would probably except some nicknames/slang terms be mentioned in there; the article is small enough that this stuff could be merged into Police officer without much a hassle as far as WP:SIZE is concerned. MuZemike 06:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Oh, and don't be a dick about it, either! ;) MuZemike 06:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move sourced entries to Wiktionary and organize there using a category. Delete the rest. This isn't a list of encyclopedia articles, just a list of words/terms.--Michig (talk) 07:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for want of any better choice. Merging into "police officers" seems odd for sure, and wiktionary does not actually have a set up for lists ... it should be edited for sources and errors, but that is not actually a valid reason for deletion in itself. Collect (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonsense. Wiktionary not only is set up for lists, it has plenty of them, including many lists of slang synonyms for things, such as d:Wikisaurus:penis. Wiktionary not only has full thesaurus capabilities, it also makes use the MediaWiki software's ability to automatically create lists. After all, a list of words is simply a category of articles, in a dictionary. Uncle G (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sensible, encyclopaedic list, no arguments presented for deletion. WilyD 14:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain what's encyclopedic about it? It's a list of words, the definitions of which belong in Wiktionary. It's all very well for users to call it sociological, but at the moment this is just a collection of slang, and has been for years. As we know WP:NOT specifically says that Wikipedia are not "... slang and idiom guides." --Deadly∀ssassin 13:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Strong Keep) The list will only grow more detailed in time with sources and historical and sociological details. Totally notable from a linguistics and sociology standpoint.Critical Chris (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If this were an article that describes the reason why there are so many slang names for the police and how in broad terms they developed, even the acceptance of their use in society I might tend to agree. As it stands (and has stood for a number of years) this is a list of word definitions and some etymology, you know what they call those don't you?. Calling it sociological and linguistically notable doesn't make it so. --Deadly∀ssassin 13:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What sociological and historical details? Please cite a source that demonstrates that there even are any sociological and historical details to be discussed in an encyclopaedic fashion. Uncle G (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just try to do a simple google search, such as: use of pig slang sociology. I found some. Maziotis (talk) 03:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki Wikipedia is not a dictionary; however, Wiktionary is. Besides, it's rather worrying when there are ((cn)) tags for nearly every item. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Those two arguments were already addressed several times. Maziotis (talk) 12:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, the no citation one was, I don't think the dictionary one has. After all WP:NOT is policy. --Deadly∀ssassin 13:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - To be honest, several can be cited. "Pig", "filth", "bobby", "Plod", and "Sweeney", most likely. I've never heard "Woodentop", though. It's like List of terms of endearment: "baby", "sweetie", "cutie" can be. "Newfoundland"? Not so much. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Absolutely mate, which was why I didn't include unreferenced as a reason for deletion. :) --Deadly∀ssassin 13:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - No one addressed that argument by saying that wikipedia IS a dictionary. That policy was never put into question. What has been argued, by at least three editors, is that this subject is of interest for an encyclopedia, as a legitimate sociological issue. Maziotis (talk) 13:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Is your argument by that rationale then that whether the article is descriptive or not and whether it is against policy can be ignored? --Deadly∀ssassin 13:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Simply, I don't believe that it is going against that policy. That is what some people are arguing. I believe that even while it remains non-descriptive, it is a legitimate list on wikipedia for a set of cultural references. Maziotis (talk) 13:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        "Cultural reference" is often used to disguise the fact that there isn't really an encyclopaedic article to be had. It's a woolly phrase that really doesn't mean anything concrete. The thinking behind it is almost always that cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing causes encyclopaedia articles to magically arise from nothing. Conversely, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary not only is clear policy, it is even our oldest written policy. To argue against it, one should show that an article isn't a dictionary article, or a mere collection of dictionary articles strung together in a list. So where are the sources that discuss the "sociological and historical details" claimed to exist above? Where are the sources that actually discuss something that isn't dictionary article content? What is the "sociological issue" and where has it been documented? Or are you arguing that Wikipedia should be the first to put all of these words together and document a sociological issue underpinning them, in violation of our Wikipedia:No original research policy? Uncle G (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        My argument is that we have a list that is of interest for anybody who is looking for particular references in our culture (slang terms; other social aspects related to police and community). I really can't say I undestand the wiki policy on lists such as this. We seem to have them by the thousands. I did make a reference to other editors claiming a sociological background being developt in the article. As for the necessary sources, I have to say I would be very interested in seeing them myself. Maziotis (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        But what is the reason that this should take place on Wikipedia? If people are interested in doing research on social trends they can look elsewhere and find the data they need. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, this would only be a deposit of those terms. We would have one place to find an extensive list of slang terms for police officers. I don't know if this is right, but it seems wikipedia is used a lot for this. On the other hand, there was the suggestion that the article itself could give an historical exposition on the phenomenon. We are still waiting for the sources. Maziotis (talk) 18:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Copy to Wiktionary whether or not it is kept on Wikipedia, since a copy of this probably should reside there regardless of if it exists here. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 04:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 00:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy M. Chan[edit]

Non-notable, appears to just be another professor with nothing notable for inclusion. Possibly also a conflict of interest, heavily edited by unregistered IPs who only edit this article. The359 (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep prizes, editorships, full prof./research chair. JJL (talk) 03:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 03:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think the University Research Chair at Waterloo may be enough for WP:PROF #5. Google scholar lists quite a few good publications although none obviously stand out by their citation record as great yet (the one with the most citations is the output-sensitive convex hull algorithm mentioned in the article but I like the dynamic convex hull and randomized optimization technique ones, halfway down the results page, even better). For those who complain that algorithm research is just shaving logarithmic factors off of time bounds, that's a pretty accurate description of much of his research, and that sort of incremental work doesn't always lead to high citation counts, but he does it very well. I work in the same area as him and think he fully deserves his place in Category:Researchers in geometric algorithms but it's hard to point to anything specific (beyond the research chair, or perhaps his very young age at Ph.D.) that we can use here to justify notability; nevertheless I'm certain he's someone for whom it will eventually be obvious that he should have an article here and I don't see the harm in keeping it until that time. (Yes, WP:CRYSTAL — but the article, and the bulk of my keep argument, is based on his present accomplishments.) —David Eppstein (talk) 03:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At least there is something worth mentioning about him, in contrast to some other academics who also have articles. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant prizes beyond the university, and a major chair within it. Waterloo is a major research university. It would be helpful to add references to some of his best papers. DGG (talk) 04:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per David Eppstein. Also think that the Chair probably satisfies WP:PROF criterion #5 (named chair or distinguished professor appointment).--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greco-Welsh[edit]

