Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 February 24

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< 23 February 25 February >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Xclamation point 03:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Montclair Parc

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

Non notable housing estate Tagishsimon (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Xclamation point 03:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Highgate Park

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

Unremarkable small housing estate. NN. Tagishsimon (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Xclamation point 03:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Limonnaya

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

Delete unreferenced since 2007; no indication that this is notable, or even what it is concretely: is this a brand or the generic name for any lemony vodka or if its some specific type of lemony vodka how it differs from others. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Threshold knowledge

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

A term which appears to have strictly limited currency. Fewer than 2,000 Google hits, of which most are unrelated subjects which just happen to have the two words together. Some on GBooks and scholar, but again most seem unrelated to the term as defined - either it's so vague as to be meaningless, or it is specific and largely unused. Guy (Help!) 23:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. This is an apparently non-notable neologism, as the nominator indicated, it has little currency elsewhere. If JHF Meyer and Ray Land, the originators of the concept, are themselves sufficiently notable, the term could be included on their articles, but at least at the moment neither of them has an article (this is not meant to take any position whatsoever on whether or not they are notable). Cool3 (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note. According to WP:NEO, "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term". I have done further work on the article since Cool3's comment and there are now six eleven reliable secondary sources about the term. Bondegezou (talk) 13:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC) (Edit Bondegezou (talk) 13:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I originally created this article. It was speedily deleted by Deb, but I took that to deletion review who unanimously overturned that decision. Thus we are now here. I'm about to take the cat to the vet, so for now let me just copy part of what I said in the deletion review as to why I think the article is notable under WP:GNG in terms of having multiple reliable source coverage.
Threshold knowledge is a theoretical structure in studies of higher education. It was introduced by Meyer and Land, and I included a key reference by them in the article I created:
Meyer JHF, Land R (2003). "Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge – Linkages to Ways of Thinking and Practising" in Improving Student Learning – Ten Years On. C.Rust (Ed), OCSLD, Oxford.
Another would be:
Meyer JHF, Land R (2005). "Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (2): Epistemological considerations and a conceptual framework for teaching and learning" Higher Education, 49(3), 373-388.
That paper has already been cited by 8 others according to ISI Web of Knowledge. Meyer and Land have written about threshold knowledge, threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge in several papers, but the idea has also now been used by other researchers; for example:
Park EJ, Light G (2009). "Identifying Atomic Structure as a Threshold Concept: Student mental models and troublesomeness" International Journal of Science Education, 31(2), 233-258
Baillie C, Goodhew P, Skryabina E (2006). "Threshold concepts in engineering education-exploring potential blocks in student understanding" International Journal of Engineering Education, 22(5), 955-962
Clouder L (2005). "Caring as a 'threshold concept': Transforming students in higher education into health (care) professionals" Teaching in Higher Education, 10(4), 505-517
Google Scholar throws up plenty more candidates, as I said in my prior discussions with Deb (see our discussions here and here). Bondegezou (talk) 09:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism/OR. Stifle (talk) 09:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to point out that the DRV overturned the speedy solely or primarily on the grounds that A7 doesn't apply to it because it's not an article about a person, group of people, company, band, or web content. Stifle (talk) 09:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The DRV indeed overturned the speedy deletion primarily on the misapplication of A7. I wished to alert people to the DRV review primarily to provide context. However, that said, some other comments in the DRV do speak more directly to this discussion ("its seems to be an ok starting stub" said Davewild; "I'm not sure that it needs to go straight to AFD" said Cube lurker; "There are referenced sources on this" said Litherlandsand).
    By the way, I am genuinely puzzled by the suggestion of WP:OR. I've provided 5 citations in the academic literature. Would you be kind enough to expand on your reasoning there? Bondegezou (talk) 11:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is an important topic in education which we do not seem to have covered under any alternate title such as key concepts. There are numerous possible phrases to describe this - foundation studies, core subjects, fundamentals, etc. It seems hard to distinguish the common usage of such phrases from discussion of the topic in ontology and education at a meta level but such papers do exist, e.g. Threshold concepts within the disciplines. Note also that the comments about neologism above seem to misunderstand the point of that style guideline (which is to avoid the use of novel words which our readers will not understand). This phrase is not a neologism and, in any case, that would just be a reason to reword rather than to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Obviously I don't think it's appropriate content. Nice to see that some more references have been added to the original stub, though. Deb (talk) 12:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Relevant topic in education research, Google Scholar. --J.Mundo (talk) 13:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. Since this AfD was started, I have done further work on the article. It now sports 11 reliable secondary source articles on this subject, which I feel is sufficient to dismiss concerns under WP:NEO and to establish notability under WP:GNG. In retrospect, I think I chose the less used terminology for the article name and a move to threshold concept would be better, with redirects from threshold knowledge and troublesome knowledge. Bondegezou (talk) 13:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, weakly and with regret. The illusion of our culture that the craft of schoolteaching is an academic subject, supportable with the apparatus of learned, footnoted journals and the rest of the trappings of scholarship; and that exposure to this kind of scholasticism is necessary to train schoolteachers, yields chiefly the abuse of the English language. This seems to be an example of the typical results. It is unfortunate that it meets the requirements of notice by disinterested third parties in sources held to be reliable in the field, but it does. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sourced fairly well. I agree with Ihcoyc on nearly all points however. Hobit (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pattont/c 13:27, 1 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 22:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kings and Queens (The Enigma Project song)

edit
Kings and Queens (The Enigma Project song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:MUSIC; no establishment of notability outside that which would be relevant for the main article. Seems like a self-release. Cycle~ (talk) 18:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 22:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter De Souza

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

Contested prod in August 2008 with no meaningful edits since then. Suspected autobiography, several Google searches did not yield this guy, failing WP:NN. KuyaBriBriTalk 16:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC) *Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —KuyaBriBriTalk 16:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to add: I goofed on this cross-listing, sorry. KuyaBriBriTalk 16:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. —KuyaBriBriTalk 16:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I think that there are too many discrepancies between that article and ours to make it plausibly about the same person. The Star describes him as a former Malaysian who was 59 in 2005, has a father who was in Malaysia in 1953, and who moved to Australia. The Wikipedia article is about someone of Goan origin born in Kenya in 1953 who moved to Canada. Even without the decade-or-so discrepancy in the birthdate it would be rather difficult (although I suppose not impossible) to shoehorn all of that into the same biography. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would totally agree. Hoaxes are mucho bad. --Ged UK (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by nom. After the clean-up work by Caspian blue, Fabrictramp agreed to withdraw the nomination, and as no other participants have called for the deletion, this debate can be considered null and void with no prejudice against any future debates. Hiding T 11:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trace (webtoon)

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

Webtoon with no claim of meeting WP:Notability or any references. Gsearch for Trace + webtoon -wikipedia isn't coming up with this webtoon. However, there may be language and transcription issues hindering my search, so bringing to AfD instead of speedy or prod. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dani C.

edit
Dani C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Probable hoax, prod was removed without explanation or discussion. Unable to find evidence of a Romanian born player for Madureira Esporte Clube. A probable conflict of interest from the article creator should also be noted. King of the North East 22:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A7. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reptile_guide

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

Obvious vanity page, clearly lacks any sort of notability Mokele (talk) 22:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Xclamation point 03:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suctum

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

In the article, there is both a claim to notability and a reference which is a reliable source: Machinery's Handbook 23rd Edition. Unfortunately, Google book searches on Machinery's Handbook, both previous and later editions, don't show any results containing the term "suctum". Online searches on related article terms along with suctum don't turn up any significant hits, although suctum is Latin for "to suck" and gets a lot of hits by itself. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Fails two core content policies: Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Michael Devore (talk) 22:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Nothing related on google of significance, utterly unverifiable. The indicated offline reference is neither here nor there. If this were a notable term, there would be more information out there. As is, the article is either a dicdef of limited importance or a hoax. Cool3 (talk) 00:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is an interesting one. Yeah, the book exists, but it does not contain that term (at least Google says it doesn't). One of those terms (non clean-up) is (if I remember my Kanban well) actually inventory control slang. That in conjunction with the inclusion of a name and a specific geo ___location (NE Ohio) leads me to believe this might be some sort of inside joke. In any case, the term is non-notable. §FreeRangeFrog 00:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Xclamation point 03:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

412 Commission

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

Article doesn't establish notability, and I could not find any reliable sources online. ~EdGl (talk) 22:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete by User:DragonflySixtyseven - per no duh. J.delanoygabsadds 02:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Super secret penis

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

Delete. There is no such thing. Fourteen unique Google results. I would suggest speedy but another admin already restored it for some unknown reason. ... discospinster talk 22:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FLV-Media Player

edit
FLV-Media Player (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable media player. No external sources, so obviously nothing shows notability. Top google hits all refer to some entirely different FLV player with the same name, so kind of unable to ascertain anything unique about this player. Miami33139 (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pole of Cold

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

Contested prod. Unreferenced original research. None of the sources cited use the term, nor can I find any. Article defines Pole of Cold as the places in the Northern and Southern hemispheres where the lowest air temperatures were recorded. Google Scholar shows a few hits, however papers are not often cited, and most are from before 1940. News shows about the same, lots of old articles. As well as [Books]. The term seems to be a pissing contest on where the coldest temperature was recorded, as if that's something to be proud of. Sourced information could possibly be merged into List of weather records. - Atmoz (talk) 21:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Pissing contest or not, the term is quite used. The lowest temperature on Earth is most certainly of note, not less than the Centre of Europe. As for "unreferenced" or "original" this is certainly misjudgement: the article is bare facts, with some references. May be not enough, but the info (names, places, temperatures) is most certainly verifiable. And plenty of refs in google. You searched it in wrong places. It is certainly not "news". See google books instead. - 7-bubёn >t 22:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There do seem to be a few references to "Pole of Cold" or "Cold Pole" about - such as [3], [4], [5], [6], it does seem not to be a neoligism.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lackawanna Rapids

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

Non-sourced non-notable team, no indication of whether or not it actually exists; appears to be possible hoax Mhking (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of GIS software

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

Unnotable and primarily indiscriminate "comparison" list of GIS software. Completely unsourced and seems to be nothing more than a huge spam vehicle for GIS software provides to come list their wares than a legitimate, encyclopedic topic. There is already a List of GIS software, and this "comparison" seems highly inappropriate and unnecessary. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a sales catalog and there is already a list of GIS software. How does having two lists help anyone? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted as not asserting significance, as WP:SNOW per the debate below, and for the fact that Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Hiding T 22:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Gumwrapper Chronicles

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

Contested prod. Nonnotable comic strip founded only two months ago. The "source" that was added is a link to flicker of potentially copyvio images. There is only one hit on google, which leads to a dead link. Fails WP:N and WP:V. Themfromspace (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete as copyright violation. ... discospinster talk 22:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Positive affirmations

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

Wikipedia is not a self help guide - I originally PRODded this, as no CSD criteria could be applied, so I am bringing it here. — neuro(talk) 18:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Xclamation point 03:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blackguard

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

Band with no indication of notability under WP:MUSIC PKT(alk) 18:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Setting Blackguard to redirect to the link suggested by Sjakkalle makes sense to me. As nominator I would support that alternative. PKT(alk) 16:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Xclamation point 03:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History of the island in Lost

edit
History of the island in Lost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Mainly speculation / original research. Even if substantiated belongs on the series' fan wiki not here. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust in Russia

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

Reason 1. This article is compilation of some parts of other articles ( History_of_the_Jews_in_Russia#On_the_eve_of_the_Holocaust, History_of_the_Jews_in_Russia#After_World_War_II and History_of_Russia#World_War_II), copied and pasted without significant changes.

2. Splitting description of European-scale event (Holocaust) into many articles by national or subnational borders will be confusing for the reader. DonaldDuck (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand. Probably retitle & add material as Holocaust in USSR, because that is what it was at the time, and it will meet NVO's objections. This seems a good way to do this; the other sections can now be reduced per WP:Summary style., There is certainly enough literature. More generally, there are numerous book-length discussion of the Holocaust on a coutnry-by country basis, so this is highly appropriate as a way of treating the subject. See Black Book (World War II) which I know by the English translations titled Black Book of Russian Jewry or Black Book of Soviet Jewry DGG (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, this article is notable enough to deserve its own page.Smallman12q (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep riots that kill dozens are notable; this killed millions clearly is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article's subject matter warrants standalone status. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The subject matter itself "Holocaust in Russia" is problematic, because German-occupied territory inside present Russian borders was smaller part of total German-occupied territory of USSR. And this "by country" approach is even more absurd, considering that most Holocaust survivors in Europe, survived by fleeing from western parts of USSR (or eastern parts of Poland) to the east, across the borders.DonaldDuck (talk) 02:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, DonaldDuck has a long history of whitewashing Russia-related articles by removing manifestations of antisemitic activities.--Galassi (talk) 15:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Xclamation point 03:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Climatic Research Unit study

edit

(now called 2008 study on polar warming, BTW William M. Connolley (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

2008 Climatic Research Unit study (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Content not suitable for an encyclopedia. The article is a summary of news briefs about one science paper that received modest coverage in the popular press. However, WP is not a collection of news reports; WP:NOT#NEWS, nor is it a collection of indiscriminate information. While the sources are verifiable, I do not think this topic merits its own article, and should be deleted. At the very least, the scientific information should be merged into Polar climate. Atmoz (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep- Seems like a reasonably well sourced article on a published study that received media attention, and is therefore notable. Not really seeing how this is a "collection of news reports" or a "collection of indiscriminate information" personally. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep major study, adequately sourced. We do not keep articles on the routine study reports of small research groups, buit this one is non-routine and attracted international attention. DGG (talk) 22:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources show that this study has received a significant amount of attention, and that it is clearly notable. Anaxial (talk) 23:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete my initial impression was keep, but I was not able to find any recent articles that reflect back on / use this report - maybe it was only a flash in the pan and more news than notable (or maybe I am a poor researcher or maybe not enough time has passed for it to be appearing in other peer reviewed journal articles.) If more current sources are found then its impact / notability is proven over time and I will switch to keep.-- The Red Pen of Doom 23:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong delete - this is utterly weird. Why would wiki have a whole article about one not particularly notable scientific paper? It's also badly mistitled: this wasn't a "CRU study" in the sense of the CRU organising some research team, or a major observational programme, or something: it's the CRU study because Gillett happens to be at CRU. Whoever wrote this thing (and those who voted keep) just doesn't understand what is going on The study was led by the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, and was assisted by scientists from is wrong. It was work lead by NG, in collaboration with other scientists. Just like normal. There are countless scientific papers that are more notable and more interesting. We don't, and we shouldn't, have articles on them William M. Connolley (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is referenced and cites reliable sources (including a peer-reviewed journal), and judging by the number of citations appears to be quite notable as well. Considering the study was published near the end of 2008 and we are now at the beginning of 2009, I believe it's a little premature to determine that "nothing of interest" arose from it. Finally, if there are factual inaccuracies in the article, the proper way to fix them is with the "Edit" tab, not an AfD comment. – 74  23:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The peer-reviewed journal paper is the topic of the WP article. Therefore, it cannot also be a source. Having an encyclopedia article about one journal article is just silly no matter how many main-street newspapers pick it up. -Atmoz (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A peer-reviewed journal is a de facto reliable source; I can think of no better source regarding the contents of an article than said article. Please provide a link to a policy (or guideline) stating that a peer-reviewed journal (in good standing) is not a reliable source. The peer-review process indicates community verification and at least limited acceptance of the contents of the article. – 74  00:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Jacob Enriquez

edit
Paul Jacob Enriquez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable auto-biographical article; the subject appears to be one and the same as the author PaulJacob (talk · contribs). The subject of the article is a 16-year-old church choir singer and there seems to be no indication as to why he would qualify to pass WP:N. I was unable to dig up any reliable sources to indicate any notability although a Google search did turn up several YouTube clips of the subject performing with his church choir and a handful of self-created online profiles on free web hosts. Please also note that, although the Google search returned over 600 hits, the majority of them are about other people with the same name. The article may have qualified for WP:CSD#A7 but I did not tag it for speedy deletion due to a sentence that states that "He won the Original Pop Music (OPM) Vocal Solo Competition" at the age of 11. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Lyndon

