< January 2 January 4 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was No consensus. The main problem with making a case for deletion for this article on the basis of lack of notability seems to be that so many sources have covered it, and that there is no consensus for whether or not political parties at national-level elections are inherantly notable. At any rate, the deletion policy advises us to err on the side of keep if deletion consensus is not clear; decision accordingly. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UK Community Issues Party[edit]

AfDs for this article:
UK Community Issues Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I imagine some people might look at the article, and be surprised that I have nominated it for deletion when it is so well sourced. The reason why I have nominated it, is because I have found not found multiple, reliable, and independent sources that demonstrate significant coverage of the party, including sources listed on the article. Wikipedia:Notability states that the subject of an article should have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The article was nominated for deletion before. However, despite the creator of the article endorsing the nomination for deletion, the result was "no consensus". This was because the nominator withdrew his nom, after another user had added a lot of sourced information. The nom said of his decision to withdraw "Avram (the user who added sourced info) has been able to find numerous sources that, although individually do not offer significant coverge, together suggest that UK Community Issues Party is notable enough for Wikipedia." I do not agree the sources added allow the article to meet WP:N, as I have not found multiple, reliable, and independent sources that offer significant coverage, an opinion also suggested by the closer of the original AFD when s/he said "I am not convinced that everybody will deem the party notable based on a few news stories, but there is certainly not a sufficient consensus for deletion at this time". The party itself appears to be a very minor one, only gaining 502 votes total when running in three British constituencies back in 2005, which appears to be its best ever result. BlueVine (talk) 23:49, 3 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 g5, both the article and this AFD were created by the same banned user. Feel free to recreate the article if you're not a banned user. NawlinWiki (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Encouragement[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOT#DICTIONARY, WP:NOR, WP:V. Positionyr'self (talk) 22:47, 3 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 speedily deleted under A7. bd2412 T 23:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Corona Cutters[edit]

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

Non-notable club (no references or ghits). CSD and PROD removed. NeilN talk ♦ contribs 22:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is an orginization that does not indicate notability. Shouldn't this be CSD A7? Jomasecu talk contribs 22:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was. An anon IP keeps removing it. Unless the rules have changed since I've last edited, this is allowed. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 22:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Group of college kids who made an article for themselves. --22:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Negativity (film)[edit]

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

No notability asserted. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:14, 3 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 00:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naanayam[edit]

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

Apparently fails future films notability guideline. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources demonstrate that shooting has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:08, 3 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. John254 00:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of United States presidential candidates, 2008[edit]

Comparison of United States presidential candidates, 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article must violate some WP policy. Is there one that says, "WP is not a voters' guide"? Steve Dufour (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are already lots of additional articles about every candidate and about the campaign as a whole. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
that why I said "summary" . We don't need to collect it in one place, but we ought to. There are rather few articles we really need. DGG (talk) 15:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another problem with the article is that it is not comparing peers. Serious candidates who were really trying to become President, Obama and McCain (Clinton, Romney and others are left out), are "compared" with people like Paul, Nader, Keyes, and others who were running to "make a point" (as we would say on WP). Steve Dufour (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure they are serious people. However their candidacies were not serious attempts to become President of the United States. One thing is that a serious candidate must take moderate positions that will get him or her elected. A non-serious candidate is free to advocate all kinds of interesting positions such as legalizing marijuana, getting rid of the income tax, closing all of our overseas military bases, etc. It is not fair to compare them side by side, as this article does, when they are not the same thing. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. I think that Ralph Nader, a non-serious candidate, is much more important in American history than many serious candidates. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Calling it a "voter guide" is simply a loaded way to disparage the page. Call it what it is: a comparison page, similar in form to the many other comparison pages on WP. Search Google for e.g. "site:wikipedia.org inurl:comparison". True, they're not prose. But I fail to see how a) comparisons in this form are somehow "unencyclopedic", and how b) rewriting this article as prose would make it a more effective tool for its goal: comparing opinions. 75.45.110.58 (talk) 05:41, 5 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. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Huisman[edit]

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

Person is not notable -see WP:BIO Vinni3 (talk) 20:29, 3 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 00:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Camacho (singer)[edit]

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

Notability not established. Jarry1250 (talk) 20:19, 3 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 02:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Valentine featuring John and mick[edit]

My Valentine featuring John and mick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:CB? Couldn't see how this would be speedied; just seems like a load of BS. [ cycle~ ] (talk), 20:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Scrap that; I can see that the actors are real people; but there seems to be no mention of this across the web... [ cycle~ ] (talk), 20:21, 3 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 00:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Chinese Sports[edit]

Ancient Chinese Sports (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:NF. Schuym1 (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps he or she agrees with you. The redirect !vote probably won't count, unless the person logs in. In looking at Sport in China, I don't see that it discusses ancient Chinese sports (other than a section about "traditional sports" which aren't necessarily ancient), so it probably won't be a good redirect. Personally, I'd love to see a real article about ancient Chinese sports. There are plenty of sources [4][5] if someone wanted to write one, but I don't care to. Mandsford (talk) 01:25, 5 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. An obvious hoax so there is no need to dwell on this one. TerriersFan (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

London Underground X Stock[edit]

London Underground X Stock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is clearly a hoax. A google search just pulls up this article. I personally have heard nothing of any X Stock, as far as I can see, all sub surface lines are receiving the same trains. Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 19:54, 3 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 00:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hardcore Championship Wrestling[edit]

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

I am fixing a second nomination of this article. The actual nominator is User:Yagobo79. No recommendation on my part yet. However, please note that this does not appear to be the same "Hardcore Championship Wrestling" group whose article was deleted in the prior AfD. Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a recreation. Articles are about different groups with the same name.Horrorshowj (talk) 23:38, 3 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. One (talk) 09:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Debra Bartoshevich[edit]

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

Individuals only notable in the context of a single event should not have separate articles, per WP:BLP1E; her participation in McCain's campaign probably qualifies as a single event. Recommend merge and redirect to Democratic and liberal support for John McCain in 2008. — Swpbτ • c 20:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Swpbτ • c 19:24, 3 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 Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) DARTH PANDAduel 22:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Murphy (JAG)[edit]

Peter Murphy (JAG) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable lawyer. Only reference provided is a memo from Alberto Mora on Guantanamo Bay interrogations which merely confirms that he spoke to Murphy and that he was the commandant's attorney. No notability of the person is in any way indicated. Fails WP:BIO because an attorney for a (possibly) notable person does not inherit the notability (WP:ITSA) SpinningSpark 18:38, 3 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 Nephrologist. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dialytician[edit]

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

This article is poorly written and unverifiable. An editor has expressed concern that it is an outright hoax and I have not been able to find anything to disprove this. Neither of the references provided actually use the term (at least not in the parts that can be read for free). Googling seems to turn up nothing but copies of the Wikipedia page itself. The author has not contributed for some time. If it is not a hoax then it is probably a non-notable neologism. DanielRigal (talk) 18:40, 3 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 contents and redirect title. Consensus is that the contents are non-encyclopedic and should be removed. However, it was felt that for someone doing a search on "Hades Alone" the title should be redirected to nearest available useful article, Currently this is List_of_Saint_Seiya:_The_Lost_Canvas_characters#Alone and so the title will be pointed there. However, it appears that the series of articles surrounding Saint Seiya: The Lost Canvas are of questionable notability and may not survive an AfD - in which case, this redirect should be updated to point to the then most appropriate article. SilkTork *YES! 16:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hades Alone[edit]

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

I don't understand what this article is talking about. It seems to be something written in an in-universe style, but there doesn't seem to be any context. —Bkell (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

From my talk page:

Sorondil: This article is detailing the character of Hades Alone and simplifiying the Saint Seiya Lost Canvas character section. I added a Trivia part which you are intending to delete as well. I did the same some weeks ago with Pegasus Tenma's Section and nobody complained. —Sorondil (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I just wonder if this post is deleted, any user won't be able anymore to make modifications and make a special section for all Lost Canvas' characters. Bkell, by the way, I didn't understand the "in-universe" issue, what is affecting the topic in the modifications I made? Please could you be so kind in explaining me this? Thank you. —Sorondil (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read The problem with in-universe perspective? —Bkell (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think rather than deleting the "trivia" or "other facts" section, this could be submitted in a special section for Hades Alone and not just put a short paragraph describing this character as there is much to see yet about this character.

Yes, I read that in-universe thing, as I said, this could be edited and ordered to not affect Wikipedia's standards but not deleted, that's my point.

Sorondil (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that Hades_(Saint_Seiya) is also entirely unreferenced. It may be more coherent but is it any more encyclopedic than this article? --DanielRigal (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I understand this sort of contributions are no longer aloud in here. If the pegasus Tenma's article has similar characteristics, the best will be to delete it as it is similar to this article, both of them edited by me, that's all.

Sorondil (talk) 19:22, 3 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 g5, both the article and this AFD were created by sockpuppets of the same banned user. NawlinWiki (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lettermen (book series)[edit]

Lettermen (book series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BK, WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS. Mitigate & Satiate (talk) 18:15, 3 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 00:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Topic outline of Big Science[edit]

Topic outline of Big Science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Once again, totally unsourced. There are no reliable sources that connect the term "Big Science" with any of the listed topics. StonerDude420 (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the nominator has also nominated the article Big Science for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Science. The Transhumanist 23:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is a good point. I don't have a strong objection to keeping this article separate from the Big Science article - the information is useful, whereever it sits - so I have changed my !vote above to "Keep or Merge". Gandalf61 (talk) 07:51, 7 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. John254 00:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Big Science[edit]

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

Delete per original research. Totally unsourced and made up. StonerDude420 (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the nominator has also nominated Topic outline of Big Science, part of Wikipedia's outline of knowledge (which is part of Wikipedia's content system accessible from the main menu), for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Topic outline of Big Science. The Transhumanist 23:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do not accept your interpretation of the above citations. Mere usage of a two-word phrase is not "explicitly document[ing] the subject" -- hence "unpersuasive ". Your repeated demands that everybody who disagrees with you see things your way is badgering, and your continuation of it is WP:HARASS. Kindly cease and desist. HrafnTalkStalk 06:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence against neologism: [12] 

big science  
n.   Scientific research involving large amounts of money and often large teams of researchers. 
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Merriam Webster: [13] 

Main Entry: big science 
Function: noun 
Usage: often capitalized B&S 
Date: 1961
large-scale scientific research consisting of projects funded usually by a national government or group of governments

pgr94 (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also Leon M. Lederman quote at Talk:Big_Science#possible_refs where a nobel prize winning physicist defines the term. --mikeu talk 12:35, 5 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) and merge. (non-administrative closure) — RyanCross (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erin McCarley[edit]

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

Non-notable autobiography (the main contributor is User:Erin McCarley). The only real claim of notability that I see in the article is "Her music has been featured on the hit shows One Tree Hill and Grey's Anatomy", but I don't know if that's enough to warrant an article for her. CyberGhostface (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating her CD for the same reasons (with the exception of this one not being written by the subject).