It is a topic that Google can find, but only 13 results, none of which appear at first glance to be reliable sources for the term, some of which are simply juxtaposition of Greco and Welsh. This looks like a non notable neologism. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm about ready for someone to declare it S.O.P. to delete this type of random combination lacking persuasive evidence of notability (as in African-American). JJL (talk) 01:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another non-notable intersection of ethnic groups. This one qualifies deletion as a WP:DICDEF. Tavix (talk) 01:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief! Delete of course. PatGallacher (talk) 01:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tavix's response. It's just a definition of a small group. FaerieInGrey (talk) 03:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Besides what others have said, the article is just about the expression, not about the people. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unlikely to be more than a dicdef and a list of NN people. Bearian (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow--delete. Is this even a group? Drmies (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It has very little content and doesn't assert notability to the topic. Da boch to this article, then. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 03:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I never liked their records.Red Hurley (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a very big can of worms to be opening for something non-notable. -- billinghurst (talk) 02:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People Skipped From the British Throne[edit]

Original research or synthesised original research, plus a somewhat bizarre title. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a ref.What!?Why?Who? (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: They're already noted on Line of Succession to the British Throne. Craigy (talk) 01:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concur that this is redundant--just a complement of the succession list. JJL (talk) 01:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Craigy. Tavix (talk) 02:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This list begins with George Windsor. There are thousands of people who precede him genealogically but are skipped, i.e. all the descendants in the legitimate line of King Charles I. The ancestors of these people were skipped in 1714, and so they are skipped today. This list would more accurately be titled "Descendants of the Electress Sophia who are skipped ..." Noel S McFerran (talk) 05:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for redundancy, the reference (which is all too vague) apparently having been imported from the "Line of succession..." article. Drmies (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment What if I get rid of the skipped on Line of Succession to the British Throne? Then would it be kept- that huge article is too big and people want to split it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by What!?Why?Who? (talk • contribs) 19:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Verify redundant, delete, and redirect -OR- do not delete, but redirect so verification can happen later. In any case, do not delete until it's known to be redundant.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Derwent_College#College_facilities_and_events,. MBisanz ^talk 04:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Club D[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Not really notable by any measure. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 05:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. It seems to be a significant event at the college, but most of the material in this article is unsourced and unnecessary. It'd be better to have a paragraph under Derwent_College#College_facilities_and_events, which come to think of it already does have two such paragraphs (though they're also unreferenced). --Delirium (talk) 06:47, 11 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) 00:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability for this local event. JJL (talk) 01:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Delirium. FaerieInGrey (talk) 03:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge/redirect to the college's article. Pretty much every college has a handful of events like this. Most of them aren't particularly notable; as I don't see any evidence of external coverage, this one doesn't appear to be an exception. Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 09:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mgm|^(talk) 11:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fog Warning (film)[edit]

No notability asserted. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - The article seems to mainly cover g-man's review of the film and most of the edits on the page were done by someone with a similar name. The film is not notable and article would need to be rewritten if the film became notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathan Orth (talk • contribs) 01:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. G-man's conflict of interest and POV have been removed. Have been doing clean-up on the article, and found some decent sources and both positive and negative reviews. Did use the "G-Man" review, but made sure to state it as a blog. Will remove it as I find more. Will continue working on the article... as it now tickles the requirements of WP:NF and I have more to add. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 13:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update I have just completed initial expansion and sourcing to show significant coverage in multiple sources independent of the subject.... for an Indy, it gets as much love as hate. Still needs categories, but it now meets WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Any indy film will have fewer references than a major blockbuster, but this appears to be a significant enough release to warrant an article. 67.83.85.236 (talk) 22:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-- Article has been cleaned, sources have been added, and editors are working to improve the article, Wikipedia:There is no deadline. --J.Mundo (talk) 20:32, 15 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) 00:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment Article has been expanded and sources added since the nomination. New version could benefit from further discussion. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has significantly improved since listing and merits keeping. FaerieInGrey (talk) 03:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neon highfin barb[edit]