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

Non-notable author of self-published online poems and stories. No verifiable information to make an encyclopedia article. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mongiovi

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

Nominated for speedy deletion as A7; author removed db tag. Non-notable family name; likely autobiographical. KuyaBriBriTalk 15:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. AfD is a discussion, not a vote. The balance of discussion indicates that the article fails to meet WP:N or WP:ATHLETE given the quality of the sources. Those favouring retention seemed to do so on the basis of future notability (e.g. will soon join a pro team), google hits (e.g. ranks second in Google), or performance in his football matches (e.g. number of goals scored over his career). These arguments have little or no rounding in policy, and so the consensus of this discussion favours deletion Fritzpoll (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Main

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

Non-professional football (soccer) player who has never played above the sixth level of English football, at which there are no fully professional teams - thereby fails WP:ATHLETE. Previously deleted via AfD last May. ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He fell short of the required criteria back then, and he falls short now. Fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully professional league, and there's nothing to suggest he's notable in any other field. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 15:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and previous debate. GiantSnowman 16:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.I oppose deletion. Allthough Jon Main hasn't played in a professional league, he has scored almost twice as much as the no 2 top scorer in the league. And Jon Main is also better known and more popular than most of the player that played in Conference National and even in the Coca-Cola League, even by a person that lives outside of the United Kingdom and Europe (myself as example). Main has also broken and won many records and even had a fanclub page in Facebook and Myspace, I think the reason is quite enough and should make Jon Main a player of some importance. Do not discriminate player that played in an amatuer league, some of them have credential to grow and is even better than the professional football player. And I hope someone who wanted to propose this article for deletion again in future can give a very concrete reason for his/her doings. I simply cant understand for the fact that this article is being nominated for deletion only for a very simple and a short reason : Never played professional football. Is this is kinda of joke ? — Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 17:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wimbledon will be promoted this season to the Conference South. His goal scoring records are notable enough to keep his page anyway, I was delighted to find him here because I wanted to find out more about him. JAStewart (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. AFC Wimbledon is a semi-pro football club and currently has unprecedented lead in Conference South and surely will be promoted to Conference National next season. Most of the clubs in the Conference National is registered as fully professional footy club, and AFC Wimbledon will surely do that when they gets promoted. as per citations, & references, it can easily be improved, many articles on Main on the web 194.116.199.218 (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. no use for you to delete it, ppl will recreate this article though. ppl will still recreate the article on him despite being deleted hundredth of times, because main plays an important figure among football fan and ppl in england. you should try to improve the article, so that ppl can know more about him, deleting the article is not the answer. Samanthaness (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has unbelievable footy records & has also been linked to many league 1 & 2 clubs. Will be called to join a pro team very soon. Article can be easily upgraded --118.107.192.22 (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. There are plenty of sources about him. [7] albeit from local papers. The key issue is whether that is enough given the nature of the league. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to be plenty of third-party sources as demonstrated by the link above. This means he passes WP:N. If a subject passes the general notability guidelines, there is no need for the subject to pass the specific athlete/corp/music/etc. guidelines as well. A high school player may be notable if he or she has significant coverage in reliable third party sources; the fact that they do not meet WP:ATHLETE as well does NOT take away from the notability met as per WP:N. The Seeker 4 Talk 20:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to his impreesive scoring record. I actually searched Wikipedia for this page to learn more about him Arnemann (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Main is scoring at a record pace and is the driving force for a rather unprecedented run by AFC Wimbledon, given their history. Further, the team is far more notable and famous than their league position suggests given the history behind their creation and their incredible success. Preceding unsigned comment by User:76.213.235.148 at 13:06, 25 February 2009
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Player fails WP:Athlete and from what I can see, also fails WP:Notability, the sources noted above on Google news are almost entirely match reports where the player is mentioned as having performed some action in the game (Main is expected to be fit for the game, Main scored a goal in this match - and so on), I do not think there are enough articles on him that constitute "Significant coverage" which as per WP:Notability means "that sources address the subject directly in detail". He may (or may not) be in a professional team soon and AFC Wimbledon may (or may not) be promoted this season but Wikipedia is definitely not a crystal ball. Camw (talk) 04:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - most of the keep !votes seem to be on the basis of ILIKEIT (he has scored lots of goals and/or should be treated differently because he plays for AFC Wimbledon) or CRYSTAL (he will probably be signed by a professional team soon)...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --- per good reasoning by Theseeker4 60.48.246.75 (talk) 08:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Camw. Clearly fails WP:ATHLETE, having never played in a fully-pro league. (Note for those less well-acquainted with the levels of English football: even if crystal-balling were acceptable, and even if AFC Wimbledon are promoted this season, the league they will be promoted to is still not a fully-pro league.) Not enough non-trivial coverage to pass WP:BIO. Struway2 (talk) 12:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Disagree. As far as I am concerned, the article already passes WP:N, the subject passes the general notability guidelines, so there is no need for it to pass WP:ATHLETE and so on. The article got loads of references and links, besides the daily page view for the article is also quite high compared to other new entrants. The article passes the MAIN rules for article inclusion in Wikipedia so there is no need for deletion. The subject also have some importance to show. He holds many league records and is the current topscorer and so on. Main got "The People's Support". He is so like a champ to them. 118.107.192.22 (talk) 15:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article as written meets GNG (sourcing looks fine, articles are about the player though often short). WP:ATHLETE defers to GNG. Hobit (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, has never played in a fully-professional league thus failing WP:ATHLETE. --Jimbo[online] 09:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Why keep mentioning WP:ATHLETE ?, the subject already passes WP:N basic criteria for inclusion. This sentence is written under the Additional Criteria section, pls read it carefully "Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." Jon Main may fail WP:ATHLETE, but given that WP:N exceeds WP:ATHLETE, he already passes the criteria for inclusion. Main also passes WP:BIO though 60.48.246.75 (talk) 10:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that failing WP:ATHLETE isn't relevant if the subject passes the basic notability criteria, though there's no real need to write it in big letters. However, the references supplied say only that the subject is a part-time footballer who scored a lot of goals for his previous club playing in a regional league at the seventh level of English football, scored a lot of goals this season for his current club playing in a regional league at the sixth level of English football, and quite fancies playing at a higher level. What the closing admin will have to consider is whether that constitutes significant enough non-trivial coverage to pass WP:N / WP:BIO. Similar quality of referencing could be found for hundreds of other part-time players who have never played professional sport, which reflects interestingly on the English media's obsessive reporting on football right down to very low levels. Local papers have always written about local football in detail. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (EC)Response to IP above Because every kid who has ever kicked a ball has stuff written about them because football is one of those things people can't get enough of. Without setting some criteria Wikipedia will simply become a big database of non notables who happen to walk the earth - including my 6 year old son who has had both his photo and short article in the paper already, having scored over 30 goals in the 7th grade. When that day comes, Wikipedia will die and be replaced by something a bit more selective about inclusion, because entering "Craig Williams" (completely random name) will produce hundreds of wiki articles (based on the fact this gave me 195000 Ghits just now) and you will never find the actual notable one you wish to look up unless you know enough about him to not need to look him up. At the end of the day you think this lad is notable because he had his name in the paper, but he is merely a small fish that looks like a big fish because he is the biggest fish in his little pond. The small fish is not truly notable unless he makes it big in the big pond--ClubOranjeT 11:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per me. I believe he is likely to make it one day, but article should not actually exist until that day comes per WP:CRYSTAL. Unlike some, I don't believe a couple of lines in a newspaper is notability, it is merely sports journalists giving ordinary folk their 15 minutes of fame scrapping to make a living, --ClubOranjeT 11:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • While that's a reasonable opinion, I don't see how it jives with either WP:N or WP:ATHLETE. From the top of WP:ATHLETE "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Hobit (talk) 12:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've asked this of others, but I'll ask one more time and a bit more carefully. In your opinion does the subject meet WP:N? WP:BIO? As there are plenty of sources about this subject in the article, it sems that "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." is fairly trivially met. It seems that you are arguing that these guidelines are wrong here (and I think that's a general sense of many with respect to athletes) not that the guidelines aren't met. Sorry if I'm putting (mistaken) words in your mouth. Hobit (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it says it is presumed, not it is guaranteed. Presumption is not enough, as is being in the local news. Amateur leagues such as Conference South naturally receive local coverage in cities, towns and neighbourhoods where the league teams play. I don't live in Italy anymore, but if you go to Sicily and buy the Monday edition of the Giornale di Sicilia, you will find citations for all amateur leagues from Eccellenza to Seconda Categoria, that is the second-bottom league in the whole Italian football panorama. --Angelo (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough answer. I strongly disagree with that reading of WP:N and it's application here, but thanks for explaining. If that opinion in fact has consensous it should be stated so in WP:ATHLETE. That's a huge exception to our inclusion guidelines and isn't hinted at in them. Hobit (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Angelo and would add that the main aim here is to build an encyclopaedia. The question should be asked for each and every entry: has this subject done or achieved something of "encyclopaedic note". Truly notable subjects are worthy of inclusion regardless of whether they have coverage; A player that represented Uruguay as they won the first World Cup is significantly more notable than one who today plays 6 levels down from the top, yet there is probably significantly less coverage of the Uruguayan (thanks to the internet mostly). Yes, notability gets coverage, but not all coverage is notability. Lads playing in your local league are not as notable as lads playing in my local league....from my perspective.--ClubOranjeT 00:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, but I don't know of a policy or guideline that would support that other than (obviously) WP:IAR. If that's what you all want (in the sports area) I don't have much of an objection. But it should be written down someplace. WP:ATHLETE specifically defers to published sources. If that's not where conscious really is, than it should be changed. But for now, I think this should be kept as it meets all relevant guidelines and a small number of editors shouldn't be overriding that because they think the guidelines are wrong (rather than that this is a special case which is reasonable for a small number of editors to claim). Hobit (talk) 00:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This I believe has partially been done with WP:FOOTYN, but is still unofficial guideline and not integrated with WP:ATHLETE. It is something that probably should be given a little nudge by somebody.--ClubOranjeT 08:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on the Delete Vote — The Delete voters particularly mentioning about something that may be true. But it is not even mentioned in WP:N & WP:ATHLETE. There is no concrete regulations that supports their state. There is nothing that the DELETE voters have mentioned is in the regulation itself, it is kind of BIAS to delete this article by neglecting the rules. The FACT is, the article already passes WP:N given the current rules for WP:N, the decision must be made according to the rules. How can we say that the references given is not reliable & how far the reliability is, can someone give me a concrete measurement ? Is there any very concrete reason to say that the references is not reliable ? What is the meaning of the "no notability" words mentioned by Angelo in his vote ? There are thousands of so called pro league ppl bio is in Wikipedia itself that only have a sentence or two in the article, some has remained in Wikipedia for three to four years with only one edits or two. Why is that kind of article is still in Wikipedia if people won't search for it ?? Their daily page hits is only 1 or 2 per day, is it worth it to be in Wikipedia, only for a simple reason, ohh he plays in the pro-league and he passes WP:N & so on. Wikipedia SHOULD be a place where there is articles that people will look for, like "Jon Main", not only because it passes WP:N and other guidelines. I agree that the guidelines is important to show that the article is reliable but the people's wants and demand should stand in the first place. I do agree to some of the arguments, I know that this article means nothing to "you", or maybe "us". But do you know the value and the importance of this article to the people out there? Everyday people were searching and searching for Jon Main article, but they couldn't find one because articles & news about him is being deleted over and over again. It is some kind of "UNDERESTIMATION" to the non-league footballers & amateurs, whatever they do, it is not even recognized by the media, even if he/she has won many honours and broken so many records. Can we all, as Wikipedians Keep this article as a show of thankfulness to him, we didn't give him any money or anything, but we can give him a place in "Wikipedia" that he can be proud of. Not only for him, but also to the non-league footballers in all around the world, to the people that lives in Greater London and also to the AFC Wimbledon and Wimbledon FC supporters. I know that Jon Main is a small fish that lives in a small pond (that's what ClubOranje mentioned), but to me Jon Main is a small fish that is not given enough water and food, only because the fish is small and ppl look at it as useless. — Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 10:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On one hand you talk about sticking to the official policy and then provide some reasons to keep the article that don't have any place in any wikipedia policy (because we should be thankful for the players actions, because others aren't recognised by the media and so on). I don't agree that the article passes the test for notability ("Significant coverage" whereby "that sources address the subject directly in detail"), but there is no set measurement for this test and that is why we are having this discussion. Camw (talk) 11:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (response to Arteyu) Are you really saying we should keep a Wikipedia artcle because people are tying to look him up and can't find anything on him because "articles & news about him is being deleted over and over again"? Surely that is counter to the multitude of non trivial reliable sources claimed above. Additionally, a Wikipedia article should not exist as "a show of thankfulness to him". If you wan't to show someone thanks, buy them a gift or send them a card. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia.--ClubOranjeT 00:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG STRONG KEEP JON MAIN IS A GREAT PLAYER THOUGH THAT HE PLAYS FOR AFC WIMBLEDON, GO GO GO JONNY !!! GO GO DONS !!! YOU'RE THE BEST !!! JONNY IS EVEN BETTER THAN KAKA AND CRISTANO !!!!
  • Keep Pls give the article some lease of life. Main really deserved it. 60.50.14.179 (talk) 17:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • More details on why it should be kept Given is the page view for this article Jon Main Wikipedia Page View

