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

US Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? notable contestants[edit]

US Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? notable contestants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Laundry list of contestants on WWTBAM. Except for Carpenter, none of these contestants is individually notable, so why lump them all into a list? This is nothing but a list of miscellaneous information, and the first time I've seen the trivia trag at the TOP of the article. I see no way that this can be sourced. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable list that violates WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information) --Mhking (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete as an unverifiable BLP disaster waiting to happen. Borderline G10 as one huge BLP violation. MuZemike 00:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• G10 is only for attack pages isn't it? This is hardly attack material. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't know that this merits its own separate article, but the website authorized by the program's producers would obviously be a verifiable source for information. None of these contestants is individually notable? Big deal. That's why they shouldn't have their own individual articles. Mandsford (talk) 00:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What defines a notable contestant? Is it someone who was notable before they came onto the show? Then list every celebrity contestant and nobody else. Is it someone who wins a million? Then make it Who Wants to Be A Millionaire Grand Prize Winners. Is it people who miss the first question? Notability questions can be asked ad nauseum. Eauhomme (talk) 02:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but reduce the size of the article to the point where it's basically unrecognizable. The list is misnamed right now - in its current form, it's not for notable contestants, it's for events on the show that someone decided were notable. Townlake (talk) 06:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This topic is really more appropriate for a merge to the main article, but there's so much unsalvagable stuff here, merger would not really be appropriate. Townlake (talk) 14:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the inclusion criteria here appear to be totally random and not anything I would have imagined as constituting game-show contestant notability. (~60 non-starter contestants are notable? really?) I tend to think that the number of really notable contestants who can be supported from independent reliable sources is small enough for the main article. WillOakland (talk) 10:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The celebrities and other notable winners are already in the main WWTBAM article. The rest isn't verifiable (the current possible sources in the ext. link section are a tripod fansite without any sort of track record in factchecking and IMDB which has a known track record for publishing faulty info). - Mgm|^(talk) 12:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If someone wants to undertake a good pruning, and a formatting change, parts of the list could be added back into the main article. But most of the list seems rather pointless, thats why I spun it off. I can't imagine its deletion will deprive people of a solid and useful resource/reference. Nait2k4 (talk) 09:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT FingersOnRoids♫ 23:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Inauguration of Barack Obama. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International reaction to the Inauguration of Barack Obama[edit]

International reaction to the Inauguration of Barack Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article was created with text copied from Inauguration of Barack Obama. There was no discussion to split the article. Editors of main article do not wish to separate this text from article at this time, see Talk:Inauguration_of_Barack_Obama#New_articles.3F. Thanks. Aaron charles (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with several responses that when deleting this split article, it makes sense to redirect the link to the main article. Thank you. Aaron charles (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete redundant text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Redundant and excessive. Could have simply been redirected. Reywas92^Talk 00:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because of redundant article. MathCool10 ^{Sign here!} 02:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect until/unless there is consensus to split. Because it is a plausible daughter article, however, I wouldn't delete it outright. It couldn't hurt to retain the page history for future reference. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Just a quick point of clarification. There is no original text to merge. It was copied from the article Inauguration of Barack Obama and has not been altered. Thanks. Aaron charles (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect, a separate article was never warranted here. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete one level of splitting too far Sceptre ^(talk) 09:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back - no need for this AfD. Bearian (talk) 00:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to main article --Muhammad(talk) 03:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Plausible search keywords Gotyear (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect, I don't think many people would type that in the search box though. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and a very clear consensus for keep. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Wangan Midnight episodes[edit]

List of Wangan Midnight episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

unremarkable list Skitzo (talk) 22:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Clearly a notable manga series. LetsdrinkTea 23:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. Lists of episodes are generally appropriate list topics, and I don't see them being all that hard to source. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. 'Unremarkable' at the moment. This is a work in progress. i posted it up so that others may help. Toenailsin 01:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - according to the nom's logic, all stubs should be deleted. This is obviously not true. Stubs can easily be expanded into a larger article. As Toenailsin said, "This is a work in progress." An unremarkable list is usually not a good reason for deleting an article. MathCool10 ^{Sign here!} 02:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy Potentially useful, but not ready for articlespace. The list needs to be verified with sources and tied to an article about the series rather than the manga. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Valid and typical spinout list for a notable series. Contra MacGyverMagic, the article its linked to covers both the manga and the anime adaptation, and so is appropriately tied. Verification can be taken care of by copying sources from the main article, and I personally would like to follow policy and assume good faith that this would have been done by the list article creator instead of taking it to AFD a half hour after creation, thus showing that the nominator did not follow WP:BEFORE. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: "unremarkable" = stub, which per policy is not a crime. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Give it time. It's a stub and a manga that have a solide anime adaptation (here a 26 eps series) usually have a spin-out list of episodes. List of episodes is one trademark of the Anime/Manga project. --KrebMarkt 14:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable series, list meets policy. Seems to be Snowing. Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep unremarkable nomination 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 18:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Being "unremarkable" is not a legtitamate arguement to delete a list. Especally when this list can be developed with an approprate lead and episode summaries. Also, the list has just been spun out from the main article and should be given time to mature. If no one is going to work on the list any furhter, then consider merging it back into the parent article, but it shouldn't be deleted unless the parent article is deleted as well. --Farix (Talk) 18:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment And with some minor work and referencing, we now have a decent lead. --Farix (Talk) 20:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Nomination withdrawn Skitzo Skitzo's Answer Machine 21:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dell DRAC Passwords[edit]

Dell DRAC Passwords (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Simply not an encyclopaedic topic. What is notable about the passwords for a manufacturer's remote management cards? This is how-to stuff from the same source that gave us Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dell DRAC Remote SSH Console Redirection. Guy (Help!) 22:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per above, article is written as an instruction manual LetsdrinkTea 22:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nominator (WP:NOTGUIDE Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook) --Mhking (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Mhking. MathCool10 ^{Sign here!} 02:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No EV --Muhammad(talk) 03:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as complete and utter nonsense. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plumbo[edit]

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

It is a neologism. My WP:PROD nomination was contested by the article's creator on its talk page, so I removed the tag. Unscented (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Unscented (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete protologism, WP:MADEUP one day by a teenage boy, as the article states. pablo_hablo. 22:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is pure, made-up-in-one-day vandalism. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete WP:NEO, WP:NFT; pure vandalism LetsdrinkTea 22:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Obviously pointless non-notable neologism made up one day. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I don't see why this wasn't deleted already. Completely WP:NEO. MathCool10 ^{Sign here!} 02:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Murad Gümen[edit]

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

In [OTRS Ticket#2009010810024398] at https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=2333277&ArticleID=2752114&QueueID=59 (for those with OTRS access), a representative for the BLP subject presented the subject's request that the article be removed.

This is a housekeeping action only, I have no opinion as to the outcome. - Philippe 22:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting. I can't seem to find any policy or guidelines on this type of situation. Wikipedia is not censored, and its goal is to write an encyclopedia, not to satisfy different individuals. While I would be all for fulfilling peoples' requests when appropriate, I think we have to stick to the main goal of writing an encyclopedia. Note that we have to make sure this follows all guidelines and policy for biographies of living people. So, as I see it now, I would recommend keeping this. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This request probably stems from some controversy concerning the Tall Armenian Tale website, as mentioned in the article. I think we're treading on thin ice to even mention that there might be some evidence that he is related to that website. I would say we should avoid all statements that cannot be supported by multiple reliable sources, especially for BLPs. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete per arguments below, namely WP:NPF and the fact that notability is going to be really hard to show, especially after removing OR and references to the authorship of the site. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  03:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I removed the original research at the end of that paragraph. LetsdrinkTea 22:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:BLP and WP:NPF apply here. The man is clearly a relatively unknown figure as there is no significant coverage about his work. All the sources refer to the potentially defamatory claim made by others (one includes the irrelevant tidbit about his father) and of the four, two are not reliable sources. I opt for delete on the basis that the subject is a relatively unknown figure, notability outside of these claims is not demonstrated, that the claims are potentially defamatory and harmful to the subject's reputation, and that he has requested deletion. The possibility of harm to a living person is the most important factor here in my view. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the WP:NPF link- I somehow missed that on the BLP page. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  03:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• comment this request for deletion apparently involves the subject's possible connection with a political site, & I imagine the subject considers that the very suggestion is harmful to him. I want to consider the article regardless of the subject's view: about half the article seems to be the authorship of that site. I've looked at the english translations linked in the article & I've checked the talk p, and the ANI discussions at [1]. I do not think the quality of the documentation is sufficient to sustain the section. The question is whether the notability otherwise can be shown. It might, but I don't think the present references address that adequately. DGG (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Tricky. I kind of come up with the same answer as DGG. This is the sort of issue where I think sometimes we need a judging panel. My inclination, open to change, would be to delete with a huge note that there's no prejudice against a better sourced article, or something like. Hiding T 12:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 12:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can't find any evidence that the subject is notable for his animation work, and I don't think that we can keep the information on his alleged Armenian genocide denial. For those unfamilar with the subject I would point out that the Armenian genocide was, although later surpassed later in terms of numbers killed, was one of the greatest atrocities of the 20th century. We certainly shouldn't base an article on one accusation of denial, just as we wouldn't have an article about a person based on one accusation of holocaust denial. If the subject does have any notability for his work then we should delete this and start from scratch without mentioning the accusation. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment maybe the article should be about the website, with the animation info removed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete following WP:NPF and WP:BLP and given that the core of their notability 9as an animator is not demonstrated I suspect WP:UNDUE raises its head here too. Anyone can accuse someone else of something (a newspaper article portrayed me as three angry Americans once - innocent on all three counts) but it doesn't make it true or worthy of inclusion. So neither parts separately or combined prove notability and I can see why they'd be concerned about such claims as they could prove damaging to one's career, at the very least (you could also fear for your physical safety being linked to such a contentious issue). (Emperor (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]
• Comment He worked on various things which were notable, but did he have a notable part in them? Not every single animator is notable, are they? Any awards won? Also, if that website is notable enough to mention, I found wikipedia history which links to a site that traces IP addresses of websites. His official website has the exact IP address with the site mentioned, providing its from him. That is the one key fact that would link him to it without any doubt, wouldn't it? Is that a massively popular or commonly talked about site though? If so, it deserves its own article, with the evidence of who created it listed there, since it'd be relevant. Genocide is horrible, but if someone famous went crazy and denied something, that wouldn't make them invisible to history. Dream Focus 19:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technical note - IP addresses are not conclusive evidence for much of anything. There can be several hundred sites being served from one shared server on the same IP, and the only link between them is that they chose the same hosting provider. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Non-technical note. While agreeing with LinguistAtLarge, I would add that we are not the ones to judge whether an IP address is sufficient evidence for this claim. To do so would be original research. We can't make the potentially career-threatening (if not worse) claim that someone is an Armenian genocide denier without very strong reliable sources to substantiate it. We don't currently have such sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Theory m[edit]