Species that "has yet to be scientifically described." Only ref is "personal experience," which is, well, not a ref. Looks like this is completely original research about a species that isn't recognized in the scientific community. Graymornings_(talk) 00:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did search for 'Oreichthys sp. "drapefin"' and did get a few results, but those seemed to not be scientific studies. Per WP:OR Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I also searched with few results, including within aquarium-related sources. As Graymornings suggested, it does seem to be an article made up only of original research. FaerieInGrey (talk) 04:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clean up. There's a lot of unpublished original research here that needs to be removed, but the fish itself does appear to (a) exist and (b) be notable. Google search for "neon highfin barb" (in quotes) turns up only the article and a blog entry apparently by the author of the article. This name is just not in common use, despite the article's assertion that fish are commonly sold under this name in the aquarium trade. On the other hand "drapefin barb" does seem to be a common name for a fish that is available for purchase but which has not yet been allocated a binomial name, perhaps because there is some dispute over which genus it belongs in. Note that these fish are sometimes identified as Oreichthys cosuatis, and that article also mentions the OR regarding the DNA profiling of them. We do have some reliable sources: [49] reports the theory dismissed in the article that this fish is a species of Puntius. In the same magazine we have [50]. Also published (although not available online) is Kalodimos N. Courtship Behavior of the Drape Fin Barb, Oreichthys sp. Tropical Fish Hobbyist Magazine, 2002. I don't know the content but it appears from the description to be an entire article about this fish. JulesH (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have rewritten the article to remove the OR. I would suggest following the close of the AFD it is moved to Drape fin barb, which seems to be its most common name. JulesH (talk) 09:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oreichthys umangii appears to be another article about the same fish, and gives an additional reference which provides a binomial name, although this is apparently yet to be generally accepted. Changing my !vote to merge to oreichthys umangii. JulesH (talk) 10:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Although it occurs to me that I don't have a reliable source stating that these are the same fish. So maybe the merge isn't appropriate. Not sure what to do here. JulesH (talk) 10:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The original article was pure OR, and you did a great job cleaning it up. I'm not sure what to do here, either. It's either the same fish as Oreichthys umangii or it's a species that may or may not have been scientifically described. Depending on that, it's a merge/redirect or a delete. I think we need an expert. I listed it at WP:FISH to see if anyone over there has an opinion, so maybe that'll get us somewhere. Graymornings_(talk) 11:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems to be an article whose time has not yet come. It makes little sense, to me, to have an article about an uncertainly identified animal, unless the article contains all the details necessary to make the identification (which would not be practical or encyclopedic). Better to wait until the taxonomy is worked out. Tim Ross (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stagnant Bog[edit]

A non-notable film about a previously PRODed band. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pretty obvious one too. Tavix (talk) 03:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. FaerieInGrey (talk) 03:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NF. Schuym1 (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourcable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The prevailing sentiment is that this article is not only much too inadequately sourced, but also violates WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, which we tend to understand also as prohibiting the excessively detailed reporting of incidents resulting in very numerous deaths (such as large-scale accidents, massacres or wars), whether or not the people who have died are actually named. I'm amenable to userfying this if someone believes that this could be the basis of a much more concise, well-sourced section in some appropriate article (to the extent that consensus allows for its inclusion and such content does not already exist). Sandstein 07:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Palestinian fatalities resulting from Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip in 2008[edit]

Wikipedia is not a memorial. Nor is Wikipedia a soapbox. While deep sympathy goes out to those associated with the victims, this is not the place to create a memorial to them. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If there is a list of attacks on Israel in 2008 that lists not only deaths but also injuries, then there should be a list of attacks BY Israel in 2008. Or did you nominate List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2008 for deletion as well? Trachys (talk) 00:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment please feel at liberty to nominate any article that you feel does not qualify for inclusion here to be deleted or improved. Please read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment the other article you refer to differs markedly from this one. It has almost no personal names mentioned, and all the attacks have citations. It is about the attacks, and is not a memorial. Do please bear in mind that each WP article stands or falls on its own unique merits. Precedent is not set here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - So then suggest that the names of the victims be edited out. And do you not consider B'Tselem a reliable source? Trachys (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment This article is a list of the fatalities. Thus it contains, by definition, the roll of the dead. Without the names it becomes a statistical list of attacks with qualitative descriptions of the attacks. Individual citations render each wholly verifiable. That is a different article, and one that I would welcome along the lines of the other article you used as an example. I have no knowledge of nor interest in the actual topic. My interest is the article and the encyclopaedia. I expect the source you quote is reliable, but I have no knowledge of it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        It is now a statistical list of attacks with qualitative descriptions of the attacks. The article states the source of the data in a conspicuous manner. Interested users may decide on the reliability of the source. I for one consider the source independent and more reliable than, say, the New York Times. Trachys (talk) 01:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I see it as a substantial improvement, though totals are what is required rather that a list of individuals who are not named by personal attributes. There are still a great many named and non notable individuals, however. I really do not see why you are worrying about the source. It feels rather "Methinks s/he doth protest too much" to me. If you are confident of your source then you are confident. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These type of lists are not memorials or soapboxes. See:

List of insurgent fatality reports in Iraq - Kept after AfD. From the article intro: "Besides serving as an indicator of some of the numbers of insurgent deaths during specific time periods, this article allows readers to investigate the circumstances of those deaths by reading the citation articles. It also allows readers and researchers to investigate patterns in the type of tactics by insurgents and the coalition."
List of Iraqi security forces fatality reports in Iraq
List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2008 --Timeshifter (talk) 01:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS:"In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts". Change to Delete in its current form per WP:COATRACK.--J.Mundo (talk) 02:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this article overall has a problem along the lines of WP:COATRACK, as long as the introduction is kept WP:NPOV. This list, along with

List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2008

2008 Israel-Hamas ceasefire

Timeline of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict

and other related articles provide essential background info to 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict that can not be covered adequately in that article. The alleged cause of the breakdown of the truce on both sides were these types of events. So readers want to know about violent events of both sides before the war. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Contains more detail, for its more limited subject, than List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2008. Perhaps it could be renamed to List of Israeli attacks in the Gaza Strip in 2008? It is an indispensable adjunct to the facts in 'LormaiIi2008'. Note also that Israeli and Hamas forces have taken to propagandizing about how many they have killed, not how few; this article would in that light be a token of Israel's success. As you can see, the soapbox is in the eye of the beholder. Keep the useful facts. Anarchangel (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#MEMORIAL Tavix (talk) 03:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at least in its present form. As an absolute minimum, it needs sources. We do not usually try to keep track of every death in events like these. DGG (talk) 04:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, mainly per DGG. In addition, unless there exists good reliable secondary sources for all of these deaths, I have no choice but to think that this is basically a memorial. MuZemike 06:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a list of attacks, and not a memorial to any of the dead - it doesn't even name them. It needs much better sourcing, but that should be possible using reliable sources, and isn't a reason to delete. Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the article has been substantially altered to remove the majority, but not all, of the roll of the dead. It would be valid for prior !voters to check that they have make their decisions based upon the article as it stands now rather than the article I nominated originally. The closing admin will need to validate with some precision the point from which a consensus on this article should be built. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. B'Tselem is the source for all the entries according to Trachys in a previous comment. It is a very reliable source. The sourcing needs to be explained clearly in the article, though. And the main index pages need to be linked to. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just we like we have List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2008 and List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2009. However, the nominated article needs better sourcing. Imad marie (talk) 08:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is essentially a content fork from B'Tselem. A link to the B'Tselem source can be added as an external link to 2008 Israel–Gaza conflict. -- Nudve (talk) 09:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there is a single page at http://www.btselem.org that separates out Palestinian fatalities resulting from Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip in 2008. ~~If there were, I would agree with you.~~ --Timeshifter (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC) (Note: See later comments.)[reply]