Love, Save the Empty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't think those meet WP:Music. The national tour does. Dlohcierekim 19:53, 6 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 00:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Creepy Lane Chronicles[edit]

The Creepy Lane Chronicles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is about a short story series by a child author. The article neither cites any sources nor asserts notability, but does not fall under speedy deletion criteria. Delete unless sources that establish notability can be found and integrated into the text. TheLetterM (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can find no indication these stories have been published.Shsilver (talk) 19:49, 3 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 criterion G3: "Pure vandalism. This includes blatant and obvious misinformation...". Punkmorten (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ademola Sodzinako[edit]

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

I can find no information on this player, there is no such English Premier League club as Spartaka F.C and I strongly suspect that this is a hoax article. I have tagged it as a hoax but that was immediately removed, I have suggested to author that they blank the page so it can be speedy deleted but to no avail. Thus I bring it here. Paste Talk 16:41, 3 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 nomination withdrawn, all !votes were for keep. Good job JulesH! --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1172[edit]

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1172 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This isn't an article, it appears to be only the resolution itself, not encyclopedic. dougweller (talk) 16:32, 3 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. John254 00:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

30 Days of Night: Dust to Dust[edit]

30 Days of Night: Dust to Dust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This miniseries which was only available via the internet or via On Demand programming has not received any attention in reliable sources that I can find, and I can find no evidence that it meets either the general notability criteria or the film notability criteria. Raven1977 (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn. Article meets web notability per everyone who commented below. Raven1977 (talk) 16:39, 6 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 00:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Olympic[edit]

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

Non-notable soccer team Itsmejudith (talk) 16:23, 3 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 and then redirect to 6-pack as plausible search term. Also deleting Sega Genesis 6-PAK, as duplicate article for which all discussionhere is also applicable. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6 pak[edit]

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

WP:NN product bundling. The individual games are very notable, but not the bundle itself. Toddst1 (talk) 15:59, 3 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 03:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red between the lines[edit]

Red between the lines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Independent low-budget (in fact according the the article, no-budget) film which does not seem to have bothered any news organisations. Fails WP:MOVIE. Nancy talk 15:47, 3 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 00:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pentabarf (software)[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think there is hope for the page. I have flagged it for rescue. -- IRP ☎ 16:04, 3 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. Schuym1 (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ShutUpAndLetMeGo[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:WEB. Schuym1 (talk) 15:20, 3 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 - blatant hoax. — ERcheck (talk) 22:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leagurian Mountains[edit]

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

Outright hoax which appears to be a joke connected to the Appalachian League, a baseball league that's listed under See also. There are no mountains in the area described by the article, which is — rather tellingly — actually called the Hudson Bay Lowlands, and the image that was originally chosen to illustrate it was of a mountain in British Columbia. Despite the claim that this chain contains some of the highest mountains in Ontario, its highest peak is almost double the height of the actual highest point of land in the province — and despite the claim that it's a popular vacation area, the Hudson Bay area is remote and spectacularly difficult to reach in all three provinces in question. There was an attempt to speedy it, which was declined by an administrator. My own instinct would have been to just speedy the damn thing anyway, but WP:CSD does have that pesky little "hoaxes don't qualify" clause. Yaaaargh. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really appropriate to respeedy something that already has a declined speedy in its edit history. FWIW. Bearcat (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I didn't re-tag it. :-) -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 18:49, 3 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 Morecambe and Wise. Cirt (talk) 08:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures Of Morecambe & Wise[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The Adventures Of Morecambe & Wise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

One-off TV show without its notability established. B. Wolterding (talk) 13:53, 3 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. John254 00:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cliodynamics[edit]

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

No evidence provided for notability for the subject, I question that it justifies an article separate from the existing ones on the authors in the bibliography. dougweller (talk) 12:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Nature piece is only an essay, and by the coiner of the term -- but if Nature deigns to at least acknowledge the existence of an idea, I suppose it's notable enough for inclusion here. HrafnTalkStalk 06:08, 5 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 14:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Ongoing Adventures of Rocket Llama[edit]

The Ongoing Adventures of Rocket Llama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is a very well done attempt to cover up the fact that this webcomic is lacking any notability by mentioning and sourcing a large number of unnotable events. The comic has not won an award and is not published in a notable publication. In fact, the webcomic has less than 200 unique visitors to its website on most days: Stats at Project Wonderful. Shishigami (talk) 11:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ComicCon is certainly notable, but its notability is not rubbing off on the comics which are presented there by their creators. The facts remain that this webcomic is not published in any notable publication, that it has not won any notable award, that no articles about it have been written in notable publications and that the number of visitors to its website is very low. If this webcomic is notable enough for Wikipedia than several thousand other webcomics are as well. --Shishigami (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I am certainly open for arguments why the webcomic is notable, I believe that the reasoning of those who want to keep the article is erroneous since they suggest that the webcomic inherits the notability of Comic Con which does not make sense. The stats for the frontpage are also not misleading since they would be even low if the actual stats were 10 times higher which is totally unrealistic since only a minority of internet users switches off JavaScript. Alexa also shows that the number of visitors is low, the website has an "3 month average" Alexa rank of 1,227,016. --Shishigami (talk) 10:21, 9 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 03:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plague metal[edit]

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

Appears to be nothing more than original research. Google search reveals nothing to me. Article was previously deleted in a prior AFD but it has been over a year since this article was recreated and without knowing how similar or different the article is to the one that was previously deleted, I'm sending it here to AFD instead of CSD. Bardin (talk) 11:01, 3 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 00:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Narrow Way (Newsletter)[edit]

The Narrow Way (Newsletter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article admits that this is a magazine only for members of the Assemblies of Yahweh, totaling at most a thousand readers. I cannot find any outside sources other than this single mention of its creation. Propose delete and redirect to Assemblies of Yahweh. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are many references to the Narrow Way on the internet: [31] In Citer (talk) 13:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • cmt Not that google or yahoo hits are sufficient to demonstrate notability but the hits in your yahoo link above, with the exception of the hit to this wikipedia page, are mostly to appearances of the phrase "the narrow way" in contexts that have nothing to do with this newsletter.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is why it's so difficult to find sources. I've checked Google books and scholar as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:44, 5 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 00:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acoustic Doom metal[edit]

Acoustic Doom metal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be nothing more than original research. Google search revealed nothing to me. Bardin (talk) 10:34, 3 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 00:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nu Symphonic[edit]

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

Appears to be nothing more than original research. Google search revealed nothing to me. We already have a symphonic metal article.--Bardin (talk) 10:28, 3 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 00:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce R. Booker[edit]

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

Autobiography; unreferenced; fails WP:ACADEMIC and WP:BIO; orphan article, apart from links added by this article's author. OttoTheFish (talk) 09:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think you should read WP:AUTO again, it explicitly states that deletion is uncertain and that creating an autobio is discouraged (i.e., not forbidden). I know of several autobios that became acceptable articles on notable persons (not always without other editors battling problems with COI, though... :-) --Crusio (talk) 18:28, 4 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 merge proposal has been considered several times without consensus SilkTork *YES! 17:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John McCain lobbyist controversy, February 2008[edit]

John McCain lobbyist controversy, February 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A mini-controversy with no lasting importance Borock (talk) 09:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given this article was created by excising this exact material from the Vicki Iseman page and that both articles have weathered deletion processes, the intention of merging that page into this one would require significant new argument, seeming to go around consensus as measured at those times. BusterD (talk) 11:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only question is whether M/s Iseman has become a public person or not, not whether her notability is dependent, per se, on the original topic of the controversy. (To cite one of a million examples: We reads the article about Colonel Chas. A. Lindberg and, our coming across the blue-lettered name contained therein of Lucky Lindy's plane, namely, "The Spirit of St. Louis," if we thinks we wants to know more about this here plane, we clicks on those blue letters....) Just tips me hat but then 〜on thought bows deeply … 06:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The controversial (and widely referenced in the media) NYT article was about McCain's long history of questionable practice of close relationships to several lobbyists, but somehow the media attention about the entire article was steered to the singular issue of the relationship between McCain and one of the many lobbyists mentioned, apparently on the basis of anonymously sourced innuendo which formed the lead in the article (a questionable practice itself). If McCain hadn't established a lengthy trail of questionable practices with several lobbyists, the NYT article could never have been written, IMHO. If the Times had decided to publish the same article without leading references to Iseman, no lawsuit would have resulted (and fewer readers would have likely noticed the article at all). BusterD (talk) 11:51, 5 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, nomination withdrawn. WP:NAC--Jmundo (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quaternion (disambiguation)[edit]

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

The disambiguation page exists only to provide alternate (and obscure) dictionary definitions for quaternion. Looking through the page history, one finds that it also used to contain a redlink to an obscure musical composition [32]. Four years later, the redlink still has not been created. That leaves its only content as dictionary definitions. WP:NOTDICDEF, so it should be deleted. Ozob (talk) 09:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not only has Kusma found another meaning of quaternion, but it turns out that the redlink I mentioned above is mentioned on list of quarter tone pieces. Since there's at least three things to disambiguate, my former reasoning no longer stands. I withdraw the nomination. Ozob (talk) 20:29, 3 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 00:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lalit Kumar Awasthi[edit]

Lalit Kumar Awasthi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod removed without explanation. I cannot find anywhere near substantial enough sourcing on this person to support a full biography. While he apparently exists, most of what's there are very trivial name drops. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:06, 3 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. Deleted as an expired WP:PROD. — Aitias // discussion 00:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unspooled[edit]

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

No notability asserted. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:36, 3 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 00:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our Neck Of The Woods[edit]

Our Neck Of The Woods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No notability asserted. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:19, 3 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 College Station, Texas. MBisanz talk 14:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Northgate, Texas[edit]