The page view for Jon Main is quite high for a new article. It is second in Google if you search for "Jon Main". Just giving out some stats 118.107.192.22 (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The page view is quite high because there is an active AfD debate on it that has been canvassed. Just putting the stats in perspective.--ClubOranjeT 23:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for closing admin and all guys around: please keep in mind that this is not an election, and I can't avoid noticing almost all keep !votes are coming from AFC Wimbledon fans (mostly anonymous user with no significant edit history in the project). Wikipedia is based on consensus, not voterigging, and I can't understand people citing reasons to keep this article like "he is a great player, even better than Kaka" (never watched him playing, but I don't really think so), "he really deserved it" (anyone might deserve it, actually), "he is the topscorer" (so what?), "he will join a pro team very soon" (who knows?!?) or "is second in Google" (unfortunately for you, I am a IT expert, with a major in web engines and IR, and I can assure you there is absolutely no connection between being "second in Google" and the number of views). My feeling is that nobody would have argued about this case if the subject were going to play for another team, such as for instance Basingstoke Town F.C., that coincidentally plays in the same league of AFC Wimbledon. --Angelo (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 09:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or REDIRECT the article does not seem to pass the criteria for deletion, so i suggest it to be kept. to delete it is a cruel decision as some users have tried their hard to retain and mantain it by searching for reliable resources and by expanding the article. i think it should be redirected to AFC Wimbledon rather than to be deleted. closure admin, i hope that you can read the Keep vote thoroughly and make your decision wisely. we have been trying our best to retain the article, i hope that your decision is to redirect or to keep it. it would be very sad for us and to all jon main fan if it is still deleted Samanthaness (talk) 09:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 40 goals in 41 games; leading league in scoring, well written and researched article. WP:CS would suggest that this type of article should be kept. Nfitz (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems that there isn't enough evidence to delete this article. Article has been edited in proper and passes WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:CS & GNG. Emmanthe (talk) 15:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The player fails the guidelines at WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN, set up to deal with exactly this type of situation. He may be the leagues top scorer this season, but so has a player every season and that doesn't infer notably. It is very questionable whether he passes WP:BIO and WP:N as there is a lack of reliable secondary sources for Jon listed in the article. The references provided either do not have him as the subject 1 or are unreliable 2. Arguments such as page view statistics, he deserves it and users trying hard are redundant as per Wikipedia policy. The discussion is to determine whether he is notable for this encyclopedia, and the moment, he is not. If he passes the notablity stage in the future, the article can be recreated in it's current state, saving all the current work that has gone into it. --Eastlygod (talk) 16:40, 1 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 or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia Darrin

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

A disputed PROD. This actress had one small but memorable role in The Big Sleep but she is not credited in its cast list, nor, according to IMDB, is she credited for five of the seven roles listed in this article. There is very little information about the actress and I was unable to find anything about her personal life on Google. I take no position here (and have waffled about the article through proposed speedy/PROD stages) but bring it to the community for a decision. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete In the absence of verification from RS, "best remembered" for a role that's minor and uncredited seems to me persuasive for deletion. Happy to revise if further verification of notability is provided. --Dweller (talk) 15:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After poking around, I can't seem to find any reliable sources about her, and I don't think having an uncredited role in a movie makes you notable. Cool3 (talk) 17:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC). Changed to keep, appears to pass WP:ENTERTAINER as per Big Bird. Cool3 (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes notability threshold of WP:ENTERTAINER which requires "significant roles in multiple notable films". Her roles in Bury Me Dead and Federal Agent at Large, I believe, qualify as significant and the two films qualify as notable. Granted, the article would be much better off with a few solid references but those are likely to take somewhat longer to find. Since this subject lived in an era without internet, the vast majority of sources on her are likely to be printed in books, newspapers and magazines rather than being posted on the internet. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither of the two films cited have a Wikipedia article, throwing their notability into question. As for references in older publications, I've run her through some newspaper databases that go back to the 40s and 50s and I don't find anything. Cool3 (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new to the assessment of films for notability; could I trouble you to elucidate as to how the two films, Bury Me Dead and Federal Agent at Large, qualify as notable? Accounting4Taste:talk 18:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bury Me Dead meets criterion 1 by being widely distributed and receiving full length reviews from two or more nationally known critics; see reviews by Jeffrey Anderson and Gregory Meshman. Federal Agent at Large meets criterion 2.1 by being featured in two articles/publications that were published more than five years after the film's initial release; see here for titles and dates of those publications. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'm sold. Cool3 (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your trouble; both those resources were previously unknown to me but seem as though they would be valuable in a number of situations. I agree that Bury Me Dead is notable for the reason you've given -- does it matter that Sonia Darrin is not mentioned in either review? (I'm not trying to be unhelpful here -- as the article's talk page says, I have a clear memory of her appearance in The Big Sleep and consider that evidence of notability -- in fact, she played the role better than Joan Collins did -- I'm just trying to understand the criteria that apply. This situation seems like it's teetering on the edge, and I want to know what evidence can legitimately be brought to bear in similar situations in the future.) Again, I do thank you for your trouble; if you can't be bothered with this further, I will suggest that this be closed as a Keep. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No trouble at all. She would not need to be mentioned in the reviews, she would merely need to have a "significant role" in a "notable film". Proving the film notable may be easier than proving her role to be significant because Wikipedia really doesn't have any criteria or guidelines to elaborate on what "significant" really means. For the most part, I would say that, if the film is proven to be notable, a role can be judged to be significant if the actor is (a) credited for this role and (b) not credited as an extra. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 21:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again; the logic about how a role can be judged to be significant is exactly what I was looking for. Now I wish there were a whole bunch of AfDs about actors that I could analyze! LOL Again, I recommend that this article is a Keeper for the closing admin. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - actress had roles in multiple notable films in the 1940's. Just because the nominator does not remember her does not lessen her contributions as an actress 60 years ago. These types of articles add value to Wikipedia and should be kept. Esasus (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't nominate the article because I didn't remember her; in fact, I stated on the talk page of the article, and above, that I did specifically remember her. The reason I nominated the article is because you removed the PROD tag without adding any citations beyond your assertion that she was notable, apparently having missed the discussion on the talk page of the article where the process was being discussed. But thanks for your contribution, which prompted me to have this settled once and for all. Accounting4Taste:talk 01:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've been giving this some thought, and I'd suggest that in films before, say, 1950 it was common for an actor of colour to be listed at the bottom of the list, regardless of how important his/her role was to the film. Similarly, I have noticed a recent trend of giving acting credits at the end of a film based on when the person was seen in the film, chronologically. I understand from an actor friend that it can be based on the number of lines the person has in the film, excepting specific contractual arrangements that are made for the two or three principal actors. But then, that would leave out actors like Rondo Hatton who rarely spoke in a film. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This AfD is turning into a model of how an AfD should progress and I commend all involved. I have a question before I amend my opinion above to "Keep". We seem to have demonstrated that she appeared in several notable films, but I'm still slightly in the dark about how significant any of her roles in them were. I'm dissatisfied currently with the one in The Big Sleep. We would exclude someone who, for the sake of argument (sorry for the strawman here) was an Extra in 5 notable films, unless of course he achieved significant media coverage for the feat! All of which boils down to the question: how significant were her roles in Bury Me Dead and Federal Agent at Large? --Dweller (talk) 11:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I explained a bit earlier, it's a tricky process to determine what "significant" in "significant role" means for the purposes of Wikipedia since we have no official polices or guidelines with respect to this. I would be satisfied to say that, even if someone has made a career of being an extra, a role in a notable film where the actor was credited as something other than an extra should qualify to make the role significant. Having at least two such roles would then meet criterion 1 of WP:ENTERTAINER. Unfortunately, I can't post a link to a Wikipedia document that would confirm this; this is my interpretation of a somewhat vaguely worded notability guideline and it is again my belief that the guideline is purposely worded vaguely so that we can apply fairly liberal criteria in trying to determine what qualifies as significant because, in the end, it really is a subjective judgement call. Does that help at all? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but not really. As I said above, I'd retain a Delete for someone who appeared as an Extra in 2 or even 5 notable films. I'm totally happy to accept that the two films are notable. If the policy is grey, we can interpret it reasonably. For example, do we have any information about the nature of her roles in them? A suggestion: in reviews or synopses of the films in RS, are the roles mentioned? --Dweller (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I think I see what you're getting at. Before I muddle the water any further, let me just make sure that I got it right this time: you're asking how to make sure that, for example, "Mildred" (the subject's character in Federal Agent at Large) in not an extra? Am I correct? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but also not what we might call a glorified extra. A substantial role. The kind that would get your name on the poster they'd stick on boards on the tube. --Dweller (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think requiring the role to be as substantial as what you explained above is a bit too strict (mind you, I realize that the interpretation will vary greatly based on where you stand in the inclusionist vs. deletionist spectrum); I'm apt to interpret the significance of a role somewhat more liberally. Take Jaye Davidson for example. Other than his Oscar nominated role in The Crying Game, his IMDb profile has only two more entries: one of them is a 60 minute TV film which does not qualify under WP:Notability (films) and the other is a short appearance as Ra in Stargate. Although he was nominated for an Oscar, award nominations are not a criteria in WP:ENTERTAINER. Couple that with a somewhat strict interpretation of how significant his only other role in a notable film might have been and we might not have an article on this actor. Again, this is just a personal interpretation of a vaguely worded guideline and, given that it is vague, interpretations will be different from one person to the next but this is how I interpret a significance of a role. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. TalkIslander 01:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Tomei

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

Fails WP:ENTERTAINER:

Actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities:
  • Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions — the roles have not been significant.
  • Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following — no evidence of this.
  • Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment — no evidence of this.

Bongomatic 15:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Think you may want to dust off your reading glasses. The criterion is "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions" (emphasis added). Bongomatic 07:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
it's a tricky process to determine what "significant" in "significant role" means for the purposes of Wikipedia since we have no official polices or guidelines with respect to this. I would be satisfied to say that, even if someone has made a career of being an extra, a role in a notable film where the actor was credited as something other than an extra should qualify to make the role significant. Having at least two such roles would then meet criterion 1 of WP:ENTERTAINER. Unfortunately, I can't post a link to a Wikipedia document that would confirm this; this is my interpretation of a somewhat vaguely worded notability guideline and it is again my belief that the guideline is purposely worded vaguely so that we can apply fairly liberal criteria in trying to determine what qualifies as significant because, in the end, it really is a subjective judgment call. Esasus (talk) 11:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really as tricky as you make it out to be. A role is significant for generally the same reasons that anything else would be notable—so if the character were singled out for attention in reviews in reliable sources (not just trivially mentioned in passing, such as stating who played it), that would be evidence in favor of a role's being significant.
I haven't done that in this case (here I've just looked at where in the cash listings his roles show up), but in the past, I've taken a sampling of major reviews of each of a minor actor's films and searched to see if the actor's role or performance was covered in any detail. Time consuming, but if you wanted to demonstrate that any of the roles is verifiably significant, that would be a way. Bongomatic 11:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't pretend to be an expert on what a significant role is, and I can only seem to find one review that mentions Tomei by name, other than in a cast listing, here it is "his Zen-cool 'creative' pose plays well against his laid-back studio directors (Paul Giamatti and Adam Tomei). I'm inclined to say that this makes his roles in general insignificant, but I'd love to be proven wrong. Cool3 (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is such a minor passing reference that I have to agree with your conclusion. Bongomatic 21:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 22:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GameOn

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

Speedy deletion contested. Non-notable neologism; Wikipedia is not a dictionary. KuyaBriBriTalk 15:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandra Infante Covarrubias

edit
Alejandra Infante Covarrubias (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Won a subdivision of a notable contest for aspiring models, but career has been minor and non-notable - all her credits are red-links. No reliable sources to be found. An image search just brings up a few Facebook hits.  Mbinebri  talk ← 15:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Box month

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

PRODDed as a non-notable protologism; de-PRODDed by anon IP, possibly the article creator. This article violates WP:NOT#OR and WP:MADEUP, has no real world notability, and is also an example of blatant WP:SOAP with such declarations as "This rare event calls for celebration throughout the month and the necessary spread by word of mouth." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I should also like to include, for your reading pleasure, the comment left by the creator on the article's Talk page:

The Box Month is a special rare occasion that occurs more infrequently than a leap year. It is the union of geometric simplicity and man-imposed time keeping with the calendar. Such rare instances of simplicity within a social construct should be noted and spread to the masses..

And there we have it. This article has been created to spread word of his discovery to the masses. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 22:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Driss Temsamani

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

Unremarkable "marketing expert". Article created by self-admitted employee. Profiled (not as author, marketing expert, or community organizer) in French-language magazine, passing mention in another French-language article. Twice deleted as WP:CSD#A7. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. In addition to the poor French coverage, there are only passing mentions in the few English articles available on-line, yet this guy has been in the "e-marketing" business for eight years now. Ottre 14:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Confused about the reference to a self-admitted employee? Who are you referring to please so that I can answer. --Youssef Omali (talk) 22:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Both Telquel Magazine and Essor Magazine are leading magazines in Morocco and they were not passing reference. Telquel went over who the person was and his contributions of success stories and the Essor Magazine has 3 full pages of 18 years of contribution to the community. --Youssef Omali (talk) 22:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't speak the language, so may have been mistaken in regards to the French coverage. Normally I try to stress features from magazine over newspaper/newsletter articles. Here, my original point remains though: subject is not notable as a Moroccan-American or Moroccan-American businessman because there is no evidence of lasting, third-party coverage of him in English, as one would expect for a particularly successful/innovative marketing exec of his position. Quite simply, the waifan.com biography is not a reliable source, and none of the other mentions warrant inclusion. Ottre 02:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Thank you for clarifying, there are many expert people in many fields and I agree with you about long coverage by american media but the notability point is exactly that. This is a Moroccan immigrant to the USA who has established him self as a Community Organizer (Elected President last year for the Moroccan American Coalition, Founder of SOS Morocco) and Published Author. If you listen to the interview by the People speak radio Driss Temasamani Autobiography Interview with [[The People Speak Radio Interview in English]], you will see how relevant is to the American media a positive story of an immigrant. With President Barak Obama taking office, the work is open to the examples of first, second and third generations of immigrants who get established in the USA and contribute in a positive way.--Youssef Omali (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am confused about the media coverage comment. So the american media coverage has more weigh an lets say media coverage in Morocco like all the once noted? The Moroccan American adjective refers to a status not an expertise that needs coverage. What I am saying is that the Moroccan media is interestedf to cover its citizens that have succeeded more than american media. Those of us who live in the USA know who it works. Not all those who should be covered by american media are. Its a matter of "what's the story" and "the flavor of the moth". Anyhow thats for another discussion. My point is there are many Moroccan Americans in Wikipedia today not because they have been covered by american media but because they are relevant to their communities and have contributed to the establishment of these communities. --Youssef Omali (talk) 19:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I did not get the part about article being written in poor french. The 2 magazine are one of the leading media channels in Morocco. A country where French is spoken as the administrative language. Maybe I am miss-reading your comments but I hope that's not what you meant.--Youssef Omali (talk) 22:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The word marketing expert was use by 2 journalist to describe this person. If that's not allowed by wikipedia the words can be changed but why delete the article? Also, this is s Moroccan American and that is the language used by Journalists in Morocco? How about ABC news and People Speak Radio when they talked about this person as a Marketing Expert and Community organizer? Why was not that taking in consideration? --Youssef Omali (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree on the ABS interview and I removed it as well as the one from Le Matin the leading news paper of Morocco talking about DrissTemsamani being elected President of the Moroccan American Coalition. But not the articles from Telquel Magazine and Essor Magazine. The articles were a full description of achievements and distinguishing the work done buy a Moroccan national leaving in the USA. Essor has several pages covering about 18 years of this person's work. There are several examples of approved articles in Wikipedia of people in the same category. What am I missing or are there other reasons to wan to delete this page beyond achievements and relevance? --Youssef Omali (talk) 22:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