The source this article explicitly uses is this one, although it does detail previous years as well. I don't know, it looks like a mirror. -- Nudve (talk) 10:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at that B'Tselem chart, I now think that the Wikipedia list is much better. The Wikipedia list has a table of contents by month, and there is no need to scroll horizontally for each entry in the chart. With my 17 inch monitor I have to scroll to read the info for each entry in the chart. So, since the Wikipedia article is basically finished, and much improved after going through this AfD, I think it should be kept. It is relevant at this time. Plus in the wikipedia article there is a bar chart that helps see deaths over time. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with Nudve. The only source cited is the B'Tselem website (apart from the lead which gives a very POV background to the conflict and is not really related to the main subject of the article). Looks like this article is a mirror of B'Tselem. Best. Tkalisky (talk) 11:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B'Tselem is the source for casualties in the infobox of Second Intifada. See: http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Casualties.asp It is considered to be a reliable source. The intro can be made more WP:NPOV. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. More casualty lists:

I think that these Wikipedia lists are encyclopedic and relevant. They are WP:NPOV. And they have multiple references for some entries. Very useful for readers and researchers. The list in question here could benefit from some more references for some of the individual entries. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say such lists have entirely too much detail. We don't keep lists of traffic fatalities or murder incidents. They need to be consolidated at some higher level.—RJH (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sean.hoyland - talk 17:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as memorial - if kept, in needs a neutral rename along the lines of the "civilian casualties in the Second Intifada" pair, which should also be deleted IMHO. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It would be a much better idea to have articles called Causalities of the 2008-2009 Gaza Conflict and Causalities of the 2007-2008 Gaza Conflict. This page here is structured as simply a memorial. The use of a single source is also extremely problematic. The Squicks (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Thousands are dead at this point, this is very notable and encyclopedic. More sourced information will be added about the victims in time.Critical Chris (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What do people think about merging this information to the pages Causalities of the 2008-2009 Gaza Conflict and Causalities of the 2007-2008 Gaza Conflict, both of which I believe were proposed for creation before? The Squicks (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would be helpful if the editors who recently voted to delete the article on the grounds that it is a memorial would explain how an article which doesn't name any of the dead serves this purpose. Nick-D (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—In its current form this article has too much detail. Compare, for example to Casualties of the Iraq War, Rwandan_Genocide#Genocide or War in Darfur#Mortality figures, which are orders of magnitude larger. This is just a demonstration of the old Stalin quote, "The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic." The article needs a significant re-write; hopefully well after this tiny war is finished.—RJH (talk) 22:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete My concerns with the article in its current for are: 1. Each line needs to be sourced otherwise any IP with an axe to grind can add whatever they feel like. Although there is a list of references at the bottom, there are no citations on most if not all of what's listed 2. Is it possible to actually keep a list of this nature current? 3. The fact this war is underway and that lots of people have died is relevant and notable, but is it necessary to itemize everyone? Has a similar list been created for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? For the Six Day War? For World War II? I can't help but feel that this sort of a list is serving a non-WP:NPOV purpose by spotlighting the fact that lots of Palestinians are getting killed in a conflict that is current and controversial, and I believe that's beyond what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. 23skidoo (talk) 03:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another WP:COATRACK/WP:POVFORK horror. In any case Causalities of the 2007-2008 Israel-Gaza Conflict would be the title, but 2007-2008 Israel-Gaza conflict needs to be worked upon first. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did a lot of editing at Casualties of the Iraq War. I also supported the editors of

List of insurgent fatality reports in Iraq
List of Iraqi security forces fatality reports in Iraq

This list covers before the 2007-2008 Israel-Gaza conflict, so I don't know why both shouldn't be worked on now. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, POV fork intended more to push a political position than to inform the encyclopedia reader. --Delirium (talk) 03:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:

So much information about Palestine is already censored or suppressed. This censorship makes it difficult or impossible to understand the situation in Palestine. The censorship creates a void that is filled with stereotypes, demonization, and dehumanization. Israelis and Palestinians alike are harmed by this war propaganda.
The information in this article may not be "notable" to those who put their faith in war-making, but it is certainly notable for the direct and indirect victims of war, and that includes most of us. An encyclopedia needs to take into account the needs of the majority of its readers, and I, for one, need this information!
I notice that pro-war forces are also trying to delete 2008-09_Israel–Gaza_Foreign_involvement. This article contains WP:RS information that was moved out of the main 2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict article. We are encouraged to move the information from the main article into subarticles, but if the subarticles are then deleted, valuable information is lost. Suppression of information is inconsistent with the purpose of an encyclopedia and with wikipedia's stated aims. See WP:NOTCENSORED NonZionist (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC) moved from Talk:List of Palestinian fatalities resulting from Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip in 2008 by 211.214.128.185 (talk) 04:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it's unsourced there's nothing to discuss. There's no reason to analyze WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, WP:POVFORK, and WP:COATRACK. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is sourced to here: [51]. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think the article would be more useful and relevant if it stopped counting 2008 Palestinian deaths at the beginning of the main Israeli airstrikes Dec. 27, 2008. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Il would even write Strong keep The pair of articles this article is modelled after: List of Qassam rocket attacks and List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2008 not only cite each and every names of the victims, except the 4 on Dec 27 and 29 2008 (June 28, 2004: Four-year-old Afik Zahavi, and Mordehai Yosefof, 49, Sderot; September 29, 2004: Yuval Abebeh, 4, and Dorit Benisian, 2, Sderot; July 14, 2005: Dana Galkowicz, 22, Kibbutz Netiv Ha'asara; March 28, 2006: Near the Kibbutz Nachal Oz two Israeli-Arabs (Salam Ziadin and Khalid, 16, a Bedouin father and son) are killed when a dormant Qassam rocket they find in the Nahal Oz area explodes; November 15,2006: Faina Slutzker, 57, Sderot; May 21, 2007: Shir-El Feldman, 32, Sderot; February 27 2008, Ron Yahye, 47-year-old student, near Sapir Academic College, Negev; May 9 2008, 48-year-old Jimmy Kdoshim, while working in his garden in Kibbutz Kfar Aza; May 12 2008, Shuli Katz, a 70-year-old resident of Kibbutz Gvaram; May 19 2008, Shir-El Friedman, 35-year-old woman; June 5 2008, Amnon Ronsenberg, a 52-year-old father of three), which is legitimate, those victims deserve to be remembered of, but those two pages cite every rocket attack!

For the sake of Wikipedia's fairness not only this page deserves to be kept, but also reverted to its first status by User:Trachys where individuals names are given, which is more esay to verify than anonymous.

About the argument Wikipedia:NOT#MEMORIAL. It is clearly is out of topic: the text says: "Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements" Victim's name quoted in List of Qassam rocket attacks, List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2008 and in this article are not "departed friends and relatives." and they hare not "Subjects of encyclopedia articles": they do not have their own article entry! They are victims whose name are public!

B'Tselem is the original source. It is a serious and reliable Israelian source. It is the main source for this article published on Jan 15 and nominated for deletion the next day. Wikipedia being a work in progress more might come in the future. Ist form is also a big ergonomic improvement from the original source

http://www.btselem.org/english/statistics/Casualties_Full_Data.asp?Category=1&region=GAZA

Every village in Europe keeps the list of the names and ages of the victims of WW1 and WW2 on marble stones. This is Internet in the 21st century. The modern lists may be kept on the Wikipedia: once again it does not infringe Wikipedia's rule Wikipedia:NOT#MEMORIAL because each victim does not have it's individual article! --Cvrx (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Good points. We should avoid systemic bias, or the perception of it. I suggest people read the info, talk archives, and current talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. List of Qassam rocket attacks has details, names, dates, charts, etc.. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to log as nominator that the nomination was simply that, a nomination of this article. I have no bias in this conflict, which I see as appalling, but have insufficient understanding of the two sides to hold a valid opinion of the rights and wrongs of each party in the dispute. It is the article in isolation that concerns me, not the conflict. Avoidance of bias is done by the creation of articles and deletion of articles without reference in those processes to the politics behind the article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In your nomination your reason to delete the article was "Wikipedia is not a memorial. Nor is Wikipedia a soapbox." I could see how one might think the article might be a memorial or a soapbox. It may need some work to be WP:NPOV. But I don't see it as a memorial in terms of Wikipedia's definition. From WP:NOTMEMORIAL: "Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives." The topic of the article is notable in my opinion. As is List of Qassam rocket attacks. Because arguments about the violent attacks of both sides before the war have been frequently noted in the media. There is not enough room in Timeline of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict or 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. There is no room left in those articles for anything more. Many articles have been spun out. I help edit 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. It was getting around 350 edits a day recently. It is unrealistic to cover much more in encyclopedia detail in those 2 already-large articles. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That sounds more like an argument to delete List of Qassam rocket attacks and the other related articles than an argument to keep this one. These sorts of "list our side's grievances" articles seem more useful to POV-pushers than to Wikipedia's educational goals of spreading neutral, encyclopedic information, which is better done in unified treatments like Timeline of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict than POV-forks of "bad things Palestinians did to Israelis" and "bad things Israelis did to Palestinians". See also WP:OTHERSTUFF. --Delirium (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my reply higher up to Fiddle Faddle. Also, it is not necessarily POV pushing. At least not for me. It is just a matter of space. We could combine the violent acts into one article, but it would be huge. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That may be an indication that a comprehensive list of violent acts in a particular conflict simply isn't the proper role of an encyclopedia to document (as compared to the conflict itself and its context, which are good subjects for articles). For example, a list of every single bombing, artillery, or infantry action taken by either side even a single World War II campaign would be quite large and certainly couldn't fit into, say Battle of the Bulge or D-Day, but we don't break them out into List of German fatalities resulting from the Allied advance during the Normandy Invasion. --Delirium (talk) 10:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the prelude to World War II is covered by many articles. Timeline of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict does not cover the period preceding the war. It links to 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict#Background. There is not enough room there to do more than cursory coverage of the background to the war. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge with Timeline of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. --GHcool (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a POV fork/memorial. Themfromspace (talk) 03:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but please consider renaming the article (perhaps to List of Israeli attacks in the Gaza Strip in 2008 and removing the names of the diseased, as per the concerns raised by User:Timtrent. Dynablaster (talk) 10:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No offence,but I feel giving the statistics of how many people died in a day are redundant for an encyclopedia. Perhaps it'd be better if only ranking officials were included with a total of civilians casualties at the bottom of the entry. EX :

January 1rst

Nizar Rayan senior commander Total civilian casualties - XX

--Roaring Siren (talk) 20:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move and expand to List of fatalities from Israel-Gaza conflict. Has a ring of neutrality to it... sounds like A4. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the topic is covered in sufficient, encyclopaedic detail in 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict and Timeline of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. Guest9999 (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Information For Action[edit]