Northgate, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable local residential district (despite article name which names it like it were a city). Article is almost entirely fluff and local promotional sounding stuff. Has not received significant coverage in reliable, third party sources beyond local news and college news media. It isn't a historical landmark. Has been tagged for notability concerns and lack of references since January with no change. Failed PROD. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the City of College Station website (which is the city it is located in). Its notable for local folks as in "popular spot for students" and there are a few local books who mention it as part of the city's history, but it isn't notable outside of the Bryan-College Station area. Not sure there is much in the current version worth merging to the CS article though. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:N, local only notability is not sufficient for inclusion here, significant coverage is. And yes it exists, drive by it regularly. I know its there, but that doesn't make it notable. It does not have a lot of sources, one is the local paper and one is a trivial mention. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N doesn't mention the word "local", so your argument seems entirely off base... there is no requirement that sources be published X miles from the place the article is about. But like I said, what is "only notable on a local level" is a totally subjective designation, which is why we look to sources, not what we personally think is notable or not. I cited a newspaper article about the neighborhood, that's not trivial coverage, many other newspaper articles seem to exist. In "further reading" is a book I don't have access to that seems to cover the history of the area that became Northgate. --Rividian (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that book is a history of Texas A&M University, which Northgate is not really a part of (it butts up against it). WP:BIO specifically notes that local only mentions are not indicators of notability. No reason the same should not apply to a neighborhood. Otherwise we might as well have articles on every last neighborhood in the country, or at least the rich ones and student ones, because they all will generally be mentioned in local papers regularly, especially in areas like this with low crime so lots of human interest stuff. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fine to me... as long as the information is from sources one could access (even if, as in the case of this book, it would require an interlibrary loan). We could have referenced articles on all those neighborhoods and it would only be a good thing... it's not like we need to conserve space and limit the number of otherwise encyclopedic articles we can include. By the way, neighborhoods are not people... including an article on some PTA mom because she was the subject of 3 articles in a newspaper is obviously a bad idea due to privacy reasons... but a neighborhood is fundamentally different. The information will be meaningful to more people, and there's no privacy to be concerned with. --Rividian (talk) 21:58, 3 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. No consensus here for either delete, merge, redirect or keep; please work it out on the talk page.  Sandstein  16:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GN-0000 00 Gundam[edit]

GN-0000 00 Gundam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be entirely in-universe plot summary and trivia. --EEMIV (talk) 07:48, 3 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 00:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Borgsolutions[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. Only sources cited are the company website and an article by a company principal. I was only able to find press releases online, no third-party coverage. Tagged for notability since September 2007. Jfire (talk) 07:47, 3 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 Speedily deleted NAC. Reyk YO! 10:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Jay[edit]

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

Person does not appear to exist or have notability of any kind. IndulgentReader (talk) 07:23, 3 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 00:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eamon McGrath[edit]

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

Notable? Seems to have only some very minor media attention. Neutralitytalk 06:58, 3 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 Nomination Withdrawn. Non-admin closure. TJ Spyke 18:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Backcountry snowboarding[edit]

Complete lack of encyclopedic content that's killed editing. Topic is notable but all the text is from a college project posted into Wikipedia by single purpose account[36] and reads like a how-to. Poster claims no copyvio but we have no way of knowing. Been on the wikify log for 1.5 years with little improvement or editing, probably due to the length and the difficulty of wikifying. Topic could be accomodated in snowboarding. I think deletion/blanking is the only option here. Phil153 (talk) 06:51, 3 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. Consensus is that this is unsalvageable WP:OR,  Sandstein  16:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Differences between Huaxia and barbarians[edit]

Differences between Huaxia and barbarians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This page should be deleted because its entire content constitutes original research. This wiki has countless problems, some of which are unsolvable: 1) it presents a racist POV despite claims to the contrary; 2) the topic is not discussed in these terms in any reliable source that I know of; 3) the POV lead paragraphs are an editor’s interpretive claims about a mixed bag of primary sources (in violation of Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources); 4) the rest of the article mixes topics that are not discussed together in any reliable source that I know of (an obvious case of SYNTHESIS); 5) the rest of the article also has nothing to do with the article's title; 6) apart from the lead paragraphs, the article is actually about Sinicization, a notion that already has its own wiki; 7) finally, the wiki’s title is not "recognizable," as per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Use the most easily recognized name. All in all, an extreme case of a bad wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madalibi (talk • contribs) 06:11, 3 January 2009

Arilang provide new references ;
  • Keep, as this is an ancient Chinese concept, which has its own Chinese wiki. To understand this ancient concept it is preferable to have the ability to read Chinese; if not, it shall take a bit more time to understand it. I first present two external links here to let other editors to have a bit of idea.
= (Ref 1) ;=

New Element in International Politics and Debate over China and Foreign Country in Late Ming Dynasty is the title of an essay by Mr.PANG Nai-ming of Nankai university, published in a journal called Seeking Truth. Googl on-line translation is here A new international political factors and the late Ming Hua Yi Zhi Bian (Chinese: 華夷之辨), because the title of the essay is 国际政治新因素与明朝后期华夷之辨. That shows that Hua Yi Zhi Bian (Chinese: 華夷之辨) is a very serious academic subject, and is not racist at all. If you google 華夷之辨, 205,000 articles turn up. I shall come back with more reference. Arilang talk 09:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

= (Ref 2) ;=

Humanistic philosophy of Hong Kong's website http://www.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/ ~ hkshp has published an article in Chinese:香港人文哲學會網頁http://www.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/~hkshp 夷夏之辨對中國佛教的影響，主要體現在儒釋道三教關係中。 ... 綜而觀之，華夷之辯的基本精神主要有兩個方面：其一是，夷夏有別，華夏文化高於四夷文化，中國是禮儀之....The google online English translation is here: Distinction between夷夏and Buddhism (China)刘立夫(Philosophy Department of Nanjing University, Dr.) Hengyucius (France "World Hongming Philosophical quarter Journal "Editorial Board President, Nanjing University Ph.D., Jiangnan Institute of Culture Studies, Professor of Philosophy

From the above essay, Hua Yi Zhi Bian (Chinese: 華夷之辨) is a very important concept, well worth the place of a wiki article. Arilang talk 10:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

= (Ref 3) ;=

Another essay on Hua Yi Zhi Bian (Chinese: 華夷之辨)

http://www.zisi.net/htm/ztlw2/lxyj/2005-05-10-19729.htm has an essay on Chinese nationalism. Quote:Ancient China on the concept of the nation, mainly "Hua Yi Zhi Bian." 而“华夷之辨”主要是文化上的区分。 And "Hua Yi Zhi Bian" The main thing is to distinguish between cultural. 华，是华夏，指以汉族为主体，生息繁衍于中原地区的人民。 Howard is the Chinese, refers to the Han Chinese as the main body, the Central Plains region live and reproduce in people. 夷则指周边民族。 Yi refers to the surrounding peoples Unquoted.

The google online translation is here:[38]


= (Ref 4) ;=

Google online translation

找论文网 > 文化论文 > 文化学综合论文 > Find papers Network> Cultural Papers> Cultural Studies Comprehensive Papers>



= (Ref 5) ;=

The evolution of modern Chinese way of thinking, a thinking 来源：中国社会科学院院报2005-4-21 作者：王中江发布时间：2005-04-28 Source: Chinese Academy of Social Sciences Institute reported 2005-4-21 Author: Wang Zhong Jiang Published :2005-04-28

Google online translation

= (Ref 6) ;=

Google online translation from China Surveying and Mapping is reported that China Surveying and Mapping Forum

= (Ref 7) ;=

Google online translation

Borderland History and Geography Books: Ancient Chinese System of Central passenger Museum

Comments;
(Ref 8);

Google online translation:Hua Yi Zhi Bian 华夷之辨 ，或称“ 夷夏之辨 ”，区辨华夏与蛮夷 。 Hua Yi Qi, or "Distinction between夷夏",distinguish the Chinese and living overseas. 古代华夏族群居于中原，为文明中心，而周边则较落后，因此逐渐产生了以文明礼义为标准进行人群分辨的观念，区分人群以文化和文明程度，而不以种族，合于华夏礼俗文明者为华，或称夏、华夏、中国人，不合者为夷，或称蛮夷、化外之民。

The above source is from baike.baidu.com (Chinese:百度百科 ), a online free Chinese encyclopedia which has more than 2 millions articles.

I am using this reference to answer all those critics saying the article is racist(including user Bathrobe), no, this article is not racist, if you just read this reference from baike.baidu.com Arilang talk 21:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For more on the origin of this Baidu entry, see this section below. Madalibi (talk) 08:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Ref 9);


Google online translation正确理解儒家华夷之辨理论，兼谈“华夏复兴衣冠先行”口号的问题作者:泰山 转贴自:儒教复兴, this is a very serious and academic discussion about Confucius teaching and 华夷之辨

(Ref 10);


The above quote is an essay of solid and academic discussion on "Hua Yi Zhi Bian".