, sources in both articles making mention of his audition for the job on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno set and his audition in general. Furthermore, Conan (at that time) was an unknown, as opposed to the others who auditioned for the job. I think if we're going to have an image of Conan O'Brien in either the Late Night or his own article, it would provide a historically significant look into how he looked back then to include the image that was deleted. Also, the policy-based discussions made no sense. There were only four and they all brought up the same point. There was no further support of the deletion claims, and the "Keep" comments (which did outweigh them with a vast majority" lent credence that the image should've been kept. With only four "Delete" comments and a total of 12 "Keep" and two "Strong keep" arguments, common sense says that the consensus of the discussion was to keep the image, not delete it. Srosenow 98 (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Nomination is an example of Ethnocentrism. Non-english sources are more difficult to locate using a google search. If he were an American I suggest that we would not be having this discussion. Esasus (talk) 03:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • He lives in the US. His book was published in English, in the US. I'm not sure how ethnocentrism factors into this, particularly when you have no idea of the ___location, background, or ethnicity of the editors suggesting deletion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for making the point about Ethnocentrism. Although some of the references are foreign media (still very reputable ones like Telquel Magazine and Essor Magazine), one of the main reason of relevance of the person is that he is one of the first Moroccan Americans to publish a book in english in the USA. I also should point to the fact that there are other Moroccan Americans today with live published pages in Wikipedia with similar background and references that were not disputed. Maybe it was just a misunderstanding. --Youssef Omali (talk) 19:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

edit
  1. ^ Bank Technology News a Thomson Financial company
  2. ^ Interview 1, Latin Trade
  3. ^ Interview 2, Latin Trade
  4. ^ Full 3 page article and cover on VH Magazine
  5. ^ BIO & Articles on Moroccboard
  6. ^ BIO on Wafin along other known Moroccan Americans like Sanaa Hamri, Bachir Skiredj Laila Lalami
  • Comment without recommendation - the discussion doesn't need a list of references - put them in the article itself with some context and improve the article. When I participate in an AfD, I put more weight on the citations that are in the articles themselves than any that are put here. Once the AfD is closed, the citations need to be included in a kept article, anyway. If this ends in "delete" only the citations in the discussion will remain... for as long as Wikipedia exists. B.Wind (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greenobile

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

Neologism/WP:DICDEF, hasn't caught on widely from what I can tell. Distinct from a "Greenmobile", 33 google hits for Greenobile -Greenmobile, all centered around a community site at www.greenobile.com. Topic fails WP:V and WP:NOT. Amalthea 14:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TLi

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

Although there is a (minor) claim for notability in terms of the airplay, this would seem to be a non notable band, which hasn't even apparently started playing publicly yet. Fails WP:BAND. CultureDrone (talk) 13:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the closest this band comes to notability as per WP:BAND is #11. Having failed even that (Played once) it has no claim to notability. ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 14:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 22:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Energy Movement

edit
New Energy Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. This is a soapbox essay aimed at promoting fringe science. It fails WP:OR ("unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position"), WP:SOAP ("Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising") and it's badly referenced too. andy (talk) 13:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This makes no sense - merge with what? And this isn't an article about that organisation, anyway. andy (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the organisation of the movement... as in the verb organising. Merge to one of the grassroots-related articles. Ottre 23:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I didn't see that one coming! Completely yorked, middle and off. But I confess to continued puzzlement about your proposed merge. Grassroots is very interesting but I'm not sure which related article you had in mind. Merging with Western Cape Anti-Eviction Campaign might be rather fun, although perhaps a little confusing for the uninitiated. andy (talk) 12:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, do you think this is encyclopedic enough for inclusion? The author is far from an independent source, but she has written a book as well. It's a shame there is no specific article on the grassroots/local future of the region, as the "Pacific Northwest homeland" idea used to have a lot of influence (as you say, also picked up in South Africa). Ottre 01:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm definitely half a bar behind you, but I'm doing my best. If I understand you correctly all "grassroots" articles are equivalent in some deep sense and could potentially be merged. So this article which is (I think) about a grassroots movement to "tap into an infinite amount of clean energy from anywhere in the Universe" can, on grounds of sociopolitical convergence, be merged into an unfortunately non-existent article about the putative land rights of north-western American aborigines? I have to say that I suspect that wikipedia conservatives would raise many fallacious and unreasonable objections. But hey, it may be worth the fight! andy (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. per WP:CSD#G4 and WP:CSD#G11. Mgm|(talk) 09:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wondershare DVD Ripper

edit
Wondershare DVD Ripper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declined speedy. No apparent notability per WP:N, nothing in the article other than a description and link to the company website, which would seem to imply spam. Nothing from Google indicating any particular notability. CultureDrone (talk) 13:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro Muñoz

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

Nominated by an IP editor, who says they have attempted to research this unsourced biography (which also used to exist as a duplicate here) but have been unable to find sources. I've done the same via Google just now and, other than Wikipedia mirrors and a wrestler of a similar name, nothing leaps out. Presumably there's an official list somewhere of all the 2008 Olympic competitors - I couldn't say where - that would clarify this, but without that, a smell of hoax (or wishful thinking) pervades this article. ➲ redvers sit down next to me 13:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 07:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

André Henri

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

Delete. This is not a given name - Andre is the given name, Henri is one of the middle names. On WP, we do not keep pages to list everyone with a certain combination of given name and middle name. Please see Frank William's AfD. Boleyn2 (talk) 08:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Some pairs of names are given as a specific combination (e.g., the common Spanish forename Jose Maria), however I see no particular reason to believe that is the case here. The article also states that "Andre Henri may refer to" the two people listed, but a quick examination of sources about both people doesn't turn up any instances of them actually being referred to in this fashion. JulesH (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Those who have contributed here may wish to comment on the AfDs of theses similar pages: Frank William, Paulo Jorge, Marie Constant and Francis William. Boleyn2 (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • (comment that I've posted on Frank William AfD page. I am similarly unconvinced one way or another with André Henri.The immediately preceding strikethru (in contrast to all strikethru that follows in this contrib) was performed by the signing editor 26 minutes after the sig) Comment without recommendation - it appears that nom is basing this (and perhaps other) nominations, not on MOS:DAB (which is actually rather silent about this situation) but on WP:IDONTLIKEIT instead. If the nom wishes to nuke {{given name}} pages, he/she should start the discussion as to whether the mention of given names should not be mentioned at all in MOS:DAB; similarly, WP:ALLORNOTHING is being implied here, yet this is not a valid reason for either keeping or deleting an article, a redirect, or even a disambiguation page. In addition, nom "confesses to preferring the deletion of all {{given name}} pages that don't offer a substantial discussion of the origin and meaning of the name itself" - yet MOS:DAB discourages such a presentation in article space in the first place. At present I remain unconvinced one way or the other as I am unsure as to whether these people are referred to regularly as "Frank William" as opposed to simply "Frank". On the other hand, claiming that this is a vanity page denies good faith, which itself is a violation of one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia (two of them, actually).
    --147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC) Additional (but non-superscripted) strikethru added to ameliorate the damage done by this contrib. --Jerzy•t 10:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • ATTENTION: The Nominator in this AfD is NOT the "nom" that the above reckless and abusive IP is referring to; it is i who am the libeled party. The above travesty can be evaluated in its original context, where the text misrepresented here actually appears, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank William.
      --Jerzy•t 10:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This complaint, not about my words but its misrepresentation of them, and also declining to quote them so i speak for myself, is also a violation of WP:NPA, as it is not an argument about the topic under discussion but about my supposed intentions.
      (Please note that i struck thru the phrases that make it appear that the nom in this AfD process is the target of the falsehoods stated, but avoided any strikethru that would merely label falsehoods, lest it distract from the crucial point of mis-stated identity.)
      Most importantly among to the falsehoods, i did in fact say
      ... but i have to also reflect on the purpose of these pages. Are they not primarily a diffuse sort of vanity page, of the variety suggested in John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt?
    which does not concern good faith, since both ignorance of WP:N and misperception of one's own vanity as something else are common, and neither is likely to involve bad faith. --Jerzy•t 10:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The connections here are too tenuous to make sense as a disambiguation, unlike the possibility presented with Frank William - in the case of Kostermans, "Henri" was rarely pronounced when someone referred to him - it was often omitted. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Del. There are pairs of names like "John Mark" (the name of the reputed author of the Gospel of Mark), that seem to occur together far more than statstics of the individual names would predict. But apparently random pairs of just of the most popular American male names (which cover 90% of that population) would run over a million articles, and the corresponding ones for American females over 4 million. By the end of WP's 16th year, that may be no big deal, but for now it would be a major change in the nature of the 'pedia's infrastructure, to little effect.
    --Jerzy•t 10:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. TalkIslander 01:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Falbo

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

Fails general notability guideline because there are not multiple, independent sources that discuss this guy (despite what appears to be an active internet marketing campaign) and fails the notability guideline for creative professionals. Article history swings wildly from gushing fan praise to extremely critical text - it would be worth the BLP and NPOV nightmare if this guy met the article criteria, but he doesn't. Somno (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baltimore in fiction

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

Laundry list of non-notable trivia. Hnsampat (talk) 04:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 07:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Francis William

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

Delete. This is not a given name - Francis is the given name, William is one of the middle names. On WP, we do not keep pages to list everyone with a certain combination of given name and middle name. Please see Frank William's AfD. Boleyn2 (talk) 08:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Those who contribute here may wish to comment on the AfDs of theses similar pages: André Henri, Paulo Jorge, Marie Constant and Frank William. Boleyn2 (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Del. There are pairs of names like "John Mark" (the name of the reputed author of the Gospel of Mark), that seem to occur together far more than statistics of the individual names would predict. But apparently random pairs of just of the most popular American male names (which cover 90% of that population) would run over a million articles, and the corresponding ones for American females over 4 million. By the end of WP's 16th year, that may be no big deal, but for now it would be a major change in the nature of the 'pedia's infrastructure, to little effect.
    --Jerzy•t 07:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. TalkIslander 01:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Howard I. Goldstein

edit
Howard I. Goldstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't seem notable per Wikipedia standards Nerfari (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno. Strikes me that someone would have tagged this by now if there were a possibility of NN. Peridon (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe everyone else was thinking the same thing :) Nerfari (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Someone removed 'puffery' - they didn't consider him NN. Peridon (talk) 20:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Constant

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

Delete. This is not a given name - Marie is the given name, Constant is one of the middle names; one of these they are both middle names, neither were refered to as Marie Constant. On WP, we do not keep pages to list everyone with a certain combination of given name and middle name. Please see Frank William's AfD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boleyn2 (talk • contribs) 2009/02/24 08:36:46

Comment Those who have contributed here may wish to comment on the AfDs of theses similar pages: André Henri, Paulo Jorge, Frank William and Francis William. Boleyn2 (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for a very different reason than indicated above: Constant is actually part of Marie Philibert Constant Sappey's surname (the fact remained that he was more commonly referred by Philibert than Marie in a similar fashion to having John Calvin Coolidge being better known by his middle name), while Andre Marie Constant Dumeril's name is actually André Marie-Constant Duméril; so the the entire "Marie Constant" is his middle name without the diacritics and the hyphen. This is too afield for the usefulness of this even for a redirect. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Next Limit Technologies

edit
Next Limit Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete. No evidence of this company being notable. Boleyn2 (talk) 10:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am surprised that the company behind the Maxwell Render and other well known tools is being considered for deletion. The company is notable. For example, a quick Google Web and Google News search easily verifies that they have been awarded the "Segundo de Chomón 2009" by the Spanish Academy of Arts and Cinematographic Sciences for "significant technical contribution to the development of the film industry with its RealFlow software." Source. I am curious to know how Next Limit has been determined to be not notable. Rilak (talk) 05:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was most likely determined to be non-notable because this claim wasn't in the article and because the nominator either didn't find it or didn't try to. - Mgm|(talk) 08:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator It wasn't clear in the article and I didn't find this when checking for Internety sources. Boleyn2 (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I did a bit more searching today and found this from last year. The source says that the people beind RealFlow (Next Limit staff) were awarded a Technical Achievement Award by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. It also mentions how notable Next Limit is. I think there is no doubt that Next Flow is a notable company. Perhaps this AfD should be withdrawn? Rilak (talk) 03:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 22:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

edit
Untitled 6th blink-182 Studio Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Let's wait until it's released first.    SIS  22:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Watson

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

This article was prodded but the creator objected. Article is still unverifiable. None of the references are reliable. Mgm|(talk) 12:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is quite clearly sitting somewhere between "blatant hoax" and "unverifiable information about a non-notable topic". The phrase "Due to Randy Watson's performance in Coming To America, the CIA recruited him possibly to become a special agent, although this is not published anywhere and is revealed only through personal interviews with Randy and his mentor Rev. Brown." is a particularly amusing eyebrow-raiser that violates WP:NOR right on the face of it. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Lda.

edit
Microsoft Lda. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

nn firm Checkmao (talk) 10:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete - I tried to expand this article not too long ago. I searched for sources, and found none, even in Portuguese, that weren't just briefly documenting their auctioning of their name in Dec. 2007 (which appears to have not resulted in anything, judging by their website). I couldn't even find out what they actually do as a company. Someone with more knowledge of Portuguese might be able to expand it and add reliable sources, but their notability solely rests on that one event in 2007, which doesn't seem to be enough to me. -kotra (talk) 18:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Whyte