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

Article created by COI editor, non notable and self referenced theory linked to book by relation of creator also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerald R. Griffin and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hilliard Guy Griffin Mfield (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Much too ad-like LetsdrinkTea 23:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the article is promotional and not very encyclopedic (it has text in the 2nd person). It does not indicate the notability of "Theory m" by referencing third party sources. The creator clearly has a COI.Synchronism (talk) 07:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I've looked at Google Books and Scholar, nothing there to show notabililty. dougweller (talk) 08:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. In the future, it may be better to discuss case edits on talk pages rather than mass lumping of articles for AfD, as it makes it impossible to sort out issues. Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TCM Materia Medica (Others)[edit]

TCM Materia Medica (Others) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article doesn't appear to be very useful for an encyclopedia. The content is entirely unreferenced and might be better suited for Wikibooks. At the very least, referenced mentions of their use in traditional Chinese medicine should be incorporated into our articles on these plants (or not? - WP:UNDUE). All articles being considered for deletion/discussion under this nomination are below. Rkitko ^(talk) 22:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• TCM Materia Medica (Others)
• TCM Materia Medica (Tuber)
• TCM Materia Medica (Stem)
• TCM Materia Medica (Seed)
• TCM Materia Medica (Root)
• TCM Materia Medica (Rhizome)
• TCM Materia Medica (Plant)
• TCM Materia Medica (Leaf)
• TCM Materia Medica (Fruit)
• TCM Materia Medica (Flower)
• TCM Materia Medica (Bulb)
• TCM Materia Medica (Bark)
• Herb (Translation of herb names)

• Herb (General Usage Part 1), Herb (General Usage Part 2), Herb (General Usage Part 3), Herb (Meanings of Terms), Herb (hyperlipidemia), Herb (anti-cancer), Herb (anti-oxidant), Herb (preparation), Herb (patents), Herb (formulas), Herb (Chinese-Japanese Common Herbs), and others like it also have questionable titles and content that doesn't seem to warrant an article on its own, but I've left them out of this nomination. See Herb usage for a whole bunch of quasi-content forks. --Rkitko ^(talk) 22:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Expand and possibly combine. the present article is just a bare list; a fuller discussion might be encyclopedic. DGG (talk) 02:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever your opinion of the others, certainly you can agree that Herb (Translation of herb names) should be deleted per WP:LINKFARM? The other articles are just short lists of pinyin/Chinese names with no links to the actual plants. A more complete discussion might help with a companion List of plants used in traditional Chinese medicine, but these article splits are entirely too small, even for summary style. --Rkitko ^(talk) 03:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(1) If a split-article is too short and creates too many links, then methinks the solution is not to split it (i.e. to join it back to the main article), rather than to delete it.

(2) If there are no links to the "original plants", then methinks the solution is to create such links, which has already been done for some plants, as shown below. It takes time to create more links for the other plants. The article is a work-in-progress, and deleting it will simply make it impossible to update it with the relevant links:

Bark-Eucommia, Bulb-cardiocrinum, Flower-loquat, Fruit-tangerine, Leaf-guava , Plant-typhonium, Rhizome-rehmannia, Root-tung oil tree, Seed-oleander, Stem-lambsquarters, Tuber-potato, Oil-walnut.

Based on availability, links are frequently made to the common English names, rather than to the Latin names. For example, it is not possible to link to "Folium Psidii Guajavae" but somewhat trivial to link to guava, although they refer to the same plant/leaf. In this case, the rose by any other name isn't quite the same. Cottonball (talk) 09:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do your sources list the exact species of Guava or is referring to the entire genus Psidium? --Rkitko ^(talk) 12:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The sub-articles will be expanded in due course. As the list is large, even for a single category, a bare-bones structure is created to hold latter content. References are not found in each sub-article but are found in the main article,Herb (TCM Classification), namely, "Ou Ming and Li Yanwen. The Traditional Chinese Drug and Its Usage. (page 328). Hai Feng Publishing Co. 1994. ISBN: 962-238-199-5." and "Nigel Wiseman. "English-Chinese Chinese-English Dictionary of Chinese Medicine. Pages 1-387. ISBN:7-5357-1656-3." However, if deemed necessary, these references can be repeated at the end of each sub-article. Cottonball (talk) 02:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• References of works in Chinese will be included subsequently, as these need to be translated. Cottonball (talk) 02:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In addition to the above, English references have been made to one or more herbs in each of the sub-articles. More research or scientific references will be made to illustrate or confirm the medicinal use of these herbs in the modern context.Cottonball (talk) 05:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep All The nomination's statements that content is not useful and is entirely unreferenced both seem to be false. The contradictory statement that the referenced portions should be merged elsewhere indicate that this is not a deletion discussion and so should be handled using a more appropriate process such as WP:MERGE. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the pages should be deleted: Herb (Translation of herb names) and Herb (patents)? The first because of WP:LINKFARM and the second for its questionable encyclopedic value. Do we have any other lists of patents? I suspect only when they're notable... And, in my humble opinion, WP:MERGE is broken. The merge tags sit there for months or years until its dealt with. I still maintain, however, that the level of detail in each of these articles is unnecessary and not useful. Why start each entry with the pinyin name in the English encyclopedia when they're not loan words? The common English names listed are vague and ambiguous - which species do these refer to? --Rkitko ^(talk) 12:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The word species itself can be vague. For example it is said that "A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. While in many cases this definition is adequate, more precise or differing measures are often used, such as based on similarity of DNA or morphology." Are you referring to similarity of DNA or morphology? Hair-splitting can be attempted at any level of detail, and may not be very productive, especially when we are talking about terms that were used hundreds or even thousands of years ago. Even authors like Nigel Wiseman would have considerable difficulty in finding references to DNA similarity in ancient Chinese texts.

• Keep as per Colonel Warden. Edward321 (talk) 14:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Edmund Smythe[edit]

Thomas Edmund Smythe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unknown to Google. I suspect he and his friend Charleston Millar are a hoax. William Avery (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - hoax. No trace of him on Google Books or Worldcat. JohnCD (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Smells like a hoax to me as well. LetsdrinkTea 22:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unsourced at best, probable hoax. Edward321 (talk) 23:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - probably a hoax as can't be found on Google. MathCool10 ^{Sign here!} 02:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete looks like a hoax --Muhammad(talk) 03:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charleston Millar[edit]

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

Even this author's "more famous works" are, like himself and his pseudonyms, unknown to Google. I suspect he and his friend Thomas Edmund Smythe are a hoax. William Avery (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - hoax. No trace of him or his works on Google Books or Worldcat. JohnCD (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Spelling of the name Millar (noob version of Miller) suggests that this is hoax LetsdrinkTea 23:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 23:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - most likely a hoax as can't be searched on Google. MathCool10 ^{Sign here!} 02:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete found only 2 results with google search both linking to wikipedia. --Muhammad(talk) 03:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'm closing this, since the nomination obviously no longer applies to the current version of the article. Mgm|^(talk) 12:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Polygamy in India[edit]