I can't see anything notable about this environmental action organisation. Grahame (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can dig up some independent references. I can't find anything in the mainstream media about them. They apparently made a submission to the 2020 summit,[52] but anyone could do that, right? -- Mark Chovain 20:11, 11 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) 00:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:ORG. Schuym1 (talk) 01:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Schuym1. FaerieInGrey (talk) 03:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 04:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snowgum Films[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 08:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:CORP. Negligible results in news search. Web search shows majority results from social networking or video sharing sites. No third-party coverage. ^LeaveSleaves 17:52, 12 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) 00:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Needs sourcing for the awards. The article needs to show the connection between the company and the notability of its projects. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as unsourcable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wish to note that my struck comment was intended for a different AfD. I still feel that notability for Snowgum might be shown if awards sourcing is done. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found a source for one of the prizes [53]. But I doubt it helps the article in any way. The prize at the film festival has is under public's choice and not a jury award. Moreover it was given to the film and the writer-director, not the production company. Plus the film shared this prize with another film. You also need to consider that this article comes more under WP:CORP, and needs to satisfy notability requirements as such. ^LeaveSleaves 20:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And I am not at this time opining a keep nor a delete... as conecting the company and the notability of its projects would be paramount. Certainly smaller independents do not have the easy-to-source notability of their bigger cousins (IE: Sony, MGM, Fox, Warners, etc.), so if it can be somehow established that the company creates notable projects... it would be a step in the right direction. But as you point out, a shared audience jury-award does not quite do it. This is the biggest problem with articles about smaller companies. They exist. They create films. They get their films out there... All the same basics as the big boys. But fighting WP:NOTINHERITED, it is difficult to source an individual notability. I'd love to see an WP:RS that tells of the company itself. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is lspace.org, SF Crowsnest, Snh.com, a similar story at theage.com, freelancing-gods.com, fantasy-fan.org, and Dreamers.com (google translation from Spanish), which are about the company in relationship (naturally) to their projects. And then we have a number of articles available about its founder. Gona be a toughie. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per rescue. Company is getting coverage (minimal) for their work... and their works are themselves receiving coverage. Its a squeeker... but I think it now just tickles over WP:CORP without having the share notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as blatant advertising. Stifle (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Power of Place[edit]

This article appears to have a few problems: first, it appears to be promotional - the editor appears, on searching the name, to be a high-level official with the organization that this is written about, so there's a WP:COI problem immediately, and the article is more advocacy than information. Second, there are no sources; I ran through Google News and found no references to it. It's not written in a neutral manner.All in all, I don't think the program in question is notable enough to be covered here at present. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this is a political manifesto, not an encyclopedia article. SpinningSpark 02:02, 12 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) 00:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (G11) — doesn't matter if it's for Oxi Clean, innovative obscure operating system from a Linux kernel, or Water World in Wisconsin Dells, Wisconsin — it's still SPAM. MuZemike 06:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fruktime[edit]

Non-notable soft drink produced by notable company. Should not be included in WP. Unable to find any significant English-language coverage, no significant Russian language coverage claimed. Bongo matic 13:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is still included in practically all Russian coverage on market share (most recent ones are, quite naturally, not available publicly), but the whole line appears to be in decline, poorly distributed, and I won't be surprised if CC drops it quietly. Maybe you are right and one line entry in List of Coca-Cola brands is sufficient. NVO (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per NOTPAPER. How can nominee claim "no significant Russian language coverage claimed" when there is page on the Russian wiki... (?). I would leave it to the Russians to decide what drinks there are notable. And what is a notable fizzy candy drink anaway, Wiki is not a paper. Power.corrupts (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citations to Wikipedia are not sufficient as sources. Where is the significant coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources? Bongo matic 22:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 12 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) 00:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand Sources are available to establish notability in the English language and Russian language. Some of this sources should be included in the article. --J.Mundo (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The discussion tended towards keeping the article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Knopperdisk[edit]

Non-notable operating system. Unable to find coverage in reliable sources (checked Google, Google News, Google blog search, technorati). Bongo matic 14:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per these Google results. Why should this not be notable? Power.corrupts (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the hits generated by that search do you believe to be significant and from a reliable source that is independent of the subject? I was unable to find any (I didn't look through hundreds of pages, but the first hundred entries or so). Rather, there are numerous software download pages, some blog entries, a couple of pages from the publisher, and this Wikipedia article and clones of it. Number of Google hits alone is not an argument for either keeping or deleting in a deletion discussion. Bongo matic 22:43, 11 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, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many claims of lack of notability are ill-founded, and this is one of them. First I glanced at the article (I'm a layman here, and can only apply common sense). It is extremely factual, short, concise, to the point, almost terse - suitable for an OS article. I find absolutely no evidence of conflict of interest (COI), no canvassing, etc. Many different editors have contributed to the article.

The article is also available on other Wiki projects, the Spanish one is of somewhat better quality, someone took the effort to add an OS infobox, the Catalan (surprise!) page is as extensive as the English, the Romanian is a very short stub. But obviously some editors found the stuff notable enough to create these pages. I also note that there is no Dutch page on the thing, although the Spanish (and the other projects except the English) mention that is was developed there. This would lead me to assume some notability in that corner of pygmae OS system buffs. It certainly weakens claims of lack of notability.
Why shouldn't this terse information not be in an Encyclopedia like Wiki? What exactly would satify your thirst for notability. Yearly sales figues, market penetration and percent market share? Even if the system never made it to mainstream, wouldn't the sheer existence of the systems be worth of three lines on Wiki?
And yes, I managed to find a Google Scholar hit. Somewhere in this enormously specialized world, some tech buffs refer to the specific quirks of this OS. I have made no attempt whatsoever to understand it, but they discuss "every distribution from these two sets uses the APT package management system" and they are concerned about "collisions" (?). So perhaps it could be interesting to somebody, I don't know. But I don't see a collision with Wiki's notability criteria. Cerf, L; J Besson, C Robardet, JF Boulicaut (2008), Data-Peeler: Constraint-Based Closed Pattern Mining in n-ary Relations (PDF), Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics((citation)): CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Did I mention that the page has existed for 3½ years. On other projects they attempt to improve the article when they see it. On the English wiki the kneejerk reflex seem to be to attempt to delete it.