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

Prod Tag was removed, so taking to AfD. This kid appears to fail WP:ATHLETE, in that he is only playing at a domestic level and using that competition's stats pages to cite the page. • \ / (⁂) 10:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although he probably does fail the criteria for a wikipedia page, i see no problem in allowing the page to remain.--Acb4341 (talk) 11:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note, this is the author of the page. Acb4341, while there may be no harm, Wikipedia is not a webhost. Entries need to have a certain level of notability. ∗ \ / (⁂) 11:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hypothetically, the page remains. What is the worst thing that could happen?--Acb4341 (talk) 11:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It creates a dangerous precedent in which every teenager who has played junior sport becomes worthy of a Wikipedia entry. ∗ \ / (⁂) 11:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. May i ask you, how many articles such as this one are created every day on wikipedia?--Acb4341 (talk) 11:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well?--Acb4341 (talk) 11:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as though you aren't able to answer my question, i am going to assume that you have backed down and allowed the page to remain. I agree that this is in the best interests of everybody, and i wish to extend my congratulations on your noble decision. This is a breakthrough in administrator-user relations in wikipedia, and i trust that it will allow myself and my wikipedia colleagues to freely use the wikipedia page as an information tool. Once again, thankyou for your kind and thoughtful decision, i promise you won't regret it.--Acb4341 (talk) 12:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it means I had to sleep. Sleep is common for people on Wikipedia, as is dealing with non-notable pages. You'd be surprised how often people try to create an article which fails even the most liberal application of guidelines. Many articles can be improved to the point of saving, but unfortunately, as is evidenced below by the oppose votes, this article cannot be improved to the point of keeping it here. If you really want to keep the information on this page, copy the information before it is deleted and find some webspace of Wikia, Freehostia or another site in which you can have complete control over it. ∗ \ / (⁂) 20:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lets be fair and atleast give him some more time to try and make the article notable. A quick google search provides enough information to tell us that he is someone of major influence in his region.58.166.227.192 (talk) 08:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you be more specific with some of the links you found? I did a Google search on "ben-whyte cricket", and all I found was this article, his Facebook, his Twitter, and a hit at MyCricket. —C.Fred (talk) 12:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Xclamation point 03:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Fame Ball Tour

edit
The Fame Ball Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable concert tour Smanu (talk) 10:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Extremely notable concert tour considering the status of the artist in consideration and the fact that it is the first headlining tour. Proper references are there to consolidify its importance and asserts its notability. More info will come as the tour starts and progresses. Nominating the article for Afd seems trivial. --Legolas!! (talktome) 11:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tour is not notable for these reasons: It's a one month tour by artist with only one album. Also the tour is only in 2 countries (USA and Canada) --Smanu (talk) 12:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not a reason for being not notable, please read WP:N. If that is the case every first tour by all new artists should be nominated for deletion. The fact that the tour is in two countries with notable music business and tours makes it more notable. Also having one album doesnot make it less notable. --Legolas!! (talktome) 12:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did I say otherwise? That information is there, but it only required a paragraph to express.—Kww(talk) 13:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you can see the tour start date is very near. Hence i believe a surplus of information will come that will completely fill the page. My concern is over the merge that you suggested. Because if we merge now, the info when it will start coming soon, the article will be reverted back again. To save everybody from cumbersome reverts and redirects i was saying it is unnecessary to delete or to merge it now. One month ago, i would have supported the merge or Afd, but now it seems unnecessary. --Legolas!! (talktome) 13:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Love Blaxually

edit
Love Blaxually (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Love Blaxually (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Lactating Mother Tereza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:HOAX, not much else to say. Cursory search returns no reliable sources. Also up for deletion are the band's eponymous debut album and its well-received single, "Lactating Mother Tereza" §FreeRangeFrog 10:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 01:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Utterback

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

Article is a recreation, albeit better written, of a previously-deleted article that still fails to meet notability criteria for creative professionals. He seems to have made a good career out of his art, which is commendable, but not notable. Jvr725 (talk) 09:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. db-web Tone 15:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A2f.me

edit
A2f.me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable website. JaGatalk 09:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. TalkIslander 01:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paulo Jorge

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

Delete. This is not a given name - Paulo is the given name. This does not meet the criteria for hndis and disambig either, according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). See Frank William AfD discussion Boleyn2 (talk) 08:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC) Nomination completed by AnturiaethwrTalk 09:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC) Comment Those who contribute here may wish to comment on the AfDs of theses similar pages: André Henri, Frank William, Marie Constant and Francis William. Boleyn2 (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • (comment that I've posted on Frank William AfD page. I am similarly unconvinced one way or another with Paulo Jorge.) Comment without recommendation - it appears that nom is basing this (and perhaps other) nominations, not on MOS:DAB (which is actually rather silent about this situation) but on WP:IDONTLIKEIT instead. If the nom wishes to nuke {{given name}} pages, he/she should start the discussion as to whether the mention of given names should not be mentioned at all in MOS:DAB; similarly, WP:ALLORNOTHING is being implied here, yet this is not a valid reason for either keeping or deleting an article, a redirect, or even a disambiguation page. In addition, nom "confesses to preferring the deletion of all {{given name}} pages that don't offer a substantial discussion of the origin and meaning of the name itself" - yet MOS:DAB discourages such a presentation in article space in the first place. At present I remain unconvinced one way or the other as I am unsure as to whether these people are referred to regularly as "Frank William" as opposed to simply "Frank". On the other hand, claiming that this is a vanity page denies good faith, which itself is a violation of one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia (two of them, actually).
    --147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC) Strikethru added to ameliorate the damage done by this contrib. --Jerzy•t 10:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • ATTENTION: The Nominator in this AfD is NOT the "nom" that the above reckless and abusive IP is referring to; it is i who am the libeled party. The above travesty can be evaluated in its original context, where the text misrepresented here actually appears, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank William.
      --Jerzy•t 10:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This complaint, not about my words but its misrepresentation of them, and also declining to quote them so i speak for myself, is also a violation of WP:NPA, as it is not an argument about the topic under discussion but about my supposed intentions.
      (Please note that i struck thru the phrases that make it appear that the nom in this AfD process is the target of the falsehoods stated, but avoided any strikethru that would merely label falsehoods, lest it distract from the crucial point of mis-stated identity.)
      Most importantly among to the falsehoods, i did in fact say
      ... but i have to also reflect on the purpose of these pages. Are they not primarily a diffuse sort of vanity page, of the variety suggested in John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt?
    which does not concern good faith, since both ignorance of WP:N and misperception of one's own vanity as something else are common, and neither is likely to involve bad faith. --Jerzy•t 10:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination Upon further investigation, I've lumped this in with seemingly similar pages. Three of these seem to use Paulo Jorge as the personal name although it is not their full name. The others I have removed, although they are still covered in the see also section, pages beginning with 'Paulo Jorge'. Boleyn2 (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 22:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emerson LaSalle

edit
Emerson LaSalle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • The film's "website" is a blog, the film doesn't have a page on IMDB, and the purported producer[14] has never made anything that even came to the attention of the obsessives at IMDB who document everything down to what individual episodes of Johnny Carson had Ricardo Montalban on them. This is rapidly becoming less funny and more pathetic. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WHO MADE JAMES BOWIE'S FAMOUS KNIVES--THE TRUE STORY

edit
AfDs for this article:
WHO MADE JAMES BOWIE'S FAMOUS KNIVES--THE TRUE STORY (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unencyclopedic essay filled with original research. Fails WP:SOAP. The creator even says, "This article is a condensation of my 28-page search paper with the same title in the library of congress." Cunard (talk) 08:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The topic of this article isn't notable on its own and seems like undue weight on such a trivial aspect of the Bowie Knife even if it were written as a viable article. But the whole article here is framed as essay/OR/fringe-theory-esque essay, unencyclopediac in style. Add a sentence or two with real WP:RS WP:CITE (I assume that's what all the parenthesized numbers refer to, in...some bibliography somewhere?) to the knife article about its origins? DMacks (talk) 08:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable and unencyclopedic. If there is anything worthy of being kept then it should be in the Bowie knife article. The paper itself is not notable of an article. Readro (talk) 11:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable, not encyclopedic, and a POV fork as well, I think. Skinny87 (talk) 12:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everyone. Edward321 (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:MYSPACE. I think the editor assumes this is a place that will accept his research paper. --Adam in MO Talk 14:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is a condensation of my 28-page search paper with the same title in the library of congress. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Smerdis, that's really an insult to original researchers... Drmies (talk) 03:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all of the above. Obviously not encyclopedic. --L. Pistachio (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable among the numerous other problems. Camw (talk) 04:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, move content, get refs merge into Bowie Knife. Machete97 (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Al G. Pedroche

edit
Al G. Pedroche (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:AUTOBIO, WP:PEACOCK, reads like an election campaign handout, notability unclear, unreferenced, orphan MuffledThud (talk) 06:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Bluemask (talk) 10:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I glean that the person referred to herein is an advocate of one universally acceptable cause of righteousness in society and as such deserves a chance on wiki with allowance for editing and possible addendum whether favorable or adverse. As a masscom student, I know Al Pedroche and I have interviewed him once for my thesis in journalism. I may have a bias for him but I believe in his advocacy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Star bituin (talk • contribs)
— Star bituin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • I suggest you search under alternative spellings of his name/search with other keywords associated with him. As for his motivation, he seems like an aggressively self-promotional kind of guy, but systemic bias may have something to do with the fact that nobody else wrote an article on him. Baileypalblue (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources currently in the article may not address the subject in as much detail as we'd like, but they do establish notable facts about him. I don't have time to do more research, which in any case would be better done by someone more familiar with the subject area, but I think research into his work would easily demonstrate his notability. Bear in mind that lack of sourcing per se is not a reason for deletion and that there's no time limit for improving Wikipedia articles. Baileypalblue (talk) 19:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Abelman

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

There is nothing indicating notability per WP:BIO, and a Google search turns up nothing useful. Oo7565 (talk) 05:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He seems to be notabile in the field of organic farming. I've found a few references but I don't have enough time right now to really improve the article. However, the article can be improved in the future. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A terrific reason to either add the easily available sources yourself or simply tag the article for such. Being unsourced or one-sourced is not a valid reason for deletion when sources are readily available. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. a7 Tone 15:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Majeed Alee Hasan

edit
Abdul Majeed Alee Hasan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There is nothing indicating notability per WP:BIO, and a Google search turns up nothing useful. Oo7565 (talk) 05:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. TalkIslander 01:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scarecrow (Japanese band)

edit
Scarecrow (Japanese band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No real evidence of meeting WP:BAND as Kenichi Ito was deleted as a result of an AfD. Ito, Scarecrow, Iceman, and vocalist Michihiro Kuroda form a WP:Walled garden, each depending upon the others for notability. B.Wind (talk) 04:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New York Photo Festival

edit
New York Photo Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Festival written up by one of its founders. A previous version of the article was deleted as spam. Is it notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance meltdown

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

Wikipedia is not for things made up for school one day. This article is about a non-notable student film. There are no independent sources cited in the article, and Google turns up nothing about the film. But for it being a film and not a web program, I would have speedy deleted it under A7. —C.Fred (talk) 04:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that user is now adding completely bogus information. —C.Fred (talk) 02:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some searching as well as some research and I've found nothing. The "sources" used (Which I have since removed) in the article were not "real" sources just something to make the article look sourced. I'm no thinking of changing my vote to Speedy delete as it's really smelling like a hoax. Bidgee (talk) 02:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to George Linnaeus Banks. Xclamation point 03:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G L Banks

edit
G L Banks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an unneeded disambiguation per WP:COMMONNAME as none of these people went by that name. Tavix (talk) 04:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I checked Amazon and GL Banks is the name she published The Manchester Man under. Boleyn (talk) 06:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Xclamation point 03:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tweeter (Internet)

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

neologism, based on original research Wuhwuzdat (talk) 03:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does this article need in order to avoid deletion? As I have said, it is a very functional term that is used verbally among our admin group in order to classify/ban/censor this type of individual that does not fall under the classical definition of 'troll'. Any help on referencing, editing, or deltions/exclusions that would legitimize this article would be appreciated. Thank you to everyone that has commented thus far . . Homicidalhombre (talk) 02:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Simple. It needs reliable sources indicating that more than a few people are familiar with this term being used in this manner. Since neither yourself nor anybody else can find those, it's a case of Wikipedia not being for things that are made up. I'm sure you and your associates really do use this term this way, but until it finds wider use and gets some media coverage, it's not an appropriate topic for a Wikipedia article. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible to reference admin groups with which we are familiar, however, this article has already been previously forwarded to many use groups including Wired Online . . Does this usage need to be searchable by Google in order to be considered 'verifiable'?? Or will a simple link to an online page featuring this prior usage of terminology be acceptable? This is the first article I have written for Wikipedia, and I apologize, it has been a learning experience . . Homicidalhombre (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest reading Wikipedia:Your first article for basics, and pay close attention to the guidelines on reliable sources. Just being able to google it or see people talking about it isn't enough. tedder (talk) 04:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment just removed quite a few links to non-existant translations on other wiki's from this article, placed there by the content author. "Paper-hanging" won't save an article. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I tried to look up the reference to 'Paper Hanging' and only came up with something to do with 'bad cheques'. The links I posted were 'redirect links' on non-existent pages that were meant to assist others trying to find this page without typing in the exact title for search specifications. ie. Internet Tweeter instead of Tweeter (Internet) I believe the term is in current with use with admins and moderators, and will prove to be quite useful beyond slang once knowlege of it is disseminated. I am in the process of doing research to find out if anyone else presently using the term has done any articles on it, as well as talking with several print and online editor/authors about this article in order to obtain reference points. Homicidalhombre (talk) 01:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paper Hanging You may find the term here [[31]] (13th paragraph), as used by George S Patton. I would define it as meaning; "attempting to alter the perception of truth, by means of propaganda". I would classify as "propaganda" the following portions of todays "Media Blitz";
  • the 12 links to non-existant translations on other wiki's that you added to this article,
  • the 2 disambiguation links you inserted into other articles,
  • the 4 or 5 redirects you created.
Wuhwuzdat (talk) 03:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We've all been trying in good faith to explain to you what needs to happen for this article to be kept. There can be only one response to these latest actions:

Follow me to join the secret cabal!

Plip!