Polygamy in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete while the topic may be encyclopedic, this beginning is not helpful in its creation. I think we should start it again, sourced, rather than starting with an unsourced extraordinary claim. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Since I'm such an obliging guy, I started it again for you, and this time with sources. Keep. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above LetsdrinkTea 22:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Current version is organized and sourced, thanks to LinguistAtLarge. Edward321 (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." from WP:ATD. If the page can be improved (and it has already been shown), then it shouldn't be deleted. Killiondude (talk)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 06:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow keep. You seriously wanted to delete "Polygamy in India"?!—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Yellow Notepad[edit]

My Yellow Notepad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable software, no notable characteristics, no notable incidents surrounding it. It appears to be quite new, maybe from 2008. On google I can only find the download review at ZDNet and its own support forum Enric Naval (talk) 01:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - after a google search, I don't see any page about it on Microsoft. Thus, this has to go. Versus22 _talk 04:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Why would you expect to find anything about this on the Microsoft page? I'm not sure what you mean. §FreeRangeFrog 18:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 21:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable software LetsdrinkTea 23:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no reliable sources writing about this software -- Whpq (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where is God (short film)[edit]

Where is God (short film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Student film of unclear notability. Google search for "Bryan Fernando" "Where is God" results in four links. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 20:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. Afkatk - The Mind Reader (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Baleet Per above LetsdrinkTea 23:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete In agreement with the nominator's concerns. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator --Mhking (talk) 00:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 00:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a complete lack of any coverage whatsoever in any sources whatsoever (even unreliable ones) -- Whpq (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a hoax made from a popular joke about a priest scolding 2 naughty kids. --Muhammad(talk) 03:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • See first joke here --Muhammad(talk) 03:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Palh[edit]

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

Delete a surname? a caste? a tribe? no indication of notability whatever it is. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no notability and short useless stub. Afkatk - The Mind Reader (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. The page contains insufficient material to make sense of it. Lacks substantive content and context. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of context. The content is so insufficient that if notability is established, a recreation from scratch is not a great effort. -- Whpq (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Akradecki as A7. {NAC) Pastor Theo (talk) 00:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MuktiBangla[edit]

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

Delete no indication of notability of this group; no sources; no significant coverage in 3rd party reliable sources. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete, no claim to notability. Benefix (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 00:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pet monkey (formerly Monkeys in ships)[edit]

Monkeys in ships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unencyclopaedic article, pretty ridiculous title Jack (talk) 19:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete And if you think this title is ridiculous, it was originally called "Sailor Monkey", and then there was someone who thought that "Monkeys on ships" would sound more intelligent if it was called "Monkeys in ships" (it didn't). The page survived deletion three years ago, apparently because it was considered to be as fun as a barrel of... anyway, it hasn't gone from fun to encyclopedic. An article can be well-sourced and entertaining. In this case it's neither of those things. Mandsford (talk) 20:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The article is now about monkeys as pets, rather than monkeys in ships. Since this isn't the same article that I voted to delete a couple of days ago, I see no reason why we shouldn't have an article about monkeys as pets. The admin want to do one of those relisted thingies rather than making a ruling. Mandsford (talk) 01:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (regretfully) - one day someone will write the definitive article about pets on board ships, to include parrots, sloths, Pottos, wombats etc., but this isn't it. . . Rcawsey (talk) 20:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Enough monkeying around. LetsdrinkTea 23:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Pretty ridiculous nomination. To see what can be made of such a topic, please see Crushing by elephant. It's a Featured Article. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlike the elephants, the monkeys apparently did not have official government duties. Not these monkeys, anyway. WillOakland (talk) 10:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have been bold and rendered the discussion moot by moving the article to the title Pet monkey which is a more general topic which we do not yet seem to cover. This seems a reasonable home for this content while allowing us to expand in related directions. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (even with the renaming) as the sources do not support this as any kind of broad phenomenon. Warden can create an article about another subject if he wants.WillOakland (talk) 10:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Under the new title, we can easily see numerous sources. These indicate that there is often a nautical connection but we no longer have to confine ourself to this and can observe that Frederick the Great had a pet monkey, say. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a far better use of the article, a problem I can see however is the title. Maybe it should be pet simian as "monkey" generally excludes apes (and therefore poor little Bubbles (chimpanzee)). Jack (talk) 12:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I originally found the article title humorous, but upon further review I discovered there are multiple sources listed on the talk page, and Google Books reveals many more: Anecdotes of Monkeys by William Stewart Rose, Singular Creatures, and how They Were Found by George Cupples, et al, Four Hundred Animal Stories by Robert Cochrane, Anecdotes of a Life on the Ocean by David Cowans, et al, etc. This is an interesting slice of history which could definitely be improved to a respectable article (the fact that no one has yet done so, while not probative, might have more to do with the current title—I'd recommend "Shipboard monkeys" or "Ship's monkey"). This article reflects the spirit of Wikipedia, and should be preserved (again) rather than deleted as "unencylopedic". – 74  14:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I would propose to close this AfD for mootness, because the nominated title has now been made into a redirect. Apparently what was once on this page has been redirected or merged to an article on Pet monkey, and the AfD header has been added to that title. "Pet monkey" (I'd prefer monkeys as pets for the title, myself) is an easily article-worthy subject; we have articles or sections about snakes as pets, ferrets, and so forth. Monkeys as pets have indeed been the subject of a minor American-style moral panic, complete with proposed legislation that would ban all primates as pets in the United States, as a result of the misadventures of Travis the chimpanzee. So you've got potential multiple "reliable" sources on the subject now as well. (You wonder whether our iggorant Congresspipples are even aware of how broad a brush they're using.) - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This material should be kept in some form. I too prefer monkeys as pets but Pet monkey seems more standard for Wikipedia naming conventions. — Reinyday, 16:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep if renaming per conventions needs to take place then so be it. Article has been renamed and broadened to rest the original article in a historical perspective and there is plenty of notability of pet monkeys and sourcing to document this. Hopefully those who simply love the cuties will choose to work on and expand this appropriately. -- Banjeboi 22:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No proper reliable sources support the article.--Sloane (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? Here's a few that might help out of 500 searchable books with the phrase "his pet monkey", Here's another 300 using trained "pet monkey" and here's a few dozen news search possibilities. -- Banjeboi 12:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the now expanded and sourced article and discuss renaming on the article's talk page. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per pet monkey suggestions  rdunnPLIB  10:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 09:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of management topics[edit]

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

As with the AFD for List of hospice-related topics this doesn't have any function beyond that of a category and Category:Management already exists. It doesn't even have any of the redlinks which seem to be keeping List of BDSM topics alive. Benefix (talk) 19:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Useless list LetsdrinkTea 23:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep most categories can support lists. They are a useful alternative form of navigation. some peoplewill prefer one or the other for different purposes. it is no secret that i much prefer lists, but I accept that some people may like it the other way. The previous deletion was wrong, though understandable being a relatively small number of loosely related topics. This would be much more wrong, since it is a much more useful and more extensive list. DGG (talk) 03:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As a workforce development professional, category lists like this highlight the diversity and detail of a subject, which helps me inform others as well as create more accurate subject areas for reports (and my PersonalBrain). I agree that it's an alternate, and sometime more accurate and insightful form of navigation. (talk) 11:34, 09 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Redundancy with categories is never a reason to delete a list, especially since lists, unlike categories, can be broken down topically without the use of separate pages. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Valid list topic, although I'd like to see each entry expanded such that it was not totally redundant with the category. -Atmoz (talk) 17:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because lists should not be deleted in favor of categories. This is a far more useful navigational device than Category:Management. And a lack of red links is certainly not a reason for deletion—article development is only one of the purposes of lists. DHowell (talk) 01:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perry Welman[edit]

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

This is a young artist with limited notablity at this time. The only references appear to be word-of-mouth, and therefore not reliable. In order for this to even be considered an accpetable article, it would need to be edited down to a stub. It's essentially about one work. However, the references at this point are not verifiable. freshacconci talktalk 19:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —freshacconci talktalk 19:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable yet... the only entry on Google is the Wiki article itself! Teapotgeorge^Talk 19:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not ready for an encyclopedic entry....Modernist (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless additional sources and grounds for notability can be established.Vartanza (talk) 04:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it doesn't reach notabilty level for Wikipedia and very much looks to be self written. Where did all this info come from? It doesn't look to have come from a third party source.--Artypants, ^Babble 15:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - promotional tone could be fixed, but no independent source, nor can I find any. JohnCD (talk) 16:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 09:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of rap rock vocalists[edit]

List of rap rock vocalists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

As with List of hip hop singers, a pointless list which is better served by categories. Benefix (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Punkmorten (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this contains redlinks to needed articles, something a category can't do. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As a general rule, every category that is not hopeless unmanageable should support a list also if people are willing to make them. Some people actually prefer categories, and they do have their uses, but that is no reason to remove navigational devices that other people find useful.As this list gives the name ofthe group, it provides more information than a category could. DGG (talk) 03:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If lists aren't wanted then why is there such a thing as WP:FL? --WebHamster 03:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Linguist & DGG. In no way is this list redundant to a category. JulesH (talk) 12:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because lists should not be deleted in favor of categories. "Pointless" is a personal opinion, not a reason for deletion. The category is far less populated than this list, which demonstrates that categories are not always as well maintained as lists. This list should be used to help update the category, and vice versa. DHowell (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 09:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of guitarists[edit]