Google online translation

Racism ;
The whole article disturbs me greatly. It as if an anti-Papist were to write an article on the question of whether the Pope is the Anti-Christ -- and instead of stating that this was a debate with a specific background (anti-Papism), the person creating the article simply wrote a summary of his own view that the Pope is indeed the anti-Christ, with a few links thrown in.
The whole issue discussed in this "article" is highly racist. It is about whether non-Chinese can ever come up to the level of (Confucianist) Chinese. And it was an issue in China precisely because there were plenty of Chinese who believed that the barbarians could NOT become refined and civilised. That is, the enlightened types who believed in the "improvability" of barbarians were only one camp in the argument.
I also find it difficult to accept the creator of the article's condescending attitude to those who can't read Chinese, to whom he must very patient to explain what it is all about. If the creator of the article is unable to express and explain this concept so that even foreigners not familiar with Chinese civilisation can understand it, he shouldn't really be writing articles like this. The poor quality of the article is what is arousing so much unflattering comment. The fact is that, whatever the historical concept may be, the article is so poorly written as to be virtually unsalvageable. That is why it should be deleted.
Moreover, there is so much unconscious racism in there that it is difficult to know where you should start to write it as a proper article.
Bathrobe (talk) 15:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To answer user Bathrobe's comment:
  1. Yes it is about the great Chinese "debate" about Huaxia and barbarians
  2. Yes it is a historical debate.
  3. No, it is not racist The whole issue discussed in this "article" is highly racist this statement from user Bathrobe clearly shows that he has not read the references at all. Please give me a quote from any of the references that show racism
  4. Yes the quality of the article is poorThe poor quality of the article is what is arousing so much unflattering comment. but it can be improved.
  5. There is so much unconscious racism now now user Bathrobe is either acting like a Thought Police or a psychologist, instead of a plain wiki editor. Arilang talk 21:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm now being accused of being Thought Police! This is really off the point, but I'll try to explain briefly why I feel there is unconscious racism in the article. (1) Ancient Huaxia is equated to Chinese civilisation, non-Chinese are classed as barbarians. In other words, the Chinese were civilised, everyone else was barbarian. This predated Confucianist thought, which according to the article held that barbarians could become civilised by embracing li. (2) The concept that the Chinese are the holders of the key to civilisation, and that other people have to conform to Chinese ways in order to be redeemed from their barbaric status, is a kind of cultural (and racial) supremacism. (3) People like Ricci are mentioned, presumably to prove that barbarians could indeed embrace Huaxia culture and thus not be regarded as barbarians. The fact that these people had their own culture and civilisation does not excuse them from barbarian status -- only the embrace of Chinese culture does. All of these unconscious assumptions can be regarded as racist. The article doesn't actually try to analyse this -- it simply adds the judgement that the Huaxia/barbarian distinction was not racist!
In addition, the article fails to address other aspects of the debate, such as the existence of views that barbarians could not be redeemed, This therefore suggests that the distinction between Huaxia and barbarian was an innocuous and benevolent one. In fact, it sounds like a "whitewash" of historical attitudes. I'm afraid that whitewashing racism, past or present, is usually regarded as just as racist as out-and-out discrimination.
I hope I have made clear why I regard the basic assumptions of the article to be racist. Perhaps racism was not the intent of the article. But that is how it reads.
At any rate, this debate is sidetracking the issue. The reason that we have got onto this is because the article is so poorly written. Were the article to be written from an objective viewpoint with proper use of sources, we would not be having this debate about whether the article is racist or not. But the article merely strings together a succession of disparate paragraphs without any clear point, leaving the reader to try and figure out what exactly is going on. Perhaps a background in Chinese culture is needed -- let's face it, who but a Chinese is going to associate a bald paragraph on Confucian li with the Huaxia/barbarian distinction?
In addition, while making the value judgement that the Huaxia/barbarian distinction was not racist, the article fails to actually include material that has a bearing on the issue, such as the fact that Chinese characters for the names for these barbarian peoples included the radical for "dog".
Stringing together a few paragraphs copied from somewhere else and pretending that they are giving an encyclopaedic view is not the way to write an article. If you wrote all the background text and explanations needed to make this muddle into a coherent and intelligible article, you could trash 95% of what is there now. In other words, this is not an article!
Bathrobe (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Bathrobe's analysis. Another reason why this wiki seems to present a racist POV is the article's title. Other articles titled "Differences between X and Y" (there are about 20 of them on the wiki) are about objective differences between X and Y, as in Differences between Hindi and Urdu, Difference between a butterfly and a moth, or Differences between Dano-Norwegian and Standard Danish. By its very formulation, the current title implies that the article will tell us about inherent differences between Huaxia ("a great civilization," says the lead paragraph) and "barbarians." Translated back into long-hand Chinese, the title would read something like "Huaxia yu yemanren zhi jian de qubie" 華夏與野蠻人之間的區別, clearly not an acceptable concept. Madalibi (talk) 05:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to backtrack here. The very poor language and structure of the article gave an impression of great arrogance and racism. But Arilang does have a point, that is obscured by his poor editing. The point he was trying to make is that Confucianist thought, rather like French culture and American corporate culture, has universalistic pretensions. That is, while it believes itself to be an inherently superior system of thought or culture, theoretically at least, it leaves open membership to anyone who wishes to adhere to its cultural norms. Thus, French culture was a universal culture open to those who wished to become immersed in it, including black Africans. American corporations are open to anyone who is able to master its norms, walk the walk and talk the talk, whether they are American or not. In the same sense, Confucianist China believed that it was a universal culture that anyone could become a member of, provided they mastered its culture and its norms. In that sense, the article is probably not racist in the way that I earlier pointed out. But that does not stop it from being insufferably arrogant, and that is unfortunately the dominant impression that the article conveys.
So I am going to take back my simple accusation of "racism". The article is not racist per se, but it is based on assumptions of cultural arrogance.
However, this is a side issue. The fact is that the article is so poorly written as to be almost worthless. I still support deletion, and hope that one of the millions of Chinese netizens can come along and do a better job.
123.121.238.37 (talk) 13:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC) (Bathrobe, not logged on)[reply]
The Chinese wiki called "Hua-Yi zhi bian" 華夷之辨 ;

Some editors have argued that this topic is legitimate because there is a page for it on Chinese Wikipedia, so I went to check what that source says. The page history shows that this wiki was created and written almost entirely by a single editor (中華國, now banned). Different editors proposed mergers with the Chinese article on "Sinocentrism," and later "Han chauvinism," but the page creator removed these proposals without any explanation [39]. Someone re-inserted a proposal to merge with "Sinocentrism" [40], but the creator of the page removed it again, simply asserting that "Hua-Yi zhi bian" is "completely different" from Sinocentrism [41], even though the page then contained several interlanguage links to pages on Sinocentrism that he had himself inserted. [42]

For a long time, the page was also tagged for "original research" (原創研究). An editor (not the creator, who had been banned by then) eventually removed the tag after adding three external links, but no inline citation. [43]

Finally, another editor added [44] the current notice that this article is about "Cultural sinocentrism" (literally, "China's cultural-centrism" 中国的文化中心主义), and that discussions of "Racial sinocentrism" (literally "China's racial-centrism" 中国的种族中心主义) are found elsewhere. On the same edit, the editor inserted the current interlanguage link to Sinocentrism#Cultural sinocentrism and removed the old links to articles on Sinocentrism in four different languages, which had been there since the beginning.

In my opinion, this entire Chinese wiki constitutes "original research," because not a single synthetic claim or claim on primary sources is referenced. I also found that the article takes for granted the unreferenced POV that the peoples around Huaxia were backwards and uncivilized (古代華夏族群居于中原，爲文明中心，而周邊則較落後，因此逐漸產生了以文明禮義爲標準進行人群分辨的觀念). In other words, this wiki is very weak by Wikipedia standards.

Interestingly, the "Baidu Encyclopedia" article on "Hua-Yi zhi bian" (Arilang's "Ref 8" above) is a mirror page of the Chinese Wikipedia page. It cannot in and of itself confirm that the topic "Hua-Yi zhi bian" deserves an entry in an encyclopedia.

Regards, Madalibi (talk) 07:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baidu's encyclopedia is as reliable as Wikipedia is - its contents are contributed entirely by anonymous users. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 09:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Baidu has far more articles than Chinese Wikipedia, and its articles are usually of better quality. "Hua-Yi zhi bian" is one rare case in which the Baidu page was copied directly from Chinese Wikipedia! Madalibi (talk) 10:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hua-Yi zhi bian" 華夷之辨 and China's 200 million netizens ;

Editors please read (ref 10), before making any judgement.
In (ref 10), the essay explains the origin of Hua-Yi zhi bian" 華夷之辨" in great depth and details. The idea of Hua Yi zhi bian actually was formed thousands of years ago by Confucius. A 3000 years old ideology formulated by Confucius, and this idea, is very much alive among millions of Han Chinese. Editors can use all kinds of reasons to refuse to keep it as an article, that is OK. But please keep in mind that the number of Chinese netizens is about 200 millions plus. And then 300 millions, 400 millions, 500 millions. I believe that in not very distant future, English wikipedia will have many more Chinese editors, and they will create many more Chinese-related articles, including Hua-Yi zhi bian" 華夷之辨".

What I am saying is, no matter we like it or not, Chinese is coming onto the world stage, in every aspects, internet included. Arilang talk 11:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is opposed to Chinese editors coming on to edit. The problem is the quality of the articles that are written. Please don't try and pretend you have the support of millions of Chinese netizens when people try to have substandard efforts deleted. The problem is not the topic. It's the quality of the writing and the quality of the editing.
123.121.238.37 (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)(Bathrobe, not logged in)[reply]
Arilang - under that argument, we can literally create an article for every single Chinese idiom there ever was. But like I've said on more than one occasion, just because a concept exists, doesn't mean it has been well-researched and defined, enough so that we can make an entire article out of it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
HongQiGong, you and me(and possibly Madalibi) know that there are many pro-Han people on Chinese blogosphere, and editors the like of Madalibi and Bathrobe are in the minority, who do not enjoy much popularity, to say the least. Just go visit those pro-Han forums, and read those pro-Han blogs, you can feel the pulse, the power, the potential. Yes, at the moment you guys can twist the wiki rules original research and "POV" and insert you own interpretations, fair enough, you can do whatever you like. Now if only 10% of the 200 plus millions of Chinese netizens decide to learn English and become wiki editors, who shall win at the end of the day, pro-Han people or pro-Manchu people? You tell me. Arilang talk 19:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Come on Arilang, let's try and stay civil; nobody is trying to twist any rules, the consensus is just that this article isn't appropriate in its current incarnation. I know it sucks when an article you wrote gets nominated for deletion, but it really is nothing personal. – Toon(talk) 20:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone tell me the relevance of "pro-Han" and "pro-Manchu" to the issue of the Huaxia/barbarian distinction? Or is there a hidden agenda or secret subtext that we are not being told about?
Bathrobe (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arilang - you are truly ridiculous. About 90% of the article is a direct copy-and-paste from the following articles: Huaxia, Li (Confucian), Matteo Ricci, Giulio Alenio, Li Keyong. And you still refuse to acknowledge that you've basically thrown together a bunch of peripherally related topics to try to piece together an article. Instead you choose to accuse others of being biased against Han Chinese people. Maybe you are just inexperienced to the stricter standards of English Wikipedia, but I'm fairly certain that if 10% of the 200 plus million Chinese netizens become experienced English WP editors, they will agree that this article ought to be deleted as well. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hua-Yi zhi bian" 華夷之辨 being used as political and racist weapons;
@ user Bathrobe:No, there is no hidden agenda nor secret subtext, and your were partly correct(not 100%, may be 10%) when you commented that Hua-Yi zhi bian" 華夷之辨 is about racism. The anti-Manchu slogan in Revive China Society says it all:

This slogan was derived from Hua-Yi zhi bian" 華夷之辨, the English word by word translation is the title of the article with AfD tag:Differences between Huaxia and barbarians. Arilang talk 02:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Arilang, you ask who (Han or Manchu) shall win at the end of the day "if only 10% of the 200 plus millions of Chinese netizens decide to learn English and become wiki editors". Neither. Wiki's neutrality philosophy would need to have collapsed, meaning Wiki would disappear. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 01:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arilang's opinion of the Manchus is that they were "the most murderous barbarians of them all" [45] and that "barbarians are barbarians, like it or not" [46]. Everybody who disagrees or who says that this kind of POV is inappropriate on Wikipedia is "anti-Han" and "pro-Manchu." I can't believe Arilang still refuses to consider even the possibility that this page is flawed. You're not the victim of "pro-Manchu" rule twisters, Arilang. The only two editors who have voted to keep this article came here at your invitation [47] [48], and even they said the article should be rewritten. When will it click? And I've had enough of your ad hominems and insinuations. I have no problem with you if you remain civil and you assume good faith, but the next time you respond to good-faith criticisms with an ad hominem (as when you accused me of "Gestapo-style of Thought Police action" [whatever that meant], of being "Dr. Fu Manchu's reincarnation," and even of "denying the holocaust"!), I will report you to an administrator. Madalibi (talk) 02:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On my response to Bathrobe, I mentioned that a famous Han Chinese Dr. Sun Yatsen's anti-Manchu revolutionary slogan: Expel the northern barbarians, revive Zhonghua, and establish a republic. (驅逐韃虜，恢復中華，建立合眾政府), meaning that Hua-Yi zhi bian (華夷之辨) can be both political and racial.