  • I know that was a good-humored whap with the minnow, but even so I want to defend Homicidalhombre a bit more here. He is apparently a new editor and an enthusiastic one, looking for ways to spend time enhancing the chances of his article, not knowing which methods are considered illegitimate or why. Let's not bite him. I remember how frustrated I was, way back in 2006, in the days when I thought Wikipedia should include the term "concern troll" but it hadn't yet showed up in non-blog media[32]. Finally Ana Marie Cox defined it in Newsweek, and now it is here and everywhere. Maybe the word "Tweeter" or some other word with the same useful meaning will have the same future. One of the thing that helped "concern troll" get out there was creating buzz by "outing" practitioners based on their IP addresses. But maybe the new "tweeters" are too sophisticated for that to happen... betsythedevine (talk) 11:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. TalkIslander 01:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reimagined

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

Nono of the sources has confirmed the album title and no one know when it's going to be released = hammer time/WP:CRYSTAL. Descíclope (talk) 03:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete. advert Tone 15:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dhrusya solutions

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

Software company. Page fails to estabilish notability, appears to be promotional. Artw (talk) 03:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete as G12. SoWhy 10:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elisa Eliot

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

Incredibly long bio for an actress with a rather short resume. A gsearch returns very few reliable sources. Her IMDb profile page is also rather short. I do not believe this person meets WP:BIO at all. §FreeRangeFrog 03:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. A7 Tone 15:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Holmes (saxophonist)

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

There are no independent sources, and little reason cited to acknowledge this person as notable. Spring12 (talk) 03:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - no indication of notability. Readro (talk) 11:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing in the article even suggests he meets the inclusion guidelines in WP:PROF, WP:MUSICBIO or the general notability guidelines. A new name 2008 (talk) 12:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Implicit nominator withdrawl. Cleanup, not deletion, seems to be the best option to go with here. (non-admin closure) NuclearWarfare (Talk) 04:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seasteading

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

I think this topic fails to meet the criteria for WP:Notability. This article has been deleted once before under WP:NEO but was re-created, and the recreated page has been tagged on and off as an advertisement and NPOV: the page seems to be being used as a platform by advocates of the concept. The current page relies heavily on The Seasteading Institute's Home Page as a source, and the self-published webpage: [33]. I find some (<40 google news hits) reliable third-party sources, but most mention it in passing and/or depict it as a fringe topic. This source: [34] describes the seasteading institute as "less well known but perhaps equally far-out", in comparison to the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence (another poorly sourced and esoteric topic). The only event that seems to have enough coverage to establish notability is a single large gift from Peter Thiel, which has been covered in WIRED: [35], and NPR: [36]. This single large gift seems insufficient reason alone to justify this as an article of its own--it seems the coverage is due to the notability of the donor and his associations, and thus it would seem to be more appropriate to mention this as a section on his page. Thoughts? I would like to delete this page but if we are going to keep it, something needs to be done to stop the use of this page as a platform for promoting an ideology. Pardon my clumsiness as this is my first attempt at an AfD. Cazort (talk) 02:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP - It is indeed a notable concept, if nothing else for the fact that it has tie-ins to national sovereignty issues, ship flagging issues, Libertarian politics, and so forth. I am bemused to see that Pokemon characters are deemed notable enough for retention in Wikipedia, but to some folks new socio-political issues, movements, and emerging technologies are not. Just because a movement is in a relatively nascent stage, does not mean that it lacks notability. If Wikipedia were in existence in the 1880s, I have no doubt that someone would AFD the articles on both Communism and Women's Suffrage as "non-notable." This article is a great candidate for a major re-write, adding references, and removing N-NPOV, but not for deletion. Let's salvage it, not sink it. Trasel (talk) 03:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, WP is being exploited to publicise a fringe concept. What else is new? The article does have sources which discuss the topic. I would say it does no harm but that has drawn some complaints lately. Northwestgnome (talk) 03:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found one source mentioning the tie-in to national sovereignty issues: [37]. Maybe this article is salvagable? But I'm skeptical: I see this institute as attempting to "buy" visibility for a term that might not hold merit on its own...the previous deletion of this article and the previous deletion of Patri Friedman have convinced me that the proponents of these ideas are engaging in aggressive tactics to force this idea into the mainstream. This makes me question the notability of the topic itself--I am still convinced that the coverage in the media is due solely to the money and influence involved, and not the notability of the idea itself--and if this is true it seems more appropriate for the topic to receive a small mention on the pages of the appropriate individuals. If people really are picking up this idea as an idea of its own, irrespective of it being promoted by large sums of money or a handful of individuals one or two of whom is prominent in some circle or another, I would be fully convinced to keep this article. But I'm not seeing the sources to back this up. Cazort (talk) 03:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: be aware that google search's for Sea-steading finds more possible sources than Seasteading (un Dashed) Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 07:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article already contains multiple reliable sources and it has been demonstrated more sources discussing the topic can be found. Therefore it meets WP:GNG criteria for notability. - Mgm|(talk) 11:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it does have problems with advertising-speak and unsubstantiated hype, but so do plenty of other articles. The concept is of sufficient interest and is discussed enough to be worthy of an article. - DavidWBrooks 14:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I think people are starting to convince me that this page should be kept and cleaned up rather than deleted or merged. Cazort (talk) 16:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge Sealand is a verifiable example of this.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fails notability Tone 15:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cliché (band)

edit
Cliché (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 22:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Express West Midlands route 451

edit
National Express West Midlands route 451 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a seemingly non notable bus route which I have already once redirected to List of bus routes in the West Midlands county after attempting to establish a consensus on WP:UKBRQDRIVE. The ideal outcome would not be delete, but to redirect again, as above. There is no encyclopaedic content I can see that would warrant keeping, and I can find no reliable sources to establish notability. Jenuk1985 | Talk 22:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the nominator does want the article deleted. originally I added prod templates to these, but were redirected at the request of an administrator. Jenuk1985 | Talk 22:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added the remark about ideal outcome being redirect because it is the same as other articles in the same batch that I "prodded". Personally I feel deletion for these articles is best, as the redirects serve no useful purpose. Jenuk1985 | Talk 22:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I removed the prod tags from these (or asked for their removal) because it seemed clear that even if not a viable article, that either redirection of merging were a suitable alternative to deletion. Myself, I think we should could consider all scheduled bus routes as notable, as major means of public transportation of importance to the communities. They change, but not too much to be maintainable. However, I'm not all that certain they're worth the trouble. DGG (talk) 02:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of notability; seems to be an unlikely search term to me. JulesH (talk) 12:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 02:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect as proposed. There is no point in keeping it. Not all scheduled bus routes are notable. Miami33139 (talk) 02:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looking at other bus route articles over the last few days, I think they all could be considered as notable & if people want to go to the trouble, there's no reason not to have them, except that as a matter of style they might be better merged. That can be discussed on the talk pages or the project page and consensus reached there. DGG (talk) 04:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Otero Junior College. MBisanz talk 04:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otero junior college baseball

edit
Otero junior college baseball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

fails notability for wikipedia Bhockey10 (talk) 01:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mgm|(talk) 11:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyo Rose (film)

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

Explicitly fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal to loyalty

edit
Appeal to loyalty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Purely a non-notable phrase. Fails WP:NOTE. Nothing else to say really. Delete. Dalejenkins | 01:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This one-sentence article is more suitable for a dictionary, not its own encyclopedia entry.Spring12 (talk) 03:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Any true Wikipedian would vote to delete this one line article. Northwestgnome (talk) 03:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a phrase. It's the name of a type of fallacious argument. Other fallacious arguments are arguments here at AFD not based upon Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and not based upon looking for sources onesself beforehand. Per policy, we don't delete stubs with potential for expansion. We expand them. And it's clear from this alone that there's scope for more on this subject. And that's far from the only source documenting this subject. There's this as well, for starters. There are also social psychology sources, scholarly articles and books, that document this as a justification, rather than a fallacy. There was not nothing else to say or do in your nomination, Dalejenkins. You should have looked for sources.

    This is a stub with potential for expansion. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 04:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Notable logical fallacy, in scholarly use, ([39], [40]) plenty material available to expand beyond a dicdef. Baileypalblue (talk) 05:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well-known logical fallacy, just as suitable for an article as, for instance, false dichotomy. Article can be expanded by including examples and documentation of how popular this particular fallacy is in political arguments. JulesH (talk) 08:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral While I totally agree that the topic is worth an article. I agree with the nominator too. This is nothing more than a definition. I wouldn't lose sleep over it if the article was deleted, but I would be equally happy to see it expanded. If someone wanted to write a full article on the topic, losing the stub wouldn't hurt their efforts. In fact it might spur someone to do the expansion rather than letting the stub sit unexpanded. - Mgm|(talk) 11:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not being the world's most courageous editor, I'm more likely to add material to an existing stub than to create an article from scratch, especially if I get that message that says "Notice: You are re-creating a page that was deleted" when I click on a redlink. I think my reaction is a common one. I wouldn't recommend deleting the article if the objective is expansion. Baileypalblue (talk) 11:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drop Dead, Gorgeous

edit
AfDs for this article:
Drop Dead, Gorgeous (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. The two news citations I was able to find do not constitute significant coverage, and in one case it is clearly not a reliable source, and in the other it is arguably not. The rest is fansites, myspages, etc.

Note that a previous article on the same band was deleted via AfD a couple years back (though plenty could have happened since then—it just appears not to have). Bongomatic 01:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, however WP:MUSIC requires:
  • "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels" — don't thin Rise Records qualifies.
  • "Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country" — performing at the Warped Tour without generating non-trivial coverage doesn't qualify. Bongomatic 01:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Google News comes up with a number of articles from the past month on them. [41]. Google News Archives shows that there have also been non-trivial mentions in reliable sources. [42] Capitalistroadster (talk) 02:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I wish folks would actually examine the Google hits to assess their relevance before just slapping links to search pages into these discussions. Of the "number of articles from the past month" (i.e., 20 hits) linked by Capitalistroadster, some are irrelevant hits for unrelated occurrences of the phrase, and I'm not seeing that any of the others constitute significant treatment in reliable sources. Some of the hits in the wider Google News search may involve such treatment; but many of them seem to be comments on what a crap band this is, and I'm not sure that any of them negate the policy-based arguments of the nominator. Let's either put in a good-faith effort to cite specific reliable sources that establish notability or refrain from muddying the issue, people. Deor (talk) 04:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Capitalistroadster did cite a specific one in the first AFD discussion. Uncle G (talk) 04:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, that was more than two and a half years ago, and the result was still the deletion of the article. What exactly are the sources that meet the requirements of WP:BAND? If they exist, I'd be happy to see them and to register a keep !vote here; but just citing unspecified results of Google searches doesn't cut the mustard. If there are sources that make the existence of this article uncontrovertable, why aren't they evident in the article, and why haven't they been referenced here? It's not too much to expect, surely, that those who advocate the existence of the article supply specific and verifiable references that would make such an outcome beyond question. Deor (talk) 05:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks to Uncle G for the hints. I've added a bunch of references just now—there's enough there for the general notability guideline, meaning enough for WP:MUSIC criterion #1. Keep. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 05:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Paul for your work on the article. Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:N per User:Paul Erik's contributions. Here's another source that covers the band in the Stockton Record:[43] dissolvetalk 05:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete under criteria A1: "Articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article"

Resistance 3

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

Blatant original research/crystal ball gazing. No sources Contested prod. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There was an AfD for Assassin's Creed 2 not too long ago under almost identical circumstances. Not enough information to warrant its own article. Yet. ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 04:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. I'd be shocked if a sequel didn't happen eventually, but from where we stand now this fails WP:CRYSTAL. Worth a mention in Resistance (series) if the "officially announced" assertion can be sourced, but the rest is just speculation. BryanG (talk) 07:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pure speculation. No verifiable information present to write an article with. - Mgm|(talk) 11:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Resistance (series) "Resistance 3 is rumoured" No, thankyou. There is no need to try and sieve articles from gossip and forum chatter, there will be a point where enough reliable information is available and an article will be possible. It will continue from there until it is released and it will then be old news from there onwards. It's a shame so much contributor time is spent wrestling with speculation and constantly rebuilding articles on works-in-progress when it would only have to be done once if it was left till it was released. Oh well. Someoneanother 21:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep as AfD withdrawn by nominator. Bongomatic 01:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eyes Set to Kill

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

No news hits that make "reliable sources" (Danbury News Times article is missing, but even if not, that wouldn't cut it). The web citations are to fansites, the band's own sites, non-reliable sources, or trivial coverage. Bongomatic 01:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. There is a citation of allmusic.com in the article. However, it shows that Reach hit #29 on the Billboard Heatseekers chart. Technically, Heatseekers isn't the album chart, but still, it says this is not the garden variety garage band. I think the correct approach is to expand the article at this point. If more research turns up nothing, then we can revisit the discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 01:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not sure if the sources were already there or whether they were added later, but I count 3 reliable sources in the article; 4 if you count the allmusic pages separately). Sourcing is definitely not a problem. - Mgm|(talk) 11:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hitting the Bilboard Heatseekers chart passes WP:MUSIC, and they're releasing their second album for a well-known label in about two months. Chubbles (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Xclamation point 03:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Santa

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

Minor writer, with one claimed novel and a fairly padded CV, of the 'has worked with [FAMOUS PERSON]' variety. CalendarWatcher (talk) 01:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I see a couple of local newspaper articles about him (and one article that doesn't seem to mention him by name), but they're both of the very local, "local man is doing something interesting" variety, which I wouldn't consider independent/in-depth coverage required by WP:BIO. --Mosmof (talk) 01:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: author of a marginally notable book, part of a non-notable band, plus he did some non-notable charity work -- raising tens of thousands of dollars for charity is admirable, but doesn't confer encyclopedic notability, though it may draw some human interest story coverage, as appears to be the case here. Baileypalblue (talk) 07:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mosmof. - Mgm|(talk) 10:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, didn't find any significant coverage outside of his local community. Ottre 13:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


  • Response A CV is not "padded" if it is in fact accurate as this one is. I would be happy to list more specific details including the actual awards won and details on the "padding" if that would help.--Whit33 (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Santa's press coverage is far from local. I would be happy to include cites from New York, Washington, DC, Minnesota, Vancouver, BC, Baghdad, Iraq, and more if that would help.--Whit33 (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response I do not take issue with the "non-notable band" tag, however that is merely background to the rest of the article. Unlike 95% of books published today, Santa's novel has sold out its first edition and is now in its second printing. Creating a fundraiser that in just its second year had events taking place simultaneously in North Carolina, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Virginia, Georgia, Arizona, and Baghdad, Iraq is in itself notable. The benefit to the Fisher House is certainly important. Also, it is important to note the 10K figure referenced is from one year at one ___location, not the totals from six years and many locations.--Whit33 (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you've got reliable sources available that you think would help establish the subject's notability, by all means add them to the article or link to them so we can take a look. Independent book reviews and non-local reliable source coverage of any charitable organization the subject has established would be particularly useful. Bear in mind the notability criteria established in WP:CREATIVE while researching. Baileypalblue (talk) 04:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He sounds like an admirable person, but this appears to be a self-published book (Jostens is a printer, not a trade publisher), so one would have to look for reviews to render this notable, and I couldn't find any Tractops (talk) 03:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response I added some references from newspapers in Rome, GA, Fayetteville, NC, Chapel Hill, NC, Durham, NC, International Falls, Minnesota, and Raleigh, NC, showing the scope of the Marathon Jam and also non local reviews of his book. In addition, the Cybergrass article not only reviews the book, it speaks of Santa's appearance on WFDU in New York City to discuss his book. He has also been featured on The State of Things, WRAL TV, WQDR, WPTF, and others.--Whit33 (talk) 16:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very huge, no doubt. So huge, in fact, no-one has ever bothered creating an article about them so I can investigate their huge-ness from hugely reliable sources. And the ability to hire a website designer tells very little about their huge-osity. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 07:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 03:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guerrilla phase of the Second Chechen War (2009)

edit
Guerrilla phase of the Second Chechen War (2009) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Per WP:SYNTH. Fabricated war. None of these sources mention a "Guerrilla phase" of the Second Chechen war (which is over), or anything about Guerrilla warfare. Moreover, none of this violence is occurring in Chechnya as the title would suggest, and it's completely sporadic and unorganized. LokiiT (talk) 01:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Four Russian policemen and three suspected rebels were killed on Thursday when a residential building exploded during a police raid in the southern region of Ingushetia, officials said. The two-storey building in Nazran, around 1,500 km (930 miles) south of Moscow, was reduced to rubble by an explosion as special forces officers forced entry to detain a group of suspected rebels, a police officer at the scene told Reuters.