Power.corrupts (talk) 12:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable software. Schuym1 (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the twist side of above commentary by Bongo: Merely claiming something isn't notable doesn't make it so. What did you attempt to determine notability, Schuym1? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no significant coverage in reliable sources. Power corrupts comment does not change my mind. Schuym1 (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's not my responsibility to find sources to determine an article's notability. Schuym1 (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a nominator's responsibility, however. I paged through lots of possible sources of for any presumption of notability (as mentioned in the nomination), but did not find any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Bongo matic 16:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you did mention that, both in your first and second posting. There are two principal issues: The first is the trivial one, that it takes me an awfull lot more effort to find sources, than it takes for you not to find any. And admittedly, I didn't find much, only one "hard" article, and it could rightfully be said, that Knopperdisk is not the centrality of that article.
Second, I would strees that it is too simplistic to view other language Wiki project merely as "mirrors". Many will start as mirrors, and from the dates of creation, this appears also to be the case for this article. But the projects reach a new audience, and may grow in different directions. At the very least, I find it problematic, to AfD an article without consulting these other projects. I have just located the main Spanish contributor es:Usuario:Shooke. I think I will drop him a line asking what he thinks about this AfD. Let's see what happens... Regards, Power.corrupts (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is a notable software, DistroWatch (a important web site of distros) consider it, please see in http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=knopperdisk , this is from Netherlands. And can probe in google more than 23,000 topics, thanks Shooke (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The mention in Distrowatch is precisely the sort of directory entry that does not demonstrate notability. Bongo matic 05:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it "not demonstrate notability" ? Power.corrupts (talk) 11:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outreach comment It could be interesting to take this a littel further, just for the fun of experimenting. I have left messages at Editor user pages at the other wiki project, and I will post a general message at the discussion pages there. I will also drop an email to Knoppedisk itself, they should have precisely the type of information Bongomatic is requesting - I don't know why I didn't think of this before. Let see what happens... Power.corrupts (talk) 12:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Left this request at their webpage: Sirs, There is currently a discussion at the English Wikipedia concerning the so-called notability of your software. Apparently, little can be found at the Internet on third party, independent commentary on your product. I wonder if you would like to comment on that discussion, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Knopperdisk#Knopperdisk. Remember that your answers must be highly factual and that any claims must meet Wiki's requirements of verifiability. Your answers must not be worded in a way, that they could be interpreted as advertising either. Sincerely, power.corrupts on en.Wikipedia Power.corrupts (talk) 12:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bongomatic, how do you demostrate that some software is notable? You say "Unable to find coverage in reliable sources", is false because you "not found reliable source" not demostrate nothing Shooke (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is demonstrated by significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject--like a full review in InfoWorld. See WP:ORG for more details. Bongo matic 23:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have received a reply from Sander Knopper, the developer of this Operating System. I am waiting for his permission to post it here, I could be meant as personal communication, and I forgot to ask in the first mail. He doesn't actively maintain it any longer, he has little interest in Wiki notability criteria, and he perhaps appears somewhat indifferent, if Wiki has an article or not on Knopperdisk.

I gave it some thought and took a second look at the notability guidelines. Bongomatic, right under you quoted lines the following criteria are listed: Significant coverage is "more than trivial but may be less than exclusive"; sources are reliable, certainly verifiable; Independent of the subject - I would say yes to all of them. But above all, I think that Jimmy Wales' vision to "record the world's knowledge" is the guiding principle for me. The article is a factual as it can be, terse, the information is valid and verifiable. I cannot see at all how deletion of this information could add value to Wikipedia. On the other hand, I find it conceivable that the article, if retained, might add value (albeit marginal) to somebody. Perhaps I'm leaning on WP:NOTPAPER, perhaps I'm a hopeless inclusionist, perhaps I'm just hopeless. May I quote from WP:Notability: For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort Power.corrupts (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sander Knopper now greenlighted that his mail to me is posted here:

Well, if there's not much you can find on the internet regarding my project, than there probably isn't any. Quite frankly, the project is more or less dead, I haven't made a new release for years (I think) and there most likely won't be any in the near future. I use the name "project" on purpose as well here, since I don't think of it as a "product", therefore I also don't try to sell it or whatsoever. So if I can help you with any notability issues you might have, that's fine. But I think I can't be of much help since you seem to have searched quite thorough yourself, right? Anyway, like I said, I don't actively maintain it anymore, though from time to time I give some pointers to people who are interested in it and contact me the same way you have. So I don't really feel like investing that much time in it right now. Quite frankly, I have no interest in reading the notability rules or any other rules the wiki might have, but if you can put up some questions that would help notability, I'm willing to answer them. Best Regards, Sander Knopper. Power.corrupts (talk) 12:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- listed on Distrowatch, even if it becomes unmantained people would be able to find the info about it on Wikipedia instead of Googling for info. man with one red shoe 18:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, listing on Distrowatch is not an indicator of notability. The ability to cross-reference non-notable listings is not a rationale for inclusion on Wikipedia. Bongo matic 23:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bongomatic, the two other editors appear to think that Distrowatch is an indicator of notability, you do not, either view appears subjective, bordering WP:POV, and neither view has been argued convincingly. I have no opinion on this, but would lean on the great variety of Google hits, that to me are indicative of "general interest". Power.corrupts (talk) 12:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AxCrypt[edit]