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

As with the AFD for List of Vocalists the category is more than enough for this infinitely expandable list. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of keyboardists. Benefix (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It serves its purpose as a quick access point for, err people interested in guitarists. It is useful, well moderated and has a place in WP. Whereas spurious list haters who use WP:OTHERSTUFF as a self-perpetuating argument does not. What happens after decimating all the List of... pages, a full onslaught of the lists of categories? WebHamster 19:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As a general rule, every category should support a list also if people are willing to make them. Some people actually prefer categories, and they do have their uses, but that is no reason to remove navigational devicesthat other people find useful. As this list gives the name of the groups, it provides more information than a category ever could. DGG (talk) 03:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a list is more than a category could ever be and even can evolve into a WP:FL.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 03:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:CLN. This is a list that provides functionality not provided by categories which makes them valid navigational aides. The length probably warrants sublists, but that can be handled through editing instead of deletion- Mgm|^(talk) 12:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you notice List of lead guitarists and List of rhythm guitarists are linked in the intro? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I note that Miley Cyrus has just been added to this list. And because the same editor added that bit of info to her article, I know that Miley Cyrus is a guitarist, just like Mark Knopfler and Earl Klugh (to pick two random guitarists whose names start with K). This list can never be complete and because of the lack of entry criteria will be stuffed with entries like Miley Cyrus or any other minor celeb who is photographed holding a guitar. A category serves the same very limited purpose. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You doubt the notability of Miley Cyrus as a guitarist? Even Jimi Hendrix cited her as a big inspiration and wrote "Foxy Lady" especially about her. Not to mention legions of female guitarists like Jennifer Batten, Wendy Melvoin, Steve Vai and Prince who followed her pioneering work. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 13:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I always suspected that Vai was a woman. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per DGG. Any issue with individual items on the list is an issue for editing, not deleting the entire list. The list may also need to be split up into individual lists by genre or time period; this does not mean it should be deleted. Lack of completeness is not grounds to delete the list; we even have a template that explains that the list in question cannot hope to be complete... such a template would be unnecessary if the situation is was intended for were grounds to delete the list. JulesH (talk) 13:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - (from the aforementioned and Kept AFD) not meaning a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument ... but ...your saying that keyboardists are less notable than guitarists & drummers. I dont understand how from your Nom. Statement. It takes all of them to make the music. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 06:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC) ... As I said then is still true, what in your Nom Rational is the grounds for deletion? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 02:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:CLN, DGG, and Mgm. This serves a different purpose from a category. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  07:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because lists should not be deleted in favor of categories. This is a far more useful navigational device than Category:Management. And a lack of red links is certainly not a reason for deletion—article development is only one of the purposes of lists. DHowell (talk) 01:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because lists should not be deleted in favor of categories. Nor are there an infinite amount of notable guitarists, so this list is not "infinitely expandable". If it gets too big it can be split by genre and/or time period per JulesH. As for Miley Cyrus, she may not be Eric Clapton or Stevie Ray Vaughan, but she has actually been noted for playing the guitar. Also note that the List of keyboardists AfD resulted in a near-unanimous keep, and the nominator has admitted to being a sockpuppet. DHowell (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nomination withdrawn, no delete !votes

List of drummers[edit]

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

As with the AFD for List of Vocalists the category is more than enough for this infinitely expandable list. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of keyboardists. Benefix (talk) 18:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It serves its purpose as a quick access point for, err drummers. It is useful, well moderated and has a place in WP. Whereas spurious list haters who use WP:OTHERSTUFF as a self-perpetuating argument does not. What happens after decimating all the List of... pages, a full onslaught of the lists of categories? --WebHamster 19:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, since this list serves a couple of purposes a category can't. (1) It lists the drummer and the band he is/was in. (2) It contains a drummer who does not have an article, but whose band does. (3) It can be used for redlinks to drummers who need articles. The WP:OTHERSTUFF argument is irrelevant. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a general rule, every category should support a list also if people are willing to make them. Some people actually prefer categories, and they do have their uses, but that is no reason to remove navigational devicesthat other people find useful. As this list gives the name of the groups, it provides more information than a category could. DGG (talk) 03:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - With the caveat that the restriction on only including drummers with their own article is kept, otherwise the list quickly becomes overrun with people adding themselves or their friends who play in an un-notable band. Actually expanding that restriction to allow drummers who don't have their own page but who have a section within the article for a band they are/were in would be good. srushe (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per User:LinguistAtLarge who adequately worded the WP:CLN criteria that apply here. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all the above, and agree with Srushe's suggestion about a change in criteria, as expanding to include drummers in notable bands but who do not have their own article will allow this list to become even more useful. JulesH (talk) 13:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Nomination withdrawn. Benefix (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 00:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Kufayev[edit]

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

I believe this doesn't pass WP:BIO. The subject does not seem to have been the subject of multiple independant articles, except for 2 reviews, the only other sources seem self published. Delete TheRingess (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. —94.196.64.239 (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —94.196.64.239 (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems notable, and interesting..Modernist (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep to be inspiring and fascinating the subject does not have to be a future of articles from the media Mahasidhi 11:53, 10 March 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahasidhi (talk • contribs)
• Keep. The two reviews mentioned by the nominator are in The Independent, one of the United Kingdom's four serious national general newspapers, and by Brian Sewell, the country's best-known art critic (although not one of my favourites). There's no need to look any further for notability when we have two such sources. Of course any content that can't be sourced can be removed from the article, but that's not a reason for deletion, just editing. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Phil Bridger. The article certainly needs cleaning up. Ty 01:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it has references, and should be kept, only items not showing source should be removed, such as the "Spiritual transformation" section, otherwise it just needs a little bit more work.--Artypants, ^Babble 15:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep seems notable to me.--Judo112 (talk) 17:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AlMaghrib Institute[edit]

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

No Credibility I really have no answer to what this article is doing on Wikipedia. It was created a couple of weeks ago and written as if it is a personal blog for a person with no notability, by one user who I suspect is the article's subject himself. I think this article should be deleted. Board56 (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC) — Board56 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep The lack of citations is definitely an issue, but I can find sources like this with a Google search so the institute may have enough notability to avoid deletion.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 00:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Updated I've taken the initiative to update the article with more information and citations. Please consider keeping the article. Uzairkhan31(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC). — Uzairkhan31 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — neuro^(talk) 00:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Close this flawed nomination--eh, nominator, care to actually check the article history? "Created a few weeks ago"? It's been around since 2006! Moreover, it's not about a person, and it certainly doesn't read like a blog. Admins, I propose that this AfD proposal is so flawed that it should be withdrawn, regardless of the article's merits. And even if the AfD continues to run, it doesn't stand much of a chance of success, given these Google News hits, which lists such articles as this one in the Washington Post. A bunch of right-wing websites refer to the institute as a Jihad school; surely that is almost a guarantee for notability. Then, in 2005 the school had 2800 students, according to the San Jose Mercury News. I hope that's enough. Drmies (talk) 01:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: User Board56 has made no edits outside of AlMaghrib Institute and Muhammad Alshareef, a person associated with the school whose article Board56 also put up for deletion--citing the exact same rationale, incidentally. It's a pretty blatant case of SPA. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Drmies's statements74.69.39.11 (talk) 16:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I get a hint of spam from reading this article. Might just be me, but... Peridon (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darling (Eyes Set to Kill song)[edit]

Darling (Eyes Set to Kill song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article about a musical recording (album, single, etc.) that does not indicate the importance of the subjectQuestionOfAnarchy (talk) 01:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No indication that this song has stand-alone notability. Normally I would say to redirect, but 1) this song claims to be off of two albums, so there's no clear album to redirect to, and 2) it's a specific enough title that you'd have to be looking for this song specifically, so if you didn't find it, you'd just go to the artist's article. —C.Fred (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: non-notable non-charting song. JamesBurns (talk) 09:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 04:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 00:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Degree programs at Brown University[edit]

Degree programs at Brown University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a directory of courses offered by a university. Elcosamagna (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a prospectus replacement. Nuttah (talk) 15:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep WP:POINT nomination from banned user/sockmaster. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT. Ohnoitsjamie raises a good argument, but it seems silly to permit spam just because a banned user suggested we delete it. THF (talk) 03:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY TrulyBlue (talk) 10:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom (violates WP:NOT) --Mhking (talk) 00:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Even though we should, per WP:BAN, discard, I can see this getting nominated again by a user who is not banned. Continue with the AFD per the WP:IAR policy. MuZemike 00:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and then consider whether to Merge back into the main article or list. Deciding that is inapprorpiate for AfD. DGG (talk) 03:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article does not provide secondary, reliable sources. The only sources is directly from Brown University which is primary. If any Brown degree program has received notable coverage in secondary sources to require an article it can be made. However, as is, this article is a directory of programs derived from primary sources, and is not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. -Atmoz (talk) 17:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gay women against rape[edit]

Gay women against rape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Reason the page should be deleted Aside from the organization itself not being notable, the band Gwar's name is indicated to not mean or stand for anything (as indicated on their own wiki entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwar#Etymology )-=Worloq=- (talk) 09:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I've notified the author. Drmies (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm a big fan of the graphic novel, but this "organization" only gets a passing mention at best in it. I can't imagine how this is notable enough to have an article. Rnb (talk) 21:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no out of Universe significance indicated or possible (given that the band do not take their name from the graphic novel). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is a two-frame passing mention in the graphic novel. Were FICT up and running, it'd easily fail Sceptre ^(talk) 09:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nicole Scherzinger. As pointed out below, references don't necessarily mean it doesn't fall afoul of CRYSTAL. Per general precendent I've seen elsewhere and sensible comments below, letting a redirect go ahead so that relevant info can be folding into a more proper location in parent article. Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Her Name Is Nicole[edit]

Her Name Is Nicole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No evidence when or if this will be produced, nor is there evidence of what will be on the album. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL Ejfetters (talk) 00:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: WP:CRYSTAL. JamesBurns (talk) 09:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is evidence of its release. one of the references in the article says that the album will be released some time after doll domination. i dont think it should be deleted as of yet.