And so on, and so on... If this is not a Guerrilla warfare, what is it? Biophys (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "No, in fact every cited source (and a lot of other sources) describes warfare in Chechnya." - That's simply not true. None of those articles mention warfare currently taking place in Chechnya (or any other region). Not a single one. They all say the same thing: Violent region/volatile region/violence plagued region etc.. but nothing about warfare. The word "guerrilla" is nowhere to be found in any of those articles, neither is there any mention of a new "phase" of a war that ended years ago. And like I said, the bombing and all those listed attacks didn't even take place in Chechnya. You're grasping at straws and trying to blow it way out of proportion based on your own personal interpretation of what warfare and Guerrilla warfare are. That falls under the category of WP:SYNTH, just like the article itself. LokiiT (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I made and started updating Guerrilla phase of the Second Chechen War (2009) because the war is still going on. Just because a Russian news agency does not call the attackers rebels does not mean this article should be deleted. These incidents aren't just some scattered landmines and a few people acting alone, this is an organization of fighters through out the Caucus or Russia fighting the Russian military and their allies. In 2008 the Russian military put 3,500 more troops in Ingushetia and over 4,000 more in the surrounding areas, these troop surges along with the continued and intensifying rebel attacks prove that this war is still going on. If it was over or near over Russia would either pull out or significantly draw down its forces not send more in. Through out the history of the Guerrilla Phase of the Second Chechen war the contributors of Wikipedia have added attacks from Dagestan, Ingushetia, Karabnio-Balkaria, and North Ossetia. None of these places are Chechnya. Yet we still list them under the Second Chechen war, it only makes sense. The other thing is I am doing my best with the help of others to only add significant attacks so the Guerrilla section does not get all jumbled and huge like the 2008 section. If you are looking at Guerrilla phase 2009 as WP:SYNTH then you would also agree with deleting Guerrilla phases 2005 through 2008. I ask you not to delete 2009 Guerrilla Phase but to help me make it and all other articles related to the Chechen war better thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmp7 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Lokki! I made a mistake on a couple of edits which was my fault but they were by no means errouneas. I also did add that estimations for Russian casualty's ran as high has 20,000 which is a fact by numerous organizations. I only put that because the article also had estimations for the Chechen rebels. I also changed the Localized Sporadic Fighting to Low Level Insurgency because I thought that was a more accurate title and everyone seems to be fine with it. I'm not sure if you brought up the whole edit thing to make me look bad, but it had nothing to do with the topic were on Guerrilla Phase 2009. Now when it comes to my sources for the Guerrilla Phase 2009 I used a mix so i couldn't be accused of any bias and I kept the information accurate to a t. I don't think anyone understands what you mean when you are saying this has nothing to do with the 2nd Chechen war. It's not like these are made up stories or something and I know a news agency does not have to say 2nd Chechen war or Insurgency for it to be one. I also like how you (Lokki) seem to think you are the only one that's right on this issue. You say one sentence about the Discussion of Guerrilla Phase 2009 and then go on a long diatribe about me and some edits classy Lokki! Next time you accuse me of doing something wrong bring a better argument! Im trying to make a good article, I dont know why your fighting me on that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmp7 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted as A7. We've done this dance before. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Trouble with Trains

edit
The Trouble with Trains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Youtube film with no claim in article of meeting WP:Notability. Gsearch and gnews aren't coming up with independent, reliable sources showing notability. COI issues aren't helping matters. Prod contested by IP editor who also removed all maintenance tags without comment. Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page:

List of the Trouble with Trains Characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I only get 75 unique non-wiki hits[44], most of which have nothing to do with this video. Are you using quotes? If not, you'll get every page that has the word trouble and trains anywhere in it.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm Facepalm  :/ Change view to Speedy Delete under A7 Cheers. Imperat§ r(Talk) 01:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Korres Engineering

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

Zero Google news hits, comprehensive Google search found no suggestion of any coverage in reliable sources, let alone significant coverage in independent sources. No idea why this isn't a candidate for speedy, but an editor deleted the tag, so here we are. Bongomatic 00:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to The Fenn School. MBisanz talk 03:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fenn Radio Show

edit
Fenn Radio Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A high-school radio show with no claims to notability. (I didn't speedy-tag the article because it's been up for a couple of months.) Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 00:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Finnegan

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

Unreferenced article about a non-notable player. Originally PRODded by myself with the rationale "Player fails WP:ATHLETE as has never played in a fully-pro league", but the PROD was removed by an IP user who said "Remove silly tag. Neither have any other eircom league players with articles then. And what about all those who play GAA?" However, in my opinion this particular player does not meet notability requirements. GiantSnowman 00:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emmett E. Miller

edit
Emmett E. Miller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Spammy-feeling article with absolutely no reliable secondary sources (advertisements don't count). Original research and unattributed quotes of praise, but there is nothing here that can sustain an assertion of notability. Originally PROD'd by User:DGG in 2007, contested by creator.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (NAC) RMHED. 23:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TrueMajority

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

There is a clear conflict of interest with this article, and due to the name of the organisation it is near impossible for me to determine whether this is notable or not. As it stands now the article is simply an advert for this organisation, and is being used for advocacy, and completely lacks sourcing which is independent of the subject and/or which isn't a press release. This is something AfD can sort out. Russavia Dialogue 19:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. I am finding a lot of sources here. I found sources citing this as a group alongside MoveOn: [45] & [46], and other sources mentioning it as an activist group with some influence/recognition: [47], [48]. It also has received media attention in articles written primarily/specifically about the organization, with their "pig parade": [49], [50]. Another article (limited access): [51] Here's an interview with their founder: [52]. Yes, most of these sources are ones that have a clear liberal bias to them--but they are all indexed in either google news or (a few in) google scholar. Cazort (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, I just found a better way to search. [53] Lots of coverage! That includes better sources, including some more conservative-slanted ones: [54], [55] Cazort (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have had to gut almost the entire article as it was a blatant WP:COPYVIO of the website, and it was clearly being used for advocacy. I'll have a look at some of the links provided by Cazort, to determine whether I will withdraw this nomination, but looking at some of them, they are press releases and the like. I'll revert back before too long. --Russavia Dialogue 22:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the article must be gutted. But I think this should exist, maybe I'll chip in too on the editing. Cazort (talk)
Ok, I basically eliminated almost all of what original text was left and added a ton of stuff with references. Although some of the material is from press releases, there seems to be a good amount of coverage in both mainstream and international press, and the facts seem to establish notability, with the large member base, attraction of international attention, and sustained involement across different issues (i.e. it's not a one-issue group that fizzled out). What do you say? I'd like to see others expand it some more but I think it's fine as-is. Cazort (talk) 02:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (NAC) RMHED. 23:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

XS Latin

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

This was tagged for A7 speedy. However they appear to have won a national competition which certainly surpasses the "no indication" test in A7 so I'm bringing it here for further consideration. Splash - tk 22:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually they have won several times, I just can't find all the dates Pebbles (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)Pebbles[reply]

  • Keep - Appears to pass notability - an amateur team that has won Internationally, see WP:ATHLETE. Bearian (talk) 17:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and reprimand trigger-happy deletionists which nominate a reasonably well referenced page minutes after creation. - 7-bubёn >t 17:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:ATHLETE wouldn't apply here since they are not athlete. "Formation dancing" (or any dancing for that matter) are not sports and the participants are not athletes. TJ Spyke 00:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do note in my defence that I rescued the page from speedy, and could have deleted it on the spot (though I would have been wrong to so). As such, this is actually an example of the deletion processes working well, where an admin declines a dubious speedy, the author and others get a chance to improve the article and, after some deliberation, the article is kept. You wouldn't want to reprimand me into deleting things like this, and merely burying it in the logs, surely. Splash - tk 21:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • And at the point of the speedy deletion, it was not nearly so well referenced. At this point, I'd certainly go back on my own previous nomination and advocate a keep. Let's also please avoid using "deletionist" as an invective. - Vianello (talk) 18:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A national award is sufficient, though I'd like a third party source for that. . Even if considered as a sport, a #1 national ranking would qualify. DGG (talk) 04:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bearian. Perhaps where some live, dance competitions aren't treated like athletic competitions. Where I live, they are for purposes of getting free from job to compete, etc. And otherwise the team seems notable enough. - Hordaland (talk) 04:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The first claim in the lead could use a better source, but the second one is adequately sourced and show they danced at an international level. Since we're talking competitive dancing at international level, I don't see any reason not to treat the dancers or dance teams as athletes. It might require less effort than the Olympics or a marathon, but it's by no means a trivial non-sports accomplishment. - Mgm|(talk) 10:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to The Heritage Foundation. MBisanz talk 22:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

33 minutes

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

Does not pass WP:NOTFILM. No full length reviews for it other than at its website,and by trivial sources. FingersOnRoids 22:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Book? Its a documentary isn't it? FingersOnRoids 21:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever it is, that's the proper title of it. flaminglawyer 21:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. because of a lack of reliable references that make the article unverifiable. I'd be happy to userfy to any user who intends to provide those sources and asks me nicely. Mgm|(talk) 10:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Founders College

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

Insufficient notability. This was apparently a “college” founded by a bunch of Ayn Rand enthusiasts which existed for only one semester, had only six students, and was housed in a hotel. Even if it was once notable, it’s certainly not now that it’s closed. S.dedalus (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:NTEMP says that “If a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic,” It does NOT say that a subject which no longer exists automatically continues to be notable. --S.dedalus (talk) 06:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does say that a subject that no longer exists, but met the general notability guideline, is presumed notable. That's the point of the section. Notable organizations that cease to exist remain notable as a matter of historical record. Baileypalblue (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While I think that DGG makes some valid points, I think the article still fails, WP:ORG, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:N. Yes, once notable it is not lost. The question here is, was there notability to begin with. Vegaswikian (talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I agree that is the precedent and de facto guideline (in the normal English sense, if not the WP sense). But precedents and guidelines allow for exceptions and the application of common sense. For me, an exception is warrented when a college musters seven students and doesn't make it through a full school term. I don't care what their orientation was; I do care whether they had some legitimate impact or achieved anything worth recording. From what I can see, this wasn't even a memorable failure.--Kubigula (talk) 04:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 22:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darshan Singh Batra

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

I tagged this for G4 because it was a substantially identical recreation of a previously deleted article. The speedy was declined because the previous deletion discussion was, apprently, inadequate- so here we are.

Lots of people have jobs and give to charity, most are not notable. This person isn't. Reyk YO! 03:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. G7 J.delanoygabsadds 21:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Cantlon

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

Delete fails WP:BIO, was a declined speedy due to the "award winning" but no indication that any of the awards won are notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 22:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Knockout Kings (band)

edit
Knockout Kings (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable; no verfiable, reliable sources. Bdb484 (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This article has been up for over two years. Yesterday, a few friends and I attempted to strengthen its credibility by reformatting it and citing several new credible sources. Why does that warrant an effort to have it deleted? If you don't believe that the website of a record label with worldwide distribution as well as every online outlet you can think of (amazon.com, itunes, walmart.com, napster, etc., etc.), why does that label have an article on wikipedia? I'm referring to the Doll House Recordings website. I also listed the Deep Elm Records website as a source. If being on a Deep Elm Records compilation (the emo diaries is a particularly famous compilation - there are bad links to it on wikipedia, meaning it once had an article and some frivolous deleter erroneously wiped it out) doesn't make one noteworthy, or the Deep Elm website isn't considered a notable source on the subject of emo music, somebody needs to do some research and possibly rewrite the emo article on this website. Why do literally hundreds of equally or less notable musical artists have wikipedia articles that cite absolutely no sources at all (save possibly their own myspace or purevolume page)? Since the tag for deletion, I've added a possibly more credible source than the last ones. This one is a print source from HM (magazine), an established Christian Rock magazine that has been around since 1984. I'll do my best to find some more print sources, but they're tough to find since the band's era of major popularity was a few years ago. I luckily had this one handy. Fortworthtx (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


- new reference - added from interpunk.com Fortworthtx (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


- another new print reference.. available online in archives - North Texas Daily Fortworthtx (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- new print reference - Temple Daily Telegram Fortworthtx (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WIKIPEDIA CRITERIA FOR MUSICIANS AND ENSEMBLES: ITEM NUMBER 6 - Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such, and that common sense exceptions always apply.

Jon Burrow, one time drummer of the knockout kings is now the drummer of PlayRadioPlay!, who is signed to Island/Def Jam, and has been charted on Billboad (see their wikipedia references). Fortworthtx (talk) 23:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 22:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quddūs

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

Article context is redundant with Names of God in the Qur'an. Content that is not redundant with that article fails WP:SOAP as religious propaganda. KuyaBriBriTalk 15:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete as it stands, but if it can be improved to be more like the other articles linked from Names of God in the Qur'an, strike this.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with above; an article on this subject has potential to be a decent one, but as it stands right now every word would need to be deleted in order for this to become encyclopedic. If article is sufficiently improved before this AfD is closed I will withdraw nomination. KuyaBriBriTalk 15:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per SarekOfVulcan. -download | sign! 00:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 22:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Premier 993 (National Express West Midlands)

edit
Premier 993 (National Express West Midlands) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a seemingly non notable bus route which I have already once redirected to List of bus routes in the West Midlands county after attempting to establish a consensus on WP:UKBRQDRIVE. The ideal outcome would not be delete, but to redirect again, as above. There is no encyclopaedic content I can see that would warrant keeping, and I can find no reliable sources to establish notability. Jenuk1985 | Talk 22:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 21:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ron & Don Show

edit
AfDs for this article:
Ron & Don Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreamarkable regional radio show in Seattle. Not syndicated to other stations. єmarsee (Discuss) 06:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and I wrote the article. The entry for Luke Burbank is about a local radio host on this same station that has fewer listeners than this show so please delete that one, too. To not delete that one would be horribly confusing and and hypocritical and would cause other contributors to repeatedly add the article for the Ron & Don Show when they see that less popular hosts on this local radio station have articles about them.User:notabilitypatrol