Declined A7 speedy deletion nominee. The article makes no assertion of notability whatsoever, but falls outside the A7 specification. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: mere inclusion of a technology in the Microsoft Windows OS does not merit WP:Notability. There are probably hundreds of such products that have come and gone in such fashion. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:32, 11 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, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This isn't even included in the Windows OS. It integrates into Windows Explorer once it is installed by the user, which is something totally different and rather trivial. Notability lacking, etc. Zetawoof_(ζ) 01:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. FaerieInGrey (talk) 03:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable] software. Per Zetawoof it isn't actually included with Windows, but once installed it integrates into Windows Explorer. Matt (Talk) 09:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merge discussions (and they may well be appropriate) may occur outside of this Afd. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fearsome Creatures of the Lumberwoods, With a Few Desert and Mountain Beasts[edit]

Though an old book, I do not think this particular book is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia based on WP:BK. It's great as a source, but what makes this book encyclopedic? The author of this Wikipedia page was involved in the "rediscovery" and "redistribution" of the book electronically, and for that they should be thanked. However, I'm of the opinion that an encyclopedia article it does not deserve. Use it as a source for fearsome critters, but an entire article devoted to a book so obscure that no copies could be located for a number of years? Also, no notable reviews, awards, etc. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the statement that no copies could be located is hogwash, apparently meant to advertise the reprint. the orig ed. is in 35 university libraries DGG (talk) 22:37, 11 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) 00:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability of book not established. It would be better to use it as a source for articles on the various creatures.Steve Dufour (talk) 04:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - looking around, I'm fairly sure we can establish notability. This book's discussion of that book rises above trivial. Probably trivial, Nontrivial but not independent, Marginally nontrivial, somewhat nontrivial. Although ads to a sensible inclusion. Wily D 14:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that an obscure book was once published, then was so obscure it was hard to find, then someone found a copy and put it on the internet, does not show it is so notable as to deserve a Wikipedia article. Fails WP:N and particularly fails WP:BK. The references provided by WilyD do not quite show satisfaction of WP:BK. Edison (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's certainly not "obscure" - it's pretty widely cited, considering. There just aren't very many sources that discuss it in depth, rather than merely cite information from it. We all see to agree it's around the edge of notability in that sense. But there's no call to misrepresent it. WilyD 18:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Any book which required "an exhaustive, years-long search" to find a copy is obscure by definition. Also this article seems spammy and promotional. Edison (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - That particular claim (about the "years-long search") is dubious. See DGG's comment above. Zagalejo^^^ 00:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on balance, the encyclopedia is better served by having this article, as the book is frequently referred to, and its nature should be explained. DGG (talk) 01:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Per WilyD and DGG. Though the book probably doesn't meet WP:BK to the letter, there are enough references to it to suggest that it is at least somewhat important to folklorists. Zagalejo^^^ 00:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't understand why we should delete this article when "it's great as a source". --J.Mundo (talk) 06:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The reason why we should preserve this article, which is to say the very reason why I have devoted so much time on this book. Is that this book while seemingly vague as it may or may not be within mainstream literature it is quintessential within in its genre. Without this book we would know essentially nothing today on mythical animals of the United States and that entire field folklore which it covers, a piece of American heritage, most likely would have been lost. I have reworked the article and hopefully more on to the readers satisfaction. My gracious thanks go out to those who help to save this article from deletion. Kudos. --User:Tripodero (talk) 08:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I added merge templates to two other pages. Could not some of the content be put there also? pages are: Fearsome critters and Legendary creatures. -Fremte (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhist Anti Cult Alliance[edit]

Article nominated by Siru108 with comment "Hoax?". This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral. Tevildo (talk) 20:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No references, no results on Google. Very probably a hoax. Tevildo (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The user who is trying to get this deleted (Siru108) is a member of one of the organisations listed as cults by the BACA. He says on his user page he follows Ole Nydahl's Diamond Way group. It is therefore no surprise that he wants this article removed. His opinion is far from neutral.
- BACA is supported in it's decisions on these 3 groups by the Non-Governmental Organisation INFORM.
- See the controversies sections on both Ole Nydahl and Diamond Way.
- See the 'Separation from contemporary Tibetan Buddhism' section on New Kadampa Tradition.
- Search Google for Edward Penney.
- I do beleive this article will be built upon in future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bandizzle (talk • contribs) 21:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Irrespective of the motivation of the original nominator, in order for the article to be kept you'll need to demonstrate that the organization (a) exists in the first place (WP:V) and (b) has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, references in reliable third-party sources (WP:N) - and provide that evidence in the article itself. As things stand, you're not even over the first hurdle. Tevildo (talk) 21:30, 14 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) 00:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The group, as described, does not seem to be very notable, or even very Buddhist. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked this group up on Google and I couldn't find anything about them. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Hill (musician)[edit]

Violates WP:NOTE; I searched Google for this person and came up with nothing. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL (talk) 18:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since this guy mainly performed in the 50s and 60s I wouldn't be surprised if he can't be found online. (I'm already seeing material disappear about notable stuff from things after 2000). Before anyone deletes this an attempt should be made to check paper sources (I'll contact the original author. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Notability is not lost because the guy is pre-internet. I am trusting the original author on it. However, notability should be proven somehow.--Cerejota (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:12, 14 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) 00:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like an unsourced obituary of a good guy - local personage, etc. - but not a notable one. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: have not been able to turn up anything in the local library on comedians and/or musicians with this name from the mentioned areas. Nothing on the internet either. Non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 02:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wonder if this person may be a hoax. Although it is claimed that he died in 2001, well into the Internet era, no obituaries have turned up on the Internet. Furthermore, the article has virtually no specific details about his entertainment career even though that is supposedly what made him notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'm beginning to think.. JamesBurns (talk) 00:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Cerejota, but compress (too much non-notable infomation even if the person themselves is notable) and add verifiable cites (internet or otherwise).Simon Dodd (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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