• KEEP (Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The album will be released after the PCD tour and two singles of the album have been released.

• KEEP Nrxd (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums & WP:CRYSTAL.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 14:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP BGTopDon's User Page Contributions 18:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--a lot of words and a lot of 'references' that don't add up to an article that can avoid the Crystal Ball. Drmies (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete violates WP:CRYSTAL; we don't know when or even IF this album will be made. --Mhking (talk) 00:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The whole crystalness of this is lost in this nomination as this article has existed for two years. This album has supposed to come out multiple times, but something (record company egos, PCD album conflicts, the music media, lousy choice of singles, an ex of Nicole's putting a pin in a voodoo doll) keeps it from being released. If this does get a deletion at least redirect it to a sourced section on Nicole Scherzinger. There are sources for this, especially for the futility of the album coming out. Nate • (chatter) 00:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please explain. Because it's futile, the article should be kept? If you're arguing for a redirect, or perhaps a merge and redirect, which I think you might think a good idea, please make that clear and explain why. Drmies (talk) 02:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because it was supposed to come out multiple times, but factors like the conflict with the creation of Doll Domination and the lousy marketing of the singles have cursed the album to a sort of development hell that can easily be traced through these two years. I'm saying I'd rather it be kept, but if it is deleted that a redirect be maintained since it was a proposed part of her career. Nate • (chatter) 03:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Deletebecause the references dont add up, ASCAP doesnt prove what songs appear on the album and we dont even know if it will ever be released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lil-unique1 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually Eve (rapper)'s album Flirt has the same situation as Nicole's. If this article should be deleted, there's no exception for another albums. 123.203.65.44 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • And has been nominated. Ejfetters (talk) 11:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep seems a bit hasty to delete this article.--Judo112 (talk) 17:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Im changing my mind to say strong DELETE because there is no release date for this album, interscope has not officially confirmed that it will be released, nicole has not said she plans to release it any time soon so technically all of the information will be out of date when the album is released in 2020 (SARCASM). plus half the songs are being given to other artists. i was once a big contributor to this article now i see no point to it. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

You say it yourself their is no release date as of now, their is no confirmation on either release or no release. We cant delete on speculations about a not possible album when its very likely that the album will be released sooner or later.--Judo112 (talk) 18:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Hot Lotto (1990s)[edit]

Hot Lotto (1990s) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The former version of HL was a very small game that might be confused with the current game. I don't see any reason to continue this article. No Annuities (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It was only in Idaho, and you couldn't win more than $2,000. Doesn't sound very notable. Dream Focus 16:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can't find anything on this other than [2]. Hobit (talk) 13:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE-if it were a current game, OK, but then we have the multi-state HL... Loveyourcar (talk) 17:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jürgen Flüss[edit]

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

No evidence of notability with the German or English spellings of his name. Scarcely a claim to notability and ghits establish only some self published links. StarM 02:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 02:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 02:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He claims to have received several awards, don't know if they are notable. See here: [3] His website is a mess, and I won't say a word about his art. I'd say if he's notable enough and currently lives in Berlin, why does he not have an article on de.WP? Or, to begin with, why do I not find anything about him on Google? Plus, do we need an article where the tags need more space than the content? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 03:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no notability shown. Agathoclea (talk) 08:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a non-notable artist. Drmies (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above..Modernist (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there is nothing I can see that is notable. All links are sites/info that he has created. If no one writes about him, then he can't be notable. Interesting music from his site though (note I don't mention his art).--Artypants, ^Babble 15:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Muslim soldiers[edit]

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

Baseless, and pointless topic. Most people in the talk page seem to think it should be deleted. I also feel the same way. Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, with caveats- List as it stands is overly broad. Perhaps trim out the 1900s and rename List of historic Muslim military figures. A central list of historic figures would be easily maintained and verified. Problems come in when we start talking about modern Muslim military figures. So, create a different page called List of modern Muslim military figures. If that needs to come back to AfD, so be it, but there is no reason to throw out the easily salvageable parts of the list. SMSpivey (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural - there was a previous AfD of this article that resulted in a keep. SMSpivey (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Spivefy Sceptre ^(talk) 18:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment haha, sure, I can do it. SMSpivey (talk) 18:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Keep The article is encyclopedic, but it needs a cleaner title (perhaps "List of historical Islamic military leaders"...or something better) and focused editing. But I don't agree with the argument for deleting it -- it is not baseless or pointless. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY --Mhking (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there is no definition of "Muslim soldier" that will satisfy even the majority of users. Deb (talk) 12:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a general rule, every category should support a list also if people are willing to make them. Some people prefer categories, and they do have their unique uses, but that is no reason to remove navigational devices that other people find useful. As a list gives associated information, such as the military conflicts involved s, it provides more information than a category ever could. I did some cleanup. Dividing the list might be reasonable, and could be discussed separately. As should be needless to say, it doesn't violate NOTDIRECTORY, for it lists only the notable 0.001% or so with wp articles (or red links qualified for them). What "baseless' or "pointless" means in this context i cannot determine. DGG (talk) 03:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just think creating a category instead would be better. Or else son, you'll have a List of Hindu Soldiers and List of Christian soldiers, and soon Wikipedia would become a Wiki-battlefeld of religions. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, the title of the article should certainly be changed to something less inflammatory. Once that happens, there shouldn't be a problem with articles like List of historical Christian military figures, etc. It is an encyclopedic and logical list that could be expanded to include a ton of contextual text. SMSpivey (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just realised that there is a list of Hindu soldiers as well, which is being well maintained. If we maintain this article equally well, and make sure terrorists are not a part of it, then it can go upto the status of a featured article. So I guess, we can close the AfD and keep the article.--Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment I'm trying to AGF, here, and perhaps I'm a bit confused, but bear with me. So, Wikipedia is not censored, and "terrorists" will probably be added to a list of notable Muslim military figures if they are Muslim, notable, and related to military action. All of these determinations on particular individuals are independent of what we decide in this AfD or about this article. As I said before, it makes sense to change the title of the article to be less inflammatory and suggestive, but it Wikipedia generally doesn't leave out a group of people thought to be "terrorists" by another group simply for that reason. See the AfD and arguments about List of war crimes to see how everyone's voice should be heard, and tempered against one another, in a place like Wikipedia. SMSpivey (talk) 06:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, so lets us all pretend that this AfD never existed, and leave this article for Wikiproject Islam to pickup and maintain. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 02:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - As a list of people selected for importance in this category and who have, or can reasonably be expected to have, their own articles, this topic satisfies the Wikipedia guideline for appropriate topics for stand-alone lists. The list includes information such as dates and reasons for prominence that may make it more useful than a category. References should be added and the list should be edited for consistent formatting, but it contributes to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia and should be kept. BRMo (talk) 04:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it's a perfectly fine list, and is notable. Per DGG for most of my reasoning. MathCool10 ^{Sign here!} 04:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per DGG and MathCool. -Axmann8 (Talk) 12:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but move this to a sensible title, since this article is an Officers' Club and not a place for the enlisted men. If you're making a list of "Muslim military leaders" then say so. Mandsford (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to List of historic Muslim military leaders and rescope. The intersection of "Muslim" and "military leader" is, in most cases, trivial and not worthy of mention in a list. There is nothing special about the fact that a particular military leader from Iran, for instance, is a Muslim given that most Iranians are followers of Islam. What this list should contain is Muslim military leaders who are known primarily for their connection to and/or actions in the name of Islam (e.g. Saladin). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Los Super Reyes[edit]