Well, I forgot that there was another famous Han Chinese Zhu Yuanzhang (though there was gossips saying that he was actually a Hui) wrote on his manifesto of fighting off the Mongol Barbarians, thanks to user Bathrobe Talk:Sinocentrism#Is this Sinocentrism or Han Chauvinism?


To user Bathrobe and other editors, this is a battle call to get rid of the murderous and genocidal Mongols, and is definitely not a Come to my birthday party invitation. Just read this: Quote:Mongols' raids and invasions are generally regarded as one of the deadliest to human life[1][2] and ranking in third after the deaths from World War II and the An Shi Rebellion Unquoted.

There are many other cases of East Asia nations using Hua-Yi zhi bian" 華夷之辨 as a weapons to fight each other.

And one more comment to user Bathrobe, Ming Taizu is a hero of many pro-Han netizens, I bet you would receive all kind of abuses from them if one day you decide to go into their territory and post something nasty about Ming Taizu, and you probably get booted out by them in a very short time. Arilang talk 03:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should we remind Arilang about WP: ATTACK or would this be "twisting the rules"? Here's what this official Wikipedia policy says:

Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about another contributor must be supported by evidence, otherwise they constitute personal attacks and may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks.

Madalibi (talk) 03:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Formal apology to user Madalibi and any other editors whom I may have offended;

I take back my comments on calling other editors (including user Madalibi) twisting the rules, if ever other editors think that my comments were of personal attacks, I am sorry if I have hurt anyone's delicate feelings and I shall apology to them with all my sincerity, and I solemnly promise that there shall not be a second time. On me calling User Madalibi various names, "Gestapo-style of Thought Police action"Dr. Fu Manchu's reincarnation,"denying the holocaust all these names calling are just jokes, although I really really wish I could be a re-incarnation of something, or someone(may be as yet another Dalai Lama), how wonderful life would be if one can come back again and again and again, into perpetuity. How nice, you can give it to me anytime. Arilang talk 04:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we now delete the page?;

Shame on you, user Madalibi, for not getting the joke. And to all those users who have spent so much time and effort seriously discussing the question of whether this substandard article should be deleted, you should be ashamed for letting your pro-Manchu leanings get in the way of an objective judgement. You should know better!

Now that we know that the real motive for this article is to identify the Manchus as the most murderous barbarians of them all, can we take another vote? Should Differences between Huaxia and barbarians be deleted? And this time please keep your pro-Manchu feelings out of it.

Bathrobe (talk) 05:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This has been one of the most ridiculous AfD I've seen (conduct wise, not the nomination), I'm sure sarcasm helps the discussion. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer the term "facetious".
Bathrobe (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the compliment Bathrobe, now you know that Arilang is not a boring kind of guy. Arilang talk 04:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Looking at the last few comments, I think whatever "discussion" we were having has pretty much ended. I'm not sure which admin is in charge of this AfD, but I think it may be time to pull the plug. Madalibi (talk) 07:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs don't have particular admins in charge of them. Rather, any non-involved admin can close an AfD if consensus has been reached after five days (or a shorter period under limited circumstances). Thus, this AfD could potentially run for another three days, although I would rather it were cut short. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thank you for the information. If the page creator has nothing to add and if he has no objection to ending this discussion before the five days have elapsed, I see no reason to argue further. What do other editors think? Madalibi (talk) 09:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May be Barbarians too racist?;

I know that this article will be deleted, but I refuse to throw in the towel. Some editors mentioned that Barbarians not suitable for a wiki, Barbarians comes in too strong, too controversial, too racist. But editors seem to have forgotten the article in question is about a pre-modern historical term, or rather an ancient historical term. And in ancient times, not only barbarians a plenty, lots of foreign devils too. The Clash of Empires By Lydia He Liu


Publisher: Harvard University Press Pub. Date: September 2004 ISBN-13: 9780674013070


Example of Hua-Yi zhi bian 華夷之辨 gone wrong;

Boxer Rebellion is a classical example of Hua-Yi zhi bian 華夷之辨 gone wrong .

Quote:The Boxer Rebellion, or more properly Boxer Uprising, was a violent anti-foreign, anti-Christian movement by the “Boxers United in Righteousness,” Yihe tuan [1] or Society of Righteous and Harmonious Fists in China. In response to imperialist expansion, growth of cosmopolitan influences, and missionary evangelism, and against the backdrop of state fiscal crisis and natural disasters, local organizations began to emerge in Shandong in 1898. Unquoted Arilang talk 09:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The best arguments we can make for this topic;

Hi Arilang. I think we can make a fairly strong case for a topic like "Hua-Yi zhi bian" (though under a different title and better translated than "Diff. betwee Huaxia and barbarians") if we argue like this:

If you manage to write a page like this that summarizes reliable secondary sources (including Lydia Liu, whom you just cited), then great! We could then see if it looks like Sinocentrism, but this is another issue. In any case, if someone tagged this hypothetical page for deletion, let me know, and I will defend it as forcefully as I can, because I think this is an important topic that deserves to be discussed. But this is unfortunately not what the current page is about. For it to be neutral and grounded in reliable sources, the current article would have to be thoroughly reconceived and rewritten, and this is why I am arguing for deletion. I am not opposing the topic: just the page as it stands now. Madalibi (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kowtow to you;

Madalibi, you are great! This time my Kowtow is for real, no more sarcastic. I shall leave the writing to you, because my vocabulary is limited. I think not only you can use it in your doctorate thesis, may be you can even write a book on it, and don't forget to put my name down as a co-author. Arilang talk 10:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Thanks a lot, Arilang! You definitely know how to entertain. This page is way up there with cow tipping! Madalibi (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More examples of Hua-Yi zhi bian 華夷之辨 gone wrong;

Hua-Yi zhi bian 華夷之辨 manifest inself in diifferent forms throughout China's long history. Especially Cultural Revolution, not only we can use Hua-Yi zhi bian 華夷之辨 as a tool to explain its formation and its development. For example, during the Cultural Revolution, the Embassy of Great Britian was burned, this incidence can be easily expalined using Hua-Yi zhi bian 華夷之辨 as a tool, because Confucius said, people who refuse to follow Li (Confucian) will become barbarians, so those red guards were barbarians. Likewise, Hong Kong 1967 Leftist Riots can be explained in the same way.

Because Han Chinese have Hua-Yi zhi bian 華夷之辨 for thousands of years, its society is not governed by rule of law, instead, it is governed by morarity, which in itself is abstract and vague. Have I make myself clear? Arilang talk 20:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another example of Hua-Yi zhi bian 華夷之辨 gone wrong;

user Madalibi stated that,during the Manchu conquest of China proper, massive amount of Han Chinese were killed by Manchu soldiers. Because a lot of the soldiers were surrenders from former Ming Army, naturally these were Ming soldiers. A lot of historians could not explain this historical fact, that is, how do you explain, Han soldiers turned around and massacred their own Han people? Well, me explaination is, again, Hua-Yi zhi bian 華夷之辨 gone wrong, because Confucius said, barbarians and civilized people are interchangeable, because when people rejected Li (Confucian) teaching, they would become barbarians. So the Ming soldiers/turned Manchu soldiers had become barbarians, regardless of their ethnicity. Arilang talk 00:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most recent example of Hua-Yi zhi bian 華夷之辨 gone wrong;

I was lucky to be a major contributor of 2008 Chinese milk scandal, so I can claim a bit of authority on the subject. At the beginning I could not believe the fact that this poisoned milk problems could be so wide-spread and persistent problem. I mean in the West, this case would be quickly resolved with the resignation of government ministers(or probably the whole government) and then everything is over. But not in this case. This case is far from over, and it just drag on. Why? Again, Confucius already said, thousand of years ago. Han Chinese did not have Ten Commandments, so Thou shall not kill is not in their vocabulary. Arilang talk 00:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Positive manifestation of Hua-Yi zhi bian 華夷之辨;


In 2008 Summer Olympics opening ceremony#Attending heads of state, there is a list of heads of states and dignitaries, which looks like a who-is-who of United Nations. Some critics claimed that the Communist China government was spending hundreds of millions of US$ to recreate the falsified dreams of the past glory of dynasties like Tang, Song and Ming, of becoming the Celestial Dynasty (天朝) again, yet another manifestation of Hua-Yi zhi bian 華夷之辨. Arilang talk 01:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that be semi speculative/close to OR (read:belonging somewhere else, diff article, or subsection)? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support user Madalibi's position;

Despite being a notorious Manchu sympathiser :), I support User Madalibi's suggestion. The entire question of how Chinese regarded themselves vis-à-vis "barbarians" is a very serious topic. It deserves much better treatment than the current article, which really isn't an article at all.

As for the role of Hua-yi zhi bian in the additional contexts that Arilang has mentioned (such as Ming soldiers massacring Han Chinese), we would again require some serious scholarly backup. Anyone can come up with theories as to the reason for certain behaviour. Yes, it's tempting to say that the Ming soldiers reverted to barbarism under 華夷之辨 gone wrong. You could just as easily explain it by resorting to the theory that "human nature is inherently evil (性恶)", which is an ancient Chinese theory. Or the theory that "life is cheap in the Orient". (This last one is quite ridiculous, but until quite recently there were many Westerners who would quite seriously put this forward as a philosophy of life in eastern countries.)

I think that any rewriting of the article must try to stick to introducing conventional views on 華夷之辨, not theorising how it might explain this or explain that.