Comment: 1. Ratings are not the issue here, notability is. Per WP:Notability_(media)#Programming, a purely local radio show is less likely to be notable than a regional or national one, but the question (as it is for all notability debates) is still "the presence or absence of reliable sources." I'm currently on the fence about whether there is enough such independent coverage of Ron & Don to justify notability. I don't live in Seattle and I have no independent interest in or knowledge about this show. However, these guys seem to have been around a long time and to have worked together in a lot of markets. In addition to the usual routine mentions you'd expect in the Seattle press, Google turns up some newspaper mentions of them getting hired and fired in those other markets. Some of this is at pay sites, so I didn't read those in detail, and it's not a huge number of hits, but there certainly are some. There is a substantial blog post by the TV columnist for the New Orleans Times Picayune, about a remote broadcast these guys did in NOLA last year in connection with some Hurricane Katrina fundraising. It's not clear if they were in the print T-P or not. ("Live from New Orleans: It's Seattle talk radio!" Times-Picayune blog post, April 10, 2008.) Is this enough? I'm not sure.
2. However, the comment above by User:Notabilitypatrol may raise concern that this particular article is an exercise in WP:POINT. User:Notabilitypatrol created this article, but now he/she readily agrees it should be deleted? Is the purpose to tell us about The Ron & Don Show, or to wage a battle against the much more notable (if lower rated) Luke Burbank?
3. By the way, the Google search also turned up a number of uses of "Ron & Don Show" as a nickname for CBC's famous Hockey Night in Canada and its Coach's Corner segment, hosted by Don Cherry and Ron MacLean. But I imagine User:Emarsee knows more about this than I do, eh?
--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully must disagree. It is absolutely impossible to completely separate notability from broadcast ratings when speaking about broadcast personalities as the former is a function of the latter. The hosts of the #1 rated radio program in a market, by virtue of that fact, must be as notable or more notable than the hosts of the #16 rated program in the same market. One of the criteria for entertainer notability is "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." In light of that, if 110,000 people hear Ron & Don broadcast daily and only 19,000 people hear Luke Burbank broadcast daily it would be a tenuous assertion to claim that Luke Burbank is more notable than Ron & Don. --User:notabilitypatrol —Preceding undated comment was added on 06:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to KIRO (AM) Luke Burbank was an established host for the national NPR network should there should be no issue with his article here at all, his notability as a radio host is confirmed. As for the subject of this article, it can easliy be merged with the article about their radio station. Nate • (chatter) 01:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--I disasgree; he hosted - for 5 weeks - a now-canceled and short-lived radio show that was carried in 13 small markets for less than a year. This gives him no special notability. If anything, his articles should be completely purged. They're currently serving as self-esteem/vanity vehicles and, based on a history of the primary contributor(s) to each article, the possibility exists that they may, in fact, be self-edited. Bill Handel hosts the top-rated local radio show in America in Los Angeles and also a weekend radio show syndicated to 400 stations. He only has a single article, covering both himself and his shows. This is not an isolated example. How can we justify giving this Burbank fellow individual entries for each of his various, small projects? Notabilitypatrol (talk) 08:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Thank you, this is certainly a possible solution, although I am still open to thinking that these guys deserve their own article, especially given their long history together in multiple markets. A question and a comment: (1) If we did merge this into the radio station article, how much (if any) of the content of the existing Ron & Don Show article would you think should be included in the KIRO article? (2) Also, since the KIRO articles indicate that simulcasting is ending and the AM station is switching to all-sports soon while the FM is keeping the talk format, I guess the redirect (if we agree this is best) should be to KIRO-FM.--Arxiloxos (talk) 02:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, thanks for bringing that up, I didn't know about the April conversion. Redirect to KIRO-FM then. I'm thinking a condensed synopsis of each of the hosts on the station would work well. Nate • (chatter) 02:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't mind a concise summary of the hosts on the KIRO-FM article. I support User:Mrschimpf's proposal to merge that page to into the KIRO article. єmarsee (Discuss) 04:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like an acceptable solution in lieu of the various vanity pages that currently exist. I would ask for exceptions for Dave Ross and Dori Monson (since each host nationally or regionally syndicated programs in addition to their local shows - Ross as fill-in for Charles Osgood on CBS and Monson as host of "Hawk Talk") and Tom Douglas as his radio gig is secondary to his work as a chef. Perhaps we could maintain dedicated pages for each of those and give Upshaw, O'Neil, Burbank and Van Der Vort a 3-4 sentence biographical summary on the KIRO pages? Notabilitypatrol (talk) 09:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, this AfD relates only to the article Ron & Don Show in its current condition. Other articles have to be evaluated on their own merits, after giving proper notice to interested editors.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I object to the deletion of this article until some objective standard for determining the notability of a local radio show is established. Regardless of the fact these are two separate articles, this point cannot be separated: it is irreconcilable for an encyclopedia to use a non-objective standard for determining notability. We can't pretend there is not linkage. This is probably more appropriate for the WikiRadio project but, in the short-term, I've placed a rough numerical rating scale that could be used for objective determination of notability on my talk page to stimulate discussion and would invite input or discussion.
Notabilitypatrol (talk) 01:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia already has an article on objective standards for determining notability. To create a new system would be superfluous. We are discussing if the article "Ron & Don Show" meets notability using Wikipeida guidelines, not your own system. --Nathalmad (talk) 08:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's objective standards are of a broad and general nature and don't resolve the specific impasse created by the subjective standards being applied by two distinct groups editing two objectively interconnected articles. Your participation here would be better appreciated if done in a congenial and proactive way. Don't you agree? I'm sure you do. Notabilitypatrol (talk) 11:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you wish to change Wikipedia's standards, please discuss it in the appropriate place, and not in a discussion relating to a deletion of an article.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 18:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not wish to change Wikipedia's standards; I wish to establish an objective codification of the standards being made-up on-the-fly by selected persons in this specific discussion relating to the deletion of an article about a topic that is comparatively more notable than another article on a related topic; precedent is germane to establishing notability - comparison is incumbent to precedent -- Notabilitypatrol (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They've been in enough markets for a period of time to generate at least some significant coverage in multiple sources, even though it is sparse: While at KTCT in the San Francisco Bay Area, in 1999 the Contra Costa Times reported "Djs Raise $25,000 For Shot Man"; in 2001, The Dallas Morning News reported them being let go from KYNG-FM in "The Ron & Don Show' reaches end of the road" and commented on it further in "DJ flies off the handlebars; Ron & Don had a unique chance for a good cause, but blew it"; the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported about another charity event, a Canadian-border-to-Mexican-border bike ride for breast cancer, in Ron and Don keep charity's wheels turning, and ironically it was this bike ride they were on when they were fired from KYNG-FM, which the Star-Telegram commented on in "Ron and Don: gone and gone". DHowell (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mrschimpf's suggestion of a redirect, with some piece of this content to be included at the station's page, is certainly a well-considered proposal. But on balance, I think Ron & Don have enough notability to earn their own page. This has been a significant show in multiple markets for a number of years, and there is coverage in secondary sources. That's really enough, but then one might add an additional argument based on ratings. I certainly don't agree that a show with better ratings is automatically more notable than one with lower ratings, and there is no doubt whatsoever that a show with low ratings is nevertheless notable if it has the requisite presence of reliable sources. However, popularity can be one indicium of notability, to be considered along with the other indicia. In this case, if Ron & Don have maintained high ratings in Seattle, an important American market (both in size and culturally), it does add another element to the overall case that their show is sufficiently notable.--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I vote keep. It would be bizarre and weird for the 29th highest ranked show in Seattle to have 2 wikipedia pages (1 for the show and 1 for the host) while the 3rd highest rated show didn't even have one. I think the nomination of this article for deletion was probably done by people who have some kind of beef or issue with the show. Notabilitypatrol (talk) 09:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Herrie

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

Just another run-of-the-mill media player that isn't notable, doesn't demonstrate notability, doesn't claim notability, has no sources, and doesn't do anything that every other media player written by Joe Bob doesn't do. Miami33139 (talk) 03:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then how come we have inclusion criteria that depend on awards? - Mgm|(talk) 10:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 22:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Mears

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

Minor actor and stunt man. Only one named role, of a silent serial killer. CalendarWatcher (talk) 05:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 22:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Prout

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

The claims of notability don't appear to meet any of our WP:BIO standards, and have no third-party references. Article written by subject. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advertisement article for nonnotable subject Letsdrinktea (talk) 00:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article has no reliable references and none can be found. _ Mgm|(talk) 10:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Self-promotional. A possiblity too of misleading 'information'. (Is possibly notable for coming up with the longest buzz-phrase I've heard yet - and it seems to be his according to my search - "optimal money management mechanistic value investing systems". {Found in mirrors of this article only.) I don't think that confers enough notability in Wikipedia terms, though.) I have doubts about the Artificial Intelligence claim. There is no mention of AI in connection with European Silicon Structures Ltd except in connection with our subject here - and the only connection between him and them I can find is in terms of this article. AI is not a field I would expect to find involved with "laying out the floor plan of silicon chip designs". Robotics maybe - not the same thing as AI at all. AI is to do with communication with machine 'brains'. Someone who could develop such a system is, to my mind, not a likely candidate to be running an online business (apparently in New Zealand) selling diamond rings. Yet we have the reference here. By the way, if anyone CAN tell me what "optimal money management mechanistic value investing systems" means, I would be grateful. (Not grateful in financial terms, however. Sorry.) Peridon (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • More I can only find his connection with Satellites International Ltd or with Blower and Watson in this article and mirrors. Similarly, the information about his connection with Kinesis Computing appears to be only in mirrors and an 'interview'. I can't find the info on the 2007 BG awards - in 2008 most seem to be won by member companies in the group. I think the archive ought to be at http://iqara.info/cr/2007_ser_chairawards.htm but I get timed out. I am not saying there is no neutral information on these matters. I am saying that so far I have been unable to find any. If someone else can, please share it with us. Peridon (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 22:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Whelton

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

I think this article should be deleted because this person is not notable under any general criteria - being mayor of a borough in London is a purely ceremonial role undertaken for one year on a rotating basis. Otherwise he is one of over 1000 local councillors in the London area and one of thousands of parliamentary candidates that have failed to be elected. There are few other references to this person and his blog is updated very infrequently and seems to be only of very limited interest, not at all significant.
(Article was prodded by an IP but an earlier prod was removed, so sending to AFD on IP's behalf.) RasterFaAye (talk) 01:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 22:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You Too Can Heal

edit
You Too Can Heal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable book by George King (Aetherius Society) who claims he was abducted by aliens. A google news archive search turned up one hit for You Too Can Heal, which was a link to a personal webpage hosted by Tripod.com. I'm not convinced this is notable enough for an article as it hasn't grown since it was created 5 February 2007 BBiiis08 (talk) 01:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 22:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Express West Midlands Premier 934

edit
National Express West Midlands Premier 934 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a seemingly non notable bus route which I have already once redirected to List of bus routes in the West Midlands county after attempting to establish a consensus on WP:UKBRQDRIVE. The ideal outcome would not be delete, but to redirect again, as above. There is no encyclopaedic content I can see that would warrant keeping, and I can find no reliable sources to establish notability. Jenuk1985 | Talk 22:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the nominator does want the article deleted. originally I added prod templates to these, but were redirected at the request of an administrator. Jenuk1985 | Talk 22:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added the remark about ideal outcome being redirect because it is the same as other articles in the same batch that I "prodded". Personally I feel deletion for these articles is best, as the redirects serve no useful purpose. Jenuk1985 | Talk 22:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as unverifiable. DS (talk) 01:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Javier Turienzo Alvarez

edit
Javier Turienzo Alvarez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable or possibly non-existent musician; references given do not mention Alvarez. Prod removed by author. Brianyoumans (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. This discussion will not reach consensus no matter how much longer it is left to run. There is evidence of canvassing, but even if I ignored that, the discussion below gives no clear result for deletion or retention. I suggest that the article appears (from the discussion) to require a bit of cleaning up - try this ovr the next few months, and if there are still issues worthy of a deletion discussion, open a new one at that time. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mongolia during Tang rule

edit
Mongolia during Tang rule (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Content fork.

No real sources unless you count primary ones, or "Smith, p. 4711" or "Cambridge History of China, vol. 11" without page number. Some rather strange claims (like Chinese conquered the Russian steppe), a somewhat unclear reference to the Khitan people who were far from dominating in the area at the time - and whose exact ethnic affiliations are not really as clear as that strange reference seems to imply - and a lot of stuff that has no obvious relation to Mongolia at all. Most of the content for this article has been removed from Han Chinese a while ago (like here by myself or here by someone else). Valid content - for several decades in the 7th century, the Göktürks were subjects of the Tang dynasty - is treated much better in Tang Dynasty#Turkish and Western regions, Protectorate General to Pacify the North, History of Mongolia#Turkic_Period and Göktürks. Yaan (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please note that all "delete" votes on this page are the result of canvssing by User:G Purevdorj, evidence is at the bottom of the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.164.128 (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This non-signed user vandalized my talk page with the non-sense content with the offensive remarks, i.e. "GenuineMongol, you got owned", before G.Purevdorj notified me of the existence of such article. Are there any alive administrators out there to stop this vandal spitting all over the Mongolian related pages? See Talk:Mongolia. I removed the same remark from my talk page. See the history of my talk page. I am all for the deletion of the article. --GenuineMongol (talk) 04:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gantuya eng had earlier (while the text is now below) already given the same vote, so this one isn't valid. G Purevdorj (talk) 09:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC): That non-signed user has been vandalising Wikipedia since mid-December. Some editors call his behaviour "Chinese Chauvinism", but to me his behaviour seems to be even worse and very unhealthy. Sorry if it sounds like personal attack, but his behaviour reminds me a pathological condition rather than any form of an extreme political stream. Gantuya eng (talk) 08:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The content reflects traditional Chinese history conceptions, not a picture of history as could be reached by using sources not intended for tradition. I don't see any way to mend it as the topic is inherently biased and, as Yaan pointed out, you cannot really speak of an effective Chinese rule. Why not write an article about pre-Heian Japan under Chinese rule? Nominally, they were in some sense, but no one would think of writing such nonsense. This article is pure Chinese chauvinism and deserves to be deleted. G Purevdorj (talk) 09:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WRONG-accordinig to WHITE MAN Kenneth Scott Latouretter Han chinese emperor Tang taizong owned the gokturks and khitans, and was crowned khagan of the gokturks and since gokturk territory controlled mongolia, he owned mongolia. last time i checked, he wasnt chinese. Kenneth Scott Latourette has a PHD in oriental studies at yale university, unlike you.
The Chinese and their History and Culture" by Kenneth Scott Latouretter FOURTH REVISED EDITION 56892 Library of Congress card number- 64-17372 Printed by Macmillan ISBN 0-8160-2693-9 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.153.147 (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
note that G Purevdorj has canvassed at least six pro mongolian editors starting from this edit. taking a look at all his next edits, he is trying to hide the blatant POV canvassing by switching into mongol language. all the other people who voted "delete" have a message left by him on their talk pages to hurry here and vote delete. as they all work primarily on mongol related topics and have pro mongol POV, these votes have to be struck out.
You don't make sense on this point. Users working primary on Mongolian-related topics can also considererd to be more knowledgable than editors that don't know what the article is about. And while you point out that Gantuya eng clearly opposed this article from the start and so notifying her (albeit not in this fashion) was very obviously justified, you ALSO argue that her argument should be stuck out because she was rallied! You may notice that it is the Mongolia-related editors that actually address content, while the other editors are just impressed by some references that they cannot assess. G Purevdorj (talk) 09:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G purevdorj, read wP:CANVASS on yo ur actions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.245.73 (talk) 04:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WRONG-accordinig to WHITE MAN Kenneth Scott Latouretter Han chinese emperor Tang taizong owned the gokturks and khitans, and was crowned khagan of the gokturks and since gokturk territory controlled mongolia, he owned mongolia. last time i checked, he wasnt chinese. Kenneth Scott