Los Super Reyes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails V with no footnoted RS including info about BLPs, fails wp:music with no albums for this band, written like a spammy, COI, MySpace page. -- Jeandré, 2009-02-28t08:31z 08:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Los Super Reyes page shouldn't be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelo61 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have stricken this !vote because there is a second !vote with more rationale by the same editor below. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you guys don't know who they are then go to their myspace or mtv tr3s page or google Los Super Reyes and find out.
  • Their debut album is called El Regreso De Los Reyes go to billboard.com to find more info and they are coming out with a new album this year.
• Delete: Can find no evidence their only album ever charted. None of their singles have ever charted either. JamesBurns (talk) 04:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete: Never heard of them before, but the same applies to like a million other groups. Pretty well-written, but without cleanup, it's a mess. --Kaizer13 (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non notable. JoannaMinogue (talk) 08:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep since Chelo61 gave a reference for their album charting, and since MGM encouraged me to separate the wheat from the chaff. A charting album on a major label, that's good enough. Thanks Mac. Delete since their only album hasn't charted (but it is on a major label), and there is no evidence given of notability. If the band goes, so should El Regreso De Los Reyes, their album. Drmies (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Their album El Regreso De Los Reyes is charted and they are coming out with a new album in 2009. Go to billboard.com to find more info on their album or just google their album. Their hit single "Muchacha Triste" was #1 on MiTRL on MTV Tr3s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelo61 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're interested in Wikipedia keeping this article, don't tell editors to Google something. This is an encyclopedia, not a chatroom. Add the relevant information from reliable sources to the article in the proper fashion. Oh, Google is not an authority. Drmies (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Here's a link of their album chart info billboard.comChelo61 (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do y'all want to delete Los Super Reyes?Chelo61 (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note--that's the fourth "don't delete" vote by Chelo61; I condensed his earlier three votes into one. He's also engaged in edit-warring in the article, twice reverting my cleanup efforts. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The Billboard link Chel061 provided is a valid source and it clearly establishes they had a charted album thus meeting inclusion criteria. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A 130 peak on The Billboard 200 and a high peak on a genre list does not qualify per Wikipedia:Music#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. -- Jeandré, 2009-03-10t13:59z
    • How exactly doesn't that meet "Has had a charted single or album on any national music chart." As far as I can tell both those charts are national and the Billboard 200 is valid because it is based on sales information. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • They are national, but 130 is not notable (tho several top 20s may be). Hitting a genre list also doesn't make it notable. If doing these were notable there would have been reliable, published, third party news articles. -- Jeandré, 2009-03-11t14:05z
• Keep While I think that artists shouldn't have to have charted in order to be notable, thank you for supplying us with this. Hey, it's good enough for me now. --Kaizer13 (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:BAND criterion #6, since this band has 2 members who were formerly members of the independently notable Kumbia Kings. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  08:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect, preserving the history for GFDL compliance. Mackensen (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waldo Faldo[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Maxine Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Judy Winslow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Myra Monkhouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Jerry Jamal Jameson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Richie Crawford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

very insignificant fictional characters, hardly enough real world information to give them their own articles, no where apparent to merge either Ejfetters (talk) 10:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have learned from reviewing Adrian Monk at WP:GAC that a fictional character can be largely sourced by the primary source. Thus, if the shows are available on DVD all that is needed is the actual episode name or number as a ref. If there is any reasonable real world info these articles can be sourced. The question is where the notability borderline falls. If the show were a current show, these characters would probably be kept. Since the show is a pre-internet show, it has limited resources. I am not sure it should be treated differently than current shows, however.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • My only thing is I don't see enough Real World information. I know the information in the articles is probably correct, its just can't see enough real world information to give them their own articles. How about if they get merged somehow into a List of page? Thats the only thing I could think of, but then again, still would need real world info. Maybe enough real world info on the group of characters together is out there to piece them all together in one article. I am torn. I will try to look for real world info. on them though and see. Ejfetters (talk) 02:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Just because there is a long list of things the character said and did in the series, that doesn't make him notable. Might as well copy the whole script into the article! Deb (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All. Minor non-notable fictional characters which haven't received substantial coverage from reliable secondary sources. Articles contain only plot summary in the form of character backgrounds, other in-universe details, and trivia. Without secondary sources, it is impossible for the article to have real-world information. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All as these articles are completely unsourced, as well as failing WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:FICT. There is no information beyond what is revealed in the plot of the television series Family Matters, as none of these articles contains any real-world coverage these fictional characters. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, and then consider whether to Merge or Redirect into a suitable article or list. Such should be the default way to deal with these, and it does not take AfD. these were long running characters in a major show. Tony's argument that they should be deleted because not current is a gross violation of a basic notability principle, that notability is permanent. indeed, one might even say that to keep the information for older shows is particularly important in an encyclopedia. We are not the encyclopedia of the internet world only. Given that provision of WP:N, and that he admits he would keep them if current, i expect he will withdraw the nomination. Deb isright, that the present articles need drastic trimming, but I do not see why the need for editing means the need for deletion. DGG (talk) 03:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • They aren't long running characters, they were insignificant recurring guest roles that were not a major part of the show. There is no real world information that can be found on them. The major characters have articles and are not AFD. Even those should be merged into one article, as was decided to be done in Home Improvement. Also, he didn't nominate them. I did. Ejfetters (talk) 03:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all I don't know anything about these topics but had no difficulty finding sources which indicate that Waldo Faldo is an endearing character in a highly successful TV show and so has attracted significant notice. The nomination thus fails WP:BEFORE in that proper searches for sources have not been made and obvious alternatives to deletion, like merger with Family Matters, have not been properly considered. Deletion of numerous articles on such flimsy grounds is unacceptable. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Sorry Colonel, but please forgive for stating that you regularly make this kind of unsubstatiated claim. None of the sources you have found in your "research" identify the characters per se. Sure it is easy to find lots ghits about the series Family matters, or about specific episodes, or the actors that feature in them, but you have failed to find significant real-world coverage from a reliable secondary source about the fictional characters which are the subject matter of these articles. You need to be more specific, as vague unsubstatniated claims need to be backed up with firm evidence that the characters themselves are notable. Scattergun claims are the badge of a scatterbrain mind. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You are mistaken. I provided a search link and the first hit was an article in the Washington Post entitled The Rise of Waldo Faldo which is specifically about this character. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The subject of the article in question is an interview with the actor that plays the character. You really must learn, Colonel, to back up accusations with real facts, not pretend ones. Notability requires objective evidence - "pseudo-research" that you are so fond of just won't do. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The article is named for the character not the actor and contains material about the character such as Of late, Waldo, with his 1.0 grade-point average, has found his calling in cooking and enrolled in culinary school. Waldo first appeared as sidekick to the school bully (Larenz Tate) who terrorized Urkel. The material about the actor who plays this character provides the real world content of which you are so fond. There is no case to answer here as the character is clearly notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't judge a book by its cover: the interview provides evidence that the actor is notable, not the character. If it was the character that was being interviewed, I would be inclined to agree with you, but fictional characters can't give interviews - they aren't real people. You are going to have to come up with at least some real-world evidence that this character is notable to support you claims, but an interveiw with an actor is not it. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be creating a burden that would be impossible to meet. If there's no "real-world" information, then it fails PLOT; if there is "real-world" information, then it only shows the notability of a "real-world" subject, but not the fictional character itself. How exactly can any fictional character ever be notable under such requirements? DHowell (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is general consensus on Wikipedia that articles should not be split and split again into ever more minutiae of detail treatment, with each split normally lowering the level of significant real-world coverage contained in an article. This means that while television series Family Matters may be the subject of significant real-world coverage, it is not normally advisable to have a separate article on every fictional character, episode, or scene that appears in the series, such that the coverage contains only trivial details or only information about the plot. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all into a list of characters. Hobit (talk) 15:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or redirect all to List of Family Matters characters, which was redirected to Family Matters in January and should IMO be restored. Character lists are an often recommended practice for characters whose articles do/would lack significant real-world information, but who have "some" notability otherwise (per Family Matters, these characters were main characters for multiple seasons). – sgeureka ^t•c 14:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to the list above unless it was redirected through an AfD.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, or merge to List of Family Matters characters after reverting that redirect. But whether to keep or merge doesn't need to be decided at AfD. That's what talk pages are for. DHowell (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Character is clearly part of notable television series, and there is enough information on the page to warrant his own article. Dream Focus 12:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of Family Matters characters which should be turned into a full article for this purpose. These are relatively minor characters which are better served by selective coverage in list than stand alone articles. I think the nominator has drawn the line in approximately the right place as to what should be listified and what should be kept outright (i.e. Laura Winslow and Steve Urkle, are not bundled in this nomination). Eluchil404 (talk) 20:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of Family Matters characters. Individually, these character articles do not satisfy the guidelines in place as part of WP:FICT at this time. Several of the characters could have reasonable, well-sources, articles about them and I can be convinced of their individual notability-- but the articles as they currently stand do not do this. If these better articles are subsequently written, then the redirects can be removed. JRP (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7 Tone 18:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nabil Rastani :history of ancient Iran[edit]

Nabil Rastani :history of ancient Iran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Twinkle stole my long-winded rationale, so here's the digest version:) Fails WP:NB by miles. Zilch references / sources / GHits. Author's page (same creator) CSD'd under A7. Prod removed. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per "wtf" :) Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of elements by stability of isotopes. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Radioactive Elements[edit]