Bathrobe (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three words: reliable secondary sources. Otherwise, we're back to WP: OR. Madalibi (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't this belong say elsewhere, like a sandbox on a user's page instead of AfD? This is page planning, not AfD'ing! ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conflict of interest?;

I believe that some users here may have a conflict of interest. I hope that the editors here are well aware that continuing to edit after knowing that they have a conflict of interest could lead to fairly severe restrictions under some circumstances. For example, a couple of editors here appear to have condescending views of certain ethnic groups. In this case, the editors involved probably should not be editing this page or the article itself at all. Albert584 (talk) 10:40, 7 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, following expansion of the disambiguation, therefore making it useful. Tavix (talk) 04:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Weber (disambiguation)[edit]

Carl Weber (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

unneeded disambiguation; only redirects to one article. Tavix (talk) 05:35, 3 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 00:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Polka Album[edit]

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

Supposedly a "Weird Al" Yankovic compilation album, but can't find any proof of its existence - no coverage even in blogs, much less reliable sources. Smells like a hoax to me. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 05:02, 3 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. Cirt (talk) 01:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert M Heller[edit]

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

Does not, so far as I can discern, meet WP:BIO criteria. Nicely sourced for the most part, I concede that freely, but I can't quite discern if any of the facts stated actually prove notability. Those more knowledgeable in this field are free and encouraged to disagree, of course! Vianello (talk) 00:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added two more links from eonline and abc news showing notability. Siamsens —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The ABC news link doesn't work, but the E-Online link does work. Vianello, you're right this page is nicely sourced but it smacks of self-promotion to me. Liberal Classic (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed there is some duplication from http://www.rhellerlaw.com/attorney_profile.html in the wikipedia entry. Liberal Classic (talk) 02:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The author of the article's user page User:Siamsens says: "Rex Flay Freiberger, living in Los Angeles, CA, resident alien". The law firm in question has a Los Angeles office. What is Mr. Freiberger's relationship with Robert Heller? Is there is potential conflict of interest? Liberal Classic (talk) 02:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This article violates WP:COPYVIO from including text from the attorney's commercial website in the entry. I do not believe the subject meets WP:BIO because the depth of coverage is not substantial. Lastly, I suspect the author may be connected with the firm thus violating WP:COI. In conclusion, this entry is self-promotional, not encyclopedic. Liberal Classic (talk) 03:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. The abc link has been changed to the Intl Herald Tribune, this should meet notability requirements of two premium journalist pieces quoting Mr. Heller.
2. Heller's legal cases are high profile in the LA area, i wrote objectively about him and cited properly as mentioned by admin on the first note. My point being, the very fact that i live in LA reveals that I understand the subject.
3. If I were to write about my least favorite pokemon character would you question whether I watch the show or not? What are my intentions? This is very good question to ask, as you must question if the entry is to be unbiased. But wikipedia entries should only be written by those who are knowledgeable on the subject matter, written in a tonality of objectivity, which i did.

My intention is to get a correct, healthily cited notability required entry approved. Instruct to me why and the how if there is fault with room for improvement. If not please approve.Rex Freiberger (talk) 07:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr. Freiberger, if you read WP:BIO you will see the standard for notability is a little more strict that being quoted in the paper. One of the ways notability is established is when 3rd party sources write something substantial about a person. In this case, the depth of the coverage is not substantial. In fact, it could be argued the article is about actress Teri Hatcher, not Mr. Heller. Liberal Classic (talk) 17:09, 3 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) Foxy Loxy Pounce! 02:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Search Of (film)[edit]

In Search Of (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No notability asserted. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CRYSTAL, WP:FUTURE, and/or WP:N. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 09:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Updating now, kasoda (talk) 09:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Keep I feel I resolved the WP:CRYSTAL, WP:FUTURE, and WP:N issues. kasoda (talk) 03:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just noticed it said Release Date: 11/01/08. How can this be a upcoming film if it already was released? Also, if the film is not notable yet, or not foreseeably notable, it should not have an article until it actually is released and shown notable (at least that's what happens usually). ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I removed the upcoming film tag, Sorry I missed that. What notable does it need? Are box office numbers ,reviews, magazine write-up not enough? Sorry very new to this. kasoda (talk) 05:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • And a question: This source says "From Here To Awesome Winners Screen in London", and lists In Search Of as one of these winners. What was the award they won? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Asserts notability in current form, can see where notability could be debatable but IMO meets enough of the criteria in WP:NF to keep. Raitchison (talk) 16:54, 5 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. After improvements.  Sandstein  16:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Sky[edit]

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

No notability asserted. Apparently fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has already begun. (Note that production images from the official site apparently are of a demo shoot, not the actual film.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nicely done, btw, on finding those sources. I hadn't even seen that teaser trailer. --Agamemnon2 (talk) 12:58, 7 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 G4 by NrDg. Non-admin closure. --Amalthea 16:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth Album (Chris Brown album)[edit]

Fourth Album (Chris Brown album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced speculation. WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER apply. AndrewHowse (talk) 04:20, 3 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) 19:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal Alien (film)[edit]

Illegal Alien (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Apparently fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:17, 3 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 00:28, 8 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 15:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flatpoint High School (Strangers with Candy)[edit]

Flatpoint High School (Strangers with Candy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete - this fictional school has no notability beyond the associated TV series. Prod removed by editor stating that the unreferenced and trivial details should be merged to Strangers with Candy, although that editor really should know by now that lists of unsourced trivia are not particularly welcome on Wikipedia. Otto4711 (talk) 02:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • About two years go there was indeed a pattern of deletion of what was then denigrated as trivia, but such deletions since become very unusual. More's the pity. Sadly too many editors would rather have gigantic lists of idiotic nonsense like "in episode 14 of season two of The Made-up Show, a character is wearing a Dukes of Hazard wristwatch and the time on it is 11:36" than have articles that are actually encyclopedic in content, thus the lists of idiotic trivia have become harder and harder to delete as the garbage heaps that they are. As for the need for sources to be "primarily" about a topic to establish the notability of the topic, you are correct that this is not a requirement. However, significant coverage is required. You are also correct that the sources about the show "seem to talk about the school in a specific way". That way is by merely mentioning the school as the setting of the program. Where are the sources that address the subject directly in detail, as required by WP:N? Otto4711 (talk) 02:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources to which you link do not establish the notability of the school separate from the series or film, as they are mere mentions of the school's name and mere mentions are not "significant coverage" as required by WP:N which states in relevant part that "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." Trivial mentions are defined by example as one-sentence mentions in a larger work. Of course reviews of the film are going to mention its setting. That does not make the setting independently notable as mere existence does not make a topic notable. Find some sources that discuss the topic directly in detail. Otto4711 (talk) 02:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is an acceptable spinoff article because it concerns a subject that appears in both the film and television series and thus serves as a gateway to those articles. The sources successfully establish notability because they not only verify this article's content, but also demonstrate that it is worth mentioning in more than just a couple reviews that appear on Google News and when they discuss the school, they discuss how it does not reflect reality, the factions in the school, etc., i.e. they provide out of universe non-trivial coverage of the school, or put simply more than significant coverage for our purposes. A fair compromise here would be a merge and redirect with the edit history in tact as a reasonable middle ground. There is certainly no compelling reason to redlink the article, but I would agree that it probably could be covered sufficiently in the article where the sourced information was merged to earlier. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 04:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge into Strangers with Candy. The fictional setting's value lies within the context of the programme. Dr.Who (talk) 10:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC) Keep for now. The nomination was to delete. Provide an opportunity for merge discussion on the article's talk page per A Nobody. Dr.Who (talk) 10:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • First, I have to say that I don't appreciate being dismissed as waving at WP:JNN and even if I did I would still feel constrained to point out that it and the other things you linked to are part of an essay, not part of any policy or guideline, and thus are not binding on this discussion. Second, while "Flatpoint High School" might possibly be a valid search term, "Flatpoint High School (Strangers with Candy)" is not. Finally, since the information merged is unsourced, it is subject to removal at any time. The unsourced material has now been removed from Strangers with Candy, as has the impediment to the deletion under the GFDL (noting that WP:Merge and delete is also an essay that may freely be disregarded). Otto4711 (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The material that was merged was the sourced material, which means the GFDL concern remains and thus this article cannot be deleted. There is no policy based reason for deletion. The subject is notable because it appears in both a film and television series as the principal location. The subject is verifiable in multiple reliable secondary sources as demonstrated by a Google news search. Thus, the article meets are notability and verifiability policies/guidelines while being consistent with our First pillar, i.e. a specialized encyclopedia covering fictional topics with importance to people in the real world. Thus, coupled with the merge of sourced material means that while some could be a credible case for merging and redirecting, there is no compelling reason to redlink this article. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:28, 10 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 WP:SNOW Delete. Fails WP:V and all applicable inclusion guidelines, probably hoax. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Codename: Kids Next Door: the Movie (film)[edit]

Codename: Kids Next Door: the Movie (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No notability asserted. No references provided to evidence that the production exists; if it does, nothing shown to evidence that this film does not explicitly fail the future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:47, 3 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 University of Hertfordshire. Euryalus (talk) 05:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UH Racing[edit]

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

Non-notable. Formula SAE/Formula Student is a university-level engineering and racing program. It's specific participating universities and teams are not notable. The359 (talk) 00:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:44, 3 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 (G7). — Aitias // discussion 04:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna Live Performances[edit]

Madonna Live Performances (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not sure what cat to speedy this with so I figured I'd send it to AfD instead. If anyone can let me know what cat this would be speedy'd with I'd appreciate it Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign!) 02:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could try to answer it, but I don't really understand what's your point. Johnnyboytoy (talk) 03:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thats the word I was looking for! Listcruft, this is a totally unnecessary list and does not have a place on Wikipedia. Check out WP:NOT. Hope you understand and thanks for contributing to the project -- Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign!) 03:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well, i wanted to create it cause it is the kind of thing I come to wikipedia looking for, but maybe it is just me, my friends and other fans. But I understand. Johnnyboytoy (talk) 03:12, 3 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 (G7). — Aitias // discussion 04:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Valdelamar crime family[edit]

Valdelamar crime family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any ghits on "Arturo Valdelamar" indicating any kind of crime connection, just 16 hits, and nothing in news. I tried a few other names with no luck either, and the external links don't mention this alleged crime family at all. Seems to be an elaborate WP:HOAX, possible personal attack. Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:40, 3 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 00:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bad for Business (film)[edit]

Bad for Business (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No notability asserted. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:25, 3 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 00:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cableready Productions[edit]

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

Article about non-notable company with no third-party reference sources DAJF (talk) 02:25, 3 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 03:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Expendables (2010 film)[edit]

The Expendables (2010 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Explicitly fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that shooting has already begun. Suggest a merge/redirect to Stallone article for the meantime. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:20, 3 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. Spartaz Humbug! 21:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adhavan[edit]