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

Article that claims to list "all radioactive elements"; previously PRODed and SecondedPRODed; all elements have radioactive isotopes, so the list would have to list all elements and their respective levels with radioactive isotopes —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 17:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any useful information to List of elements by stability of isotopes and redirect as a plausible search term.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of elements by stability of isotopes as it is entirely redundant to that list. Reyk _YO! 05:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the article contains information not in "List of elements by stability of isotopes". First, it is in order of the Atomic number which the other is not. Second, it has the ionic charge which is not listed in the other article. JRSpriggs (talk) 09:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- the list in the other article is sortable if you want to see it in order of atomic number. Click on the little square icon underneath the "atomic number" heading. Reyk _YO! 09:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ionic charges are wrong, and what is even meant by them is unclear. All elements can have no charge, and all can form ions, usually with a variety of charges. Where are these numbers coming from, and what do they mean, and why does it link to a different concept altogether? I think they are made up.YobMod 14:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • The first point JRSpriggs makes is not a reason to not merge the article, though I certainly agree deletion isn't useful here. ((Nihiltres|talk|log)) 17:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - The point of the article is to show which elements have only radioactive isotopes. Chlorine Trifluoride (talk) 12:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Then it should so be named; "List of elements containing only radioactive isotopes", not List of radioactive elements. —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 13:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Then the article should be moved, not deleted. Chlorine Trifluoride (talk) 14:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - per below. The list is incomplete and redundant. Chlorine Trifluoride (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per preceding; this list is pretty basic notable stuff for any chemistry student. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to List of elements by stability of isotopes, as that seems a more mature list that covers the same material. I'd not be opposed, however, to merely clarifying the scope of the list and fixing the capitalization of the title—the current phrasing "The following is a list of all current radioactive elements" is clearly at least misleading, and "List of Radioactive Elements" should at least be changed to "List of radioactive elements". ((Nihiltres|talk|log)) 17:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merging looks like the best option here. -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There really doesn't seem anything here to merge. The list is incomplete anyway: what about carbon, hydrogen, indium, potassium, for example? Physchim62 (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the scope of the list is supposed to limit it to elements that have only radioactive isotopes, which makes it redundant to List_of_elements_by_stability_of_isotopes#Elements_without_stable_isotopes and should be redirected there. That said, it is still incomplete because Bismuth through Radium are missing. Reyk _YO! 22:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (or if needed be, merge and redirect). I think a reasonable high school or college student may be looking for exactly this information, in this format, for a research project. It's not just that I may like it (and I do), but that other users would find this very useful. Needs a lot of work: wikification, citations, etc., so a merger may be just as well. Bearian (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If it's going to be kept as a junior high school level list (and that's not a bad argument for keeping it, in fact), can editors please say what they want to see in it. Physchim62 (talk) 00:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Redirect to List of elements by stability of isotopes . This list is redundant, incomplete, and gives no useful info about the primary charactersitic used to group them (radioactivity). Is the Ionic charge data even true? - i've been marking student exams that state elemental Uranium has 92 protons and electrons, hence no charge. Any student using this list would be in danger of failing any exam on radioactivity, so i hope there are not many. Nothing to merge, nothing is sourced, and the target already covers this more proffesionally in its own section.YobMod 14:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarification I just rewrote the description of the list to be — "The following is a current list of all elements which have significant radioactivity in their natural state or have only been produced artificially (and thus are highly radioactive).". Hopefully, this will make it clear that the distinction between this article and the other one is that this one is focused on the element in its natural state (including all isotopes in their natural proportions) while the other is on an isotope by isotope characterization. JRSpriggs (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/redirect this list adds no information that IS correct. It lists the number of neutrons without explaining which isotope is it referring to, and lists an ionic charge that is 100% random, without providing any kind of referencing. Nergaal (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of elements by stability of isotopes. Most information seems to be redundant and the rest is simply wrong.Isron (talk)
• Redirect to List of elements by stability of isotopes. I think I'd have to agree with most of the arguments here that this article doesn't really add anything that isn't already covered by the aforementioned article and is therefore redundant. Matt (talk) 01:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as suggested above. Every element has radioactive isotopes (furthermore, this list includes an element that has yet to have been discovered). B.Wind (talk) 11:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, very definitely. The reason originally given in the proposal to delete (article claims to list "all radioactive elements") has been fully dealt with by JRSpriggs's editing of the article, and essentially two other arguments have been introduced in the discussion above: redundancy and inaccuracy. (1) Reundancy: Of course it is true that every element has radioactive isotopes, but many laymen may not know this, and there is a clear sense in which Uranium (for example) is normally considered radioactive while Oxygen (for example) isn't; while anyone with sufficient scientific knowledge will know how to find this information from other sources, such as a list of elements by stability of isotopes, not everyone using Wikipedia has this much knowledge. Arguments based on the list being redundant, as the information is included elsewhere, miss the point that a lot of people of limited scientific knowledge may look for a list of radioactive elements, but not for a list by stability of isotopes, and indeed might have no idea what the latter means if they are redirected there. Bearian mentions high school and college students in this context, and it could well apply to others. Most of the arguments given above ignore the needs of people without specialist scientific knowledge: i.e. the substantial majority of Wikipedia users. (2) Inaccuracy: The argument that some of the information in the article is inaccurate is scarcely ever a good reason for deletion: it is usually a reason for editing the article to make it correct. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who exactly would be looking for an incorrect table of elements that only have radioactive isotopes? Why would such ever be useful for students? Nobody teaches this as a separate topic - anyone wanting to learn about radioactivity is better served by seeing this list in context, which the target article does. I doubt any exam in any subject has asked a student to ever name an element that has only radioactive isotopes - why would they? There is nothing special about them that makes them a class of ther own, either scientifically or practically. Non-chemists telling people what is useful chemistry knowledge does not add up.YobMod 10:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how many people look for "radioactive elements", but I imagine many might. I don't see the relevance of what exams might ask: presumably a student preparing for an exam would prepare what is likely to be on the exam, but other people might want this. Perhaps it was a mistake to refer to Bearian's mention of high school and college students, as they are probably irrelevant. As for "Non-chemists telling people what is useful chemistry knowledge does not add up", I'm afraid I don't understand the point: people may want to look for this information whether or not chemists regard it as useful, and I don't see that including the information tells people that it is useful chemical knowledge. Incidentally, although chemists naturally have an interest in anything to do with the elements, radioactivity is more a physical property, so there is no reason to regard chemists as the only people with relevant opinions. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that all the info is already elsewhere, as stated above. Chlorine Trifluoride (talk) 14:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 00:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Lacy[edit]

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

• Queried speedy delete. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What is the reason for bringing it to AfD? More detail than "Queried speedy delete" would be helpful! Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Someone speedy-delete-tagged it "not notable". Its author appealed "well, i kinda thought the William Kittredge quote implied notablilty: "Robert Lacy's stories are direct, honest, grace-filled, and useful. The Natural Father is that good thing, a book that both sweetens and illuminates our lives. [4]." i take it, i can retry, when he gets his novel done. pohick (talk) 15:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Weak keep - There seem to be some pay/subscription only articles available on Gnews. Does anyone have access to them? Or can anyone else find something to establish the subject as a notable author? — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  17:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — He won a Minnesota Book Award in 1998, if that helps?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That, along with DGG's comments below are good enough for a weak keep from me. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  08:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment hard to find references to link, given British historian of same name and Robert de Lacy, will drill down, to find more evidence of notability. pohick (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep on the basis of being included in an anthology, which is one of the indications of critical acceptance. It should of course never have been tagged for speedy--assserting published books, other than self-published books is at least a minimal indication of possible notability, which is enough to pass speedy. As for actual notability this really needs some reviews published in reliable sources, not just amazon. the award helps, but it is minor. the novel is in on;y 70 worldcat libraries, which isnt that much. His published work in major peer reviewed academic journals of criticism is a significant positive factor. The additional material found in Google can be linked to--people can check it free in appropriate libraries. But they appear to be just mentions or to show local notability. This is at the present borderline. DGG (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete: Lack of real content and very little references does not an article make. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 9, 2009 @ 23:57

and what provision of speedy delete is that? DGG (talk) 03:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep, (article author) i agree this is a borderline case: a regional writer with a one hit wonder. the quality of the writing is there, but it would be an easier call if he had another short story, or criticism collection, not much outside criticism of the stories either. (in fact might wanna do an article, on the british historian, of the same name.) pohick (talk) 18:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 00:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who's your daddy? (phrase)[edit]

Who's your daddy? (phrase) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. Nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information. None of the sources cited give this phrase primary notability; merely, they show unrelated examples of the phrase's use. HeniousMacaw (talk) 17:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep While slang terms of this sort are frowned upon, the Washington Post link is an article that goes in depth as to the usage and origin of the phrase. This seems to indicate notability to me, especially if other similar articles can be found. The Seeker 4 Talk 16:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, sigh --colloquialisms are fair game for articles. In such cases, at the very least WP:IAR suggests keeping. No reason not to get readers by appearing in search lists for such colloquialisms. For what it's worth, Upon further investigation...:

• Upon further investigation...:*This can be considered a ((Db-author)) by this very new HeinousMacaw (talk · contribs) newbie.revised per this My bad! // FrankB 16:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC) (mistooken page// FrankB 19:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