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

Apparently fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:09, 3 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 00:24, 8 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 03:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Kristo[edit]

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

Article fails WP:N, WP:ATHLETE, and WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE. Player in question has yet to play professionally or at the highest level of amateur hockey (World Championships or Olympics). – Nurmsook! talk... 02:00, 3 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. I think User:EEMIV put it best: "This list looks like a packing receipt mixed with the last page of a VCR instruction manual." From what I gather, it's the remarkably poor structure of this list combined with the total lack of references of any sort that is making this list the victim of repeat AfD's. This list does appear to have been the target of several merges, and so those merges have simply dumped information in without doing much to clean it up. I believe, and it seems a consensus here believes the same, that a very substantial cleanup effort would go a long way toward improving this article; finding references, adding information, and possibly splitting back out as recommended in this discussion. If you are a member of a relevant Wikiproject, please work with your fellow editors to get some sort of collaboration done on this list, because it really really needs it. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Gundam Universal Century mobile units[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of Gundam Universal Century mobile units (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Previously nominated in 2007, but no consensus was reached. Does not establish notability with independant sources, Fancruft list of mostly extremely minor mecha, no references. Dandy Sephy (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Further note: each of these have 100+ non-wikipedia hits at least. Most (all?) seem to have at least a few (self-published but apparently well-respected) website hits where there are gory details on each "unit". Not traditional notability, but I'm good with it. Add a copy of DGG's arguments here too. Hobit (talk) 19:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Of course, those pages all have proper descriptions of the items "listed", whereas this article has a couple of paragraphs and then a very long list, some wikilinked but much of it isnt. People are concentrating on notability and verification and ignoring that its still fancruft. If this page was like the others, I'd not have started the Afd. However as it stands, much of the page is only useful to hardcore fans who can get the information elsewhere. About half the list is just a plain text list of minor variations of minor mecha even within the Gundam universe. If even the minor models had a paragraph at least describing them with the variations below, it would be a decent page for everyone. As it stands we have a article flagged for rescue, people asking for it to be kept, but not a single person has tried to improve the article. Dandy Sephy (talk) 12:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But tell us what you really think! Seriously, how on earth is a verifiable list OR? Could you explain your comments? Hobit (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Jtrainor (talk) 22:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Foxy Loxy Pounce! 02:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sounds like a plan to me. Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Woah, keep in mind that each and every list must assert the notability of the subject just as a major article would. I can't imagine that most of these mini-lists would meet Wikipedia's criteria of notability, especially if the major list is having trouble. Themfromspace (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
commentSmaller, more detailed lists (with more emphasis on major models and less on listing every extremely minor variation) would be easier to prove notability and to reference then an extremely long list with a couple of odd paragraphs like this. If I had come across the sort of artcles The Farix is talking about, I'd most likely have left them alone (I've nothing against Gundam itself and am in fact watching 00).It's the long list of minor variations that led me to look over the article as a whole as a potential afd candidate. Based on current votes and comments, I expect the afd to be closed as keep/no consensus, so I hope to see attempts made to follow the suggestions made by various people to improve the article so it's useful for the common wikipedia user and not just for hardcore fansDandy Sephy (talk) 04:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment' +1 with the above comments one center node redirecting to either smaller lists for those which gathered enough notability & references/sources or to the mecha section of their related parent-article for those which are too weak and have been merged. The current one big list will always be unevenly sourced as it depends heavily to each franchise success which is obviously uneven.--KrebMarkt 09:54, 8 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.  Sandstein  16:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of iPhone applications[edit]

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

This is a horribly incomplete and unuseful article that contains out-of-date information. There are over 10,000 applications for the iPhone, and only 28 or so are listed here. If someone wants to find notable applications, they can use this category or Template:iPhone, which makes this list redundant as well. Tavix (talk) 06:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is already taking place. See my external link above for the category. Tavix (talk) 18:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:LC is an essay and is not Wikipedia policy. I do not think it should be used as a reason to delete an article. Are there any policies you can cite for why the article should be deleted? ~ PaulT+/C 03:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is not an FAQ, plot summary, lyric database, "statistics", or news report... so how does WP:IINFO apply? I don't understand why you are putting so much effort into deleting content on Wikipedia. Either something doesn't belong and it is obvious or there are doubts. If there are doubts there shouldn't be any need for a long-drawn out discussion like this. Just let it lie and stop wasting people's time. ~ PaulT+/C 15:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, the problem with your statement is that no one is willing to work on it, and it would be next to impossible to keep it maintained. Tavix (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be at least one established editor working on it; I notice you as nominator did not notify him of this discussion, which does not seem like a fair way of proceeding. (I just did so). DGG (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The way I look at it, if an editor really cares about an article enough, they don't need my help to find a discussion on its deletion. Tavix (talk) 04:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess that's evidence that we do need a rule requiring it, after all. DGG (talk) 03:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The difference between those articles and the iPhone one is there are hardly any notable iPhone applications, and there are over 10,500 apps. How do we decide which to put in the list? Tavix (talk) 04:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not a reason to delete an article. The point is that there are and will be notable iPhone applications and therefore there should be a list of them with the appropriate additional information that cannot be conveyed by a category. ~ PaulT+/C 05:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you see that now? No. You can't look into a crystal ball and hope that the article will turn into something special. Right now it is barely a list of 28 apps, half of them aren't even notable, which is in a dire need of an upgrade. I'm not saying that it can't be done, but at its current state, it would require a full rewrite to become even remotely usable. Tavix (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And needing a rewrite is a reason for deleting content? This is ridiculous. ~ PaulT+/C 15:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Foxy Loxy Pounce! 02:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - honestly, I'm hesitant to spend more time on this article as the nominator clearly seems ready to re-nominate the article regardless of the rationale and since he doesn't feel the need to notify anyone, the work I put into the article could be deleted at any time. ~ PaulT+/C 15:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
categories and lists are indeed not the same. Lists are almost always more informative. A category may not literally need a list, but it should have one in every case where there is enough material to be worth the bother, anything useful to be added to the bare names, and people to do the work. DGG (talk) 04:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reiterating what I posted earlier: this article is not an FAQ, plot summary, lyric database, "statistics", or news report... so how does WP:IINFO apply? ~ PaulT+/C 18:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:IINFO lists five points but they are just examples of what constitutes indiscriminate information. I would argue that a list of over 10000 items (which is what this list would be if it were successfully expanded under its criteria for inclusion) IS indiscriminate. Not only does it fall under "statistics", but the wishy-washy criteria for inclusion mean that whatevers on the list at any time doesnt even have to be the most popular applications. Even (for example) a list of iPhone apps made by apple would be more discriminate than this and I would argue that such a list wouldn't be indiscriminate. Themfromspace (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list is limited to those applications that have Wikipedia articles, though I do think that expanding it to include all Apps by notable (IE those that have wikipedia articles) developers (including Apple) might be useful and warranted as well. ~ PaulT+/C 22:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
for a list or other navigational device, Usefulness is a major criterion. The purpose of such pages is to be useful within the encyclopedia . DGG (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And that argument is just as ignorant now as it was then. Unnecessary and irrelevant lists are the biggest liability Wikipedia has. They are almost universally bad, they require far more maintainence than the average article, and there is no shortage of people who will happily argue for their inclusion and then mysteriously find somewhere else to be when it comes time to actually keep them current. Oh, and I'm sorry Paul, I understand if you are new around here but it takes more to "sufficiently refute" something than for someone, somewhere to use it in an AfD that fails. It requires community consensus. AfD Closing admins to not write Wikipedia policy... God help us if they did. Trusilver 21:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • sufficiently refute? I think you misread me: The argument "a category is sufficient" was refuted. I'm not saying it is the end-all be-all of the discussion, but I do think pointing it out has relevancy here. ~ PaulT+/C 22:23, 5 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. seicer | talk | contribs 00:02, 7 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 00:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Part[edit]

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

No notability asserted; possible COI. Wikipedia is not the IMDb, nor a promotional vehicle. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

David Sowden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nicholas Zebrun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Related templates for deletion:

Template:David Sowden Films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Nicholas Zebrun Films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:57, 3 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 00:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of food origins[edit]

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

Unreferenced, Original research, indiscriminate/unmaintainable list. — ERcheck (talk) 01:33, 3 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 00:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Sarkis[edit]

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

Though this page is fairly well sourced, the author of the page is User:Sarkis26 which leads me to believe this is an auto-biographical entry. This violates WP:COI and to me, makes this encyclopedia entry an exercise in self promotion. Liberal Classic (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO sets the standard for notability. I don't see that either Lara Webb or Jeffrey Brantley are particularly notable. Having written a book or journal articles does not make one notable. Notability is established when others write substantial things about you. Liberal Classic (talk) 03:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This line of argument boils down to WP:OCE, and the admin who closes this debate will deal with it accordingly. To keep the article you need to show Stephanie Sarkis is notable by means of references in reputable, independent sources.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 04:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Per WP:PROF, "honors for academic student achievements (at either high school, undergraduate or graduate level) do not qualify under Criterion 2 and do not count towards partially satisfying Criterion 1." While the APA is a notable organization, the honor [55] does not meet the criteria for a major prize. W While assuming good faith, the submission does seem to have a promotional quality as the creator's edits are the creation of and edits to this article, edits the article on the publishing house for Sarkis' book, (see WP:COI) and comment here. While Sarkis does not meet the criteria for academics, the only criteria for notability that seems to be plausible at this point in Sarkis' career is as an author - which is it not clear that beyond book promotions that independent sources establish she meets notability criteria as an author. It is not shown that her books meet the criteria for notability. I've formatted the article's references so that it is easier to see the sources. — ERcheck (talk) 14:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I left a note on the creator's talk page on notability, references, and COI concerns. Continued edits increase COI concerns. I've left a further note on the editor's talk page as well as on the article talk page. — ERcheck (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In response to this let me say I mean no disrespect to Dr. Sarkis and I apologize to the wikipedia community if I have done anything wrong. I just found it fraught with problems. It is difficult to assume good faith knowing the article was biographical. Are her awards and publications notable? Can an autobiography have a neutral point of view? If it is all POV, does it need to be gutted and rewritten? That's why I nominated it for deletion. I have no vested interest in the article being kept or deleted, and will abide by consensus. How should I handle this differently in the future? Liberal Classic (talk) 05:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Liberal, sorry if I sounded a bit harsh, but I was losing my patience a bit at the umpteenth AfD stating COI as a deletion reason. In the case of the Sardis article, there are some claims of notability so you correctly decided not to go for speedy. Given that the article creator is probably the subject, prod would not be helpful either (although it might have been used to alert the editor to possible issues with COI and notability; tagging for those issues would have been another possible alternative). So your decision to go for AfD was not necessarily wrong, even if it was very rapid (in the end, I came down on the delete side). But given the possibility of notability, I would have liked to see more evidence of the lack thereof in the nom (such as Ghits, GNews, GScholar) and/or some attempt to communicate with the editor of the article to see whether additional sources possibly establishing notability exist. Although the majority of autobiographies indeed are on non-notable persons/bands/etc, some turn out to be on notable scientists (see for example Glenn McGee or Richard Tol or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Chater), although it is often necessary that others edit the articles for COI and POV issues. As for good faith, often newbies are unaware of the fact that WP strongly discourages (but not forbids) the creation of an autobio, so I would still WP:AGF in those cases, at least initially. --Crusio (talk) 09:11, 5 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.  Sandstein  16:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of software[edit]

Lists of software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This list of lists appear to be a partial, redundant duplicate of the "Lists of software" category. (Already PRODded by me and dePRODded by an anonymous editor.) Goochelaar (talk) 13:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear: I do not object to the concept itself of a list of lists. It is only that it looks like the best this particular list can aspire to is becoming as comprehensive and as useful as Category:Lists of software already is. Goochelaar (talk) 09:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd argue that 11 doesn't apply precisely because it's a list of lists. Splitting this up is the only sensible way to go if you want to make it maintainable. - Mgm|(talk) 22:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful navigational tool; not duplicate of category as provides alternative non-alphabetical classification; valid form of article. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand per WP:CLN; parenthetically I am disappointed editors are quoting from WP:LC as if it is a guideline or policy, when it is an essay. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Foxy Loxy Pounce! 01:15, 3 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 00:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lightfeather 3D Engine[edit]

Lightfeather 3D Engine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article does not explain how this software is notable (WP:N), or provide any citations from reliable, independent sources (WP:V). Prod contested by anonymous user without comment and no effort to address these issues. Marasmusine (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

for example imo the notability of Lightfeather is through its technical "merits" (performance, features, design etc) which imo can't/shouldn't be explained in a wikipedia article. also, if you take a look at the lists of open source projects on wikipedia, you would probably have to remove 95% for notability reasons since theres always only one or two "big" ones in each category and the others are rather small projects. so where/how do you draw the line ? full disclosure: i am one of the authors of lightfeather User:mm765 —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Foxy Loxy Pounce! 01:14, 3 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 03:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Picknell[edit]

Jamie Picknell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It appears that he's - just - verifiable enough, and notable as acting foreign minister.  Sandstein  16:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Wahab Khan Tarzi[edit]

Abdul Wahab Khan Tarzi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Questionable notability, orphan. JaGatalk 21:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Foxy Loxy Pounce! 01:09, 3 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 00:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Marmolejo[edit]

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

Insufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Foxy Loxy Pounce! 01:09, 3 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 Lolicon#United_States. Seems to be a consensus for this, and it'll help make the proposed split mentioned by Graymornings a little easier to manage. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dwight Whorley[edit]

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

This article does not meet our inclusion criteria with respect to notability, as described in WP:BIO. Specifically, Dwight Whorley as a person does not appear to have had any coverage in reliable third party sources apart from media coverage related to the crimes he has been convicted for.

Accordingly, pursuant to our policy about the biograpies of living persons (WP:BLP), specifically its subsections WP:NPF and WP:BLP1E, any mention of his case (if any) should be a part of the article PROTECT Act of 2003, which is about the act under which he was convicted and the question of whose constitutionality seems to be the matter of interest in the whole story.

I have attempted to redirect the article accordingly; this has been reverted twice. I think deletion (and subsequent redirection) is now appropriate.  Sandstein  23:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I am writing a lengthy deletion rationale is that the article is linked to from Slashdot, which means we might have many new people reading this.  Sandstein  23:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Foxy Loxy Pounce! 01:03, 3 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 00:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Storm Hawks locations[edit]

List of Storm Hawks locations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Procedural nom, was tagged for PROD but was removed on last day of nom. No sourcing and nothing to establish notability for wholly in-universe locations in real world terms. treelo radda 11:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It doesn't need to be notable independently from the topic. It's part of comprehensive coverage of the main topic. And unverfied does not equal unverfiable. - Mgm|(talk) 21:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh, no, it does need independent notability from the topic. It's not comprehensive coverage of the main topic, it's excessive and unnecessary coverage of the main topic. It's comprehensive coverage of the topic when there is significant coverage of these locations in sources independent of the topic, which would justify the importance of this article. And I never said anything about verifiability; I noted that it was not notable. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 22:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
indeed, at the present state of development of the articles, that would be the best solution in my opinion too--but this solution is not delete, but a merge. Perhaps you should restate your !vote. DGG (talk) 05:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've amended my statement to a merge, but I would only recommend a merge of the intro paragraph of the nominated article, as that contains the most succinct description. Yngvarr (t) (c) 11:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 01:03, 3 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 00:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Starlet[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:PORNBIO. Tagged for proposed deletion, but tag was removed by the page author. The only reference on the article even states that she is a "young new starlet." Per the notability guideline for pornographic actors, she has not won or been a serious nominee for a well-known award. She is not from a major pornographic magazine; although the article states (albeit unsourced) that she worked with a Penthouse photographer, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and she has not appeared in the magazine. Searching the IMDb produced no results for either her real name or stage name. Her first "major" release, titled "The Voyuer in Me", supposedly scheduled to come out in January 2009, produced no results (with "voyuer" or "voyeur") on IMDb or the internet. Even if it did, per WP:CRYSTAL, it has not yet been released. Continuing on the notability guideline, I don't believe she made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, or has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media. With that, I believe the article fails the notability guideline for pornographic actors, and thus should be deleted. – Alex43223 T | C | E 01:01, 3 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 00:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppression: Years of Torment[edit]

Oppression: Years of Torment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Apparently fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has already begun. (Additionally, there is no evidence that this film ever wound up shooting, nor that the A-list actors claimed to be in the film participated.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 01:01, 3 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 00:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Manoj Thompson[edit]

Stephen Manoj Thompson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is incoherent but seems to be a promotional biography of a non-notable businessman who has written a book, which has had little RS coverage. He, himself, seems to have had even less. I don't think most of the refs are good RS, except for The Hindu, which only offers a listing confirming that the book exists without a review. Much of the rest is press releases and the like. A quick Google is not encouraging. DanielRigal (talk) 11:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 01:01, 3 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. John254 00:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Ruoff[edit]

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

Non-notable. The creator of this page has a history of creating articles for every WVU athlete. While some are worthy of Wikipedia entries, this one is not. Cite WP:ATHLETE. Further, this article does not include sufficient references, and it even lists things such as the subject's pet's name. This article is pure garbage.Timneu22 (talk) 11:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 01:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added a couple of references to this article to demonstrate that the subject of this article is notable. I think the article needs many more references, but from the two I added, it is clear to me that the article is a keeper. Also, I would again urge that only the article be considered, not the editor who created the article. I think in this case the creating editor has been acting in good faith, but that he needs to improve his editing style to provide references that prove notability. Perhaps instead of deletion, a "needs references" or even a "prod" tag is needed instead of an AfD. Thanks! WVhybrid (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: While the article doesn't meet the expanded criteria under WP:ATHLETE, it does appear the meet the basic requirements of WP:NOTABILITY by virtue of its published sources. Given that its subject, Alex Ruoff, is considered to be one of the star players of the Mountaineers basketball team, I would imagine that with a moderate amount of effort more sources could be gathered to further support his notability. I like WVhybrid's suggestion of keeping the article and tagging it with a "needs references" message. Brian Powell (talk) 05:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Bmpowell, took the words right out of my mouth.--Iamawesome800 03:26, 6 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 03:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Markićević[edit]

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

He is a regional league player and not yet a professional player Matthew_hk tc 12:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:58, 3 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 03:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Denver Jade Fowler[edit]

Denver Jade Fowler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article probably fails WP:N. Guy0307 (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:57, 3 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 00:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proto-Dené-Caucasian roots[edit]

Proto-Dené-Caucasian roots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A list of roots collected for a new and controversial langauge family, Dené-Caucasian languages. Strongly smacks ongoing Original research IMO. In any case, wikipedia is not a dictionary. A couple examples (taken from references as whole, rather than a word from here, a word from there) would be enough in the article Dené-Caucasian languages. This is not the first attempt of making wikipedia a vehicle for marginal linguistic theories. The main page itself, "Dené-Caucasian languages" is highly unbalanced, since it covers only views of (not so numerous) proponents, without trace of criticism. `'Míkka>t 20:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. I'm not extensively knowledgeable about the subject, but there are many references; they might all be even from a particular academic camp or school. But that does not mean the content is of no value. The nominator appears to be expressing a POV re this deletion proposal and also the Dene-Caucasion lnaguages article, with also a whiff of merge. --Fremte (talk) 17:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I beg to disagree: the nominator expresses a worry that a not very well accepted theory is covered only by its proponents, i.e., his is NPOV, rather that POV :-) I copied a sentence to this end into the main article. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 05:41, 3 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 00:57, 3 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. Cirt (talk) 02:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mission EDitor[edit]

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

Delete. Software is obviously non-notable-- lacks proper sourcing because subject has never received non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. JBsupreme (talk) 21:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 01:07, 3 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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 23:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haakai[edit]

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

Unreferenced, orphaned, and doesn't seem to be notable enough. SchfiftyThree (talk!) 22:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:56, 3 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 Withdrawn. Schuym1 (talk) 13:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Meschisvili[edit]

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

Fails WP:ONEEVENT. Nothing of importance happened because of his death such as a movie, documentary, book, or oganization. Schuym1 (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like someone is ignan't of recent Greek history and needs edumacation: Alex's disapperance sparked a whole series of investigations into child abuse and exploitation, a subject taboo in the Greek society. Yes, nothing of importance happened in the US about it. But it was the first instance of verified child exploitation in Greece over a decade. So, yeah, Scorteze did not direct a movie about Alex. in any case, read up on the subject before you send it to Afd. Project2501a (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I searched for sources for him. If you can show me a source that verifies what you said, I will withdraw. Schuym1 (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I wasn't talking about importance in the US, I was talking about importance anywhere. It's not like my nomination said "nothing of importance happened in the US". I don't see how you got that out of "nothing of importance happened". Schuym1 (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:56, 3 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 03:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radical Matters[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Only one of the artists has an article. The creator also has a conflict of interest. Fails WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 00:12, 3 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.
More