• How can G7 possibly apply? The article was created in 2004 by a different editor and has been substantially contributed to by many editors? Or an I missing something? — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  16:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• See above... I saw two entries in the edit history and took the second as someone fixing the AFD tag... THINK NOW, twas this page's history

No worries. :) — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. (edit conflict) This is a notable phrase/neologism. There are TV shows, songs, a company and a movie that go by the phrase. Here are some references that include in-depth discussions of the phrase itself. Wash Post, Chicago Tribune (not free) A lot more can probably be found given the sheer number of Google books, scholar and news results for "Who's your Daddy?". — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  16:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it's definitely notable given WashPo Sceptre ^(talk) 18:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep = The article is a complete mess, but the phrase itself is notable and there are reliable sources to improve it. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 20:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Phrase is notable, all that remains is to find RS. — neuro^(talk) 02:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WaPo source is good.--Sloane (talk) 04:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is a notable expression, found throughout media sources of various types, and commonly used by many people in the English speaking world. Dream Focus 22:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the phrase is very obviously notable. As DreamFocus pointed out, the phrase is in so many media sources and is widely used in film and TV as stated above. I'm just learning, but I believe I agree with the WashPo and Tribune debate as it fits with the rules on notable, there has to be verifiable sources Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 04:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The number of Wikipedia articles that are titled this show the phrase has entered mainstream use. Sources provided also shows that the article is verifiable. -Atmoz (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep...More popular in the Great Lake States as "Hoosier Daddy"...(sounds exactly the same) which was a battlecry used in many Big Ten arenas whenever Coach Bobby Knights Indiana Hoosiers basketball team would visit. Especially true at NorthWestern's Arena where Coach Knight was goaded into a vociferous response by the student body in 1999, I believe. The term has many uses and meanings. Many exist in the realms of Sex or Sports, a couple of popular human endeavors. Editor:McCaw is not from the Midwest. The terms common use is regional. It is widely used and is verifiable. It deserves article space at Wikipedia. The Internet is endless, lets not worry about space!--Buster7 (talk) 10:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alfredo Padilla[edit]

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

Others more knowledgeable about club level play in Colombia let me know if I'm off the mark. It is unclear if this young player has risen to the level of play to warrant an encyclopedia entry. He can be mentioned on the club entry so that seems adequate. The content is not directly sourced and seems outdated if the club article is accurate (not sourced in a language that I can read.) FloNight♥♥♥ 15:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep If he has made appearances with the first team, then he meets the guidelines for professional footballers. This team is in the top flight in the Colombian leagues. article needs editing though. "new sensation of the season..." etc. could be cut. DarkAudit (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - he's made a number of appearances for the first team - 14 starts and 2 goals in the 2008 season according to this page though he doesn't appear to have played this season. This is a fully professional league - thus he meets WP:ATHLETE.Black Kite 22:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - He has played two seasons in the fully pro Copa Mustang (with Junior) and has now begun his third season (with La Equidad). I've updated the article, and it satisfies WP:ATHLETE. Jogurney (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks for updating the article and adding the references. It is in much better shape now. :-)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Fooling of America[edit]

The Fooling of America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article has no sources and this book does not seem to be notable. Its author, Pío Andrade, Jr., does seem to be notable but his article also has some issues. The subject of the book, Carlos P. Romulo, was an important figure in the history of the Philippines. This article serves mainly as a WP:Coatrack to make allegations against him, as does Dr. Andrade's to a lesser extent. Northwestgnome (talk) 15:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can't find reviews for this book nor good hits in Philippines only Google searches such as this one which produced only hits in UP Diliman's and De la Salle University's online book search tool and WikiPilipinas (a Filipino wiki whose articles are based mostly on Wikipedia). Normal googling, google books and google scholar didn't do better either. The strongest hit that I got is a passing mention here. There's also an amusing but still unsourced blurb here which seems to sum up its reception.--Lenticel ^(talk) 16:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Lack of reliable sources concerning the supposed claims in the book. Only reference is the author himself, and nearly no coverage in popular media... sounds like a fringe theory to me. --Aeon17x (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Book appears to have little independent notability. There's not much useful, but potentially a bit could be merged into Carlos P. Romulo and Pío Andrade, Jr.. Cool3 (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. Definitely not notable. Ignored by the press, ignored by the National Historical Commission, ignored by the Academe... how much more un-notable can you get? - Alternativity (talk) 17:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet WP:BK standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - Now that you mention it, I do recall the author saying that the book was self-published after his frustration in not having anyone sponsor his work. That makes it all the more non-notable. --Aeon17x (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Bluemask (talk) 07:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Michael Mifsud Canilla[edit]

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

No sources support the claims in the article. Can't find any relevant ghits. Possibly just a hoax. Closest thing I can find is Michael Mifsud but it seems totally unrelated except for a Maltese connection. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 15:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It reads like a hoax. If half the stuff was true he whould certainly show up in Google.Northwestgnome (talk) 15:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete I had nominated this page as vandalism (blatant misinformation) but that was deleted by another editor. I still think it's vandalism, and should be speedily deleted. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as probable hoax. Stifle (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Every paragraph screams "hoax". — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - searches under the full name find nothing; searches for "Michael Mifsud" are complicated by the Maltese footballer of that name, but I have found one newspaper clip which confirms that a Michael Mifsud was, not the sole founder as claimed, but one of five concerned with a "Gibraltar Group" which organized cheap air fares. It seems there is a real person, but I can't find independent reliable sources for any of the other extravagant claims, and it looks as if his career has been exaggerated to the point of hoax; for instance, the term Thatcher's Spymaster finds only this article. It is beyond belief that so sensational a career would have left no verifiable traces. If all the unverified claims were removed there would not be enough left for an article that met Notability (people). JohnCD (talk) 11:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. On the basis of e-mails received, I can confirm that it is this Michael Mifsud who "owns about 501 other domains". — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Natalie Archibald[edit]

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

Non-notable person, and an autobiography to boot. Claims of notability arise from a pageant that, as best I can determine from Google news searches, serves only as a parody or spoof of actual beauty pageants. (See [5]) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not the place for 16 year olds to post their resumes, although I wish her well. Northwestgnome (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a no-doubt pretty girl who's won some very minor local pageants and placed very low in some not especially significant larger-scale pageants. Can't find any evidence that the theoretically significant sounding "Miss European Princess" actually exists. Also, you'd think that by March 2009 she'd have worked out whether she'd been accepted for The X-Factor 2008..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I couldn't find "Miss European Princess" either, though it sounds mighty impressive.Vartanza (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, webcontent with no indication of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retarded Online[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (software). E Wing (talk) 15:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable web content. -Senseless!... says you, says me 15:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom "T-Bone" Stankus[edit]

Tom "T-Bone" Stankus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable musician who fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching pulls up no reliable, third-party, sources.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 14:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 14:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per WP:NOTE and WP:MUSIC cf38^talk 15:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep "Existential Blues" is a cult classic, and appears on multiple Dr. Demento best of discs. DarkAudit (talk) 17:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: trivial coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 05:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per DarkAudit. That song regularly appeared in Dr. Demento's "Funny Five" throughout the 80s. Notability is not temporary. -MrFizyx (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- He was a fairly prominent performer related to the Dr. Demento show in the 1980's. AnonMoos (talk) 19:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - a novelty performer with regular airplay on Dr. Demento. A search for news articles about him turns up many hits behind pay walls but I did find this one. A google book search identifies 3 hits. The first looks to be likely of substance. -- Whpq (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – In addition to what others have noted, I found the following article, half of which is about Stankus and there is content from it that can be added to the article: Canfield, Owen (August 9, 1994). "Folks tune in, tune out for summer music", The Hartford Courant, p. D3. For most newspapers, my database goes back only to the mid-1990s, and I suspect that there would be newspaper coverage of him from before that time. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surface of the Earth (band)[edit]

Surface of the Earth (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band who fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Has released 3 non-notable albums on some non-notable labels. Searching brings up no reliable, third-party, sources.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 14:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 14:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:MUSIC cf38^talk 15:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom and per WP:BAND. Lugnuts (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SNOW DGG (talk) 12:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poem-'bicycle'[edit]

Poem-'bicycle' (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Either someone posting their own poem, which Wikipedia is not for, or someone posting someone else's poem, in which case we can delete as a copyright infringement. I don't think any speedy criteria apply, though. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I am also nominating:

Poem-'one dark night' (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Delete. I can't think of any speedy categories, either; the poetry at least makes some sense, and it would be stretching the no context criterion to cover this. But this is a source text from a non-notable poet. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There isn't any reason to have a page for this poem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.229.168 (talk) 14:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both Non-notable poems that fail the GNG at the very least. --GedUK  15:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both articles WP:NOTE;WP:LIT cf38^talk 15:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and the author can post the poem on a poetry page, or Facebook, or something. It's a nice poem. Northwestgnome (talk) 16:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete both. Wikipedia is not a aplace to post your own poems. Apparently the author doesn't get it. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, well it is a brand new user, please don't bite them, they're probably not knowledgeable of Wikipedia policy yet. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 18:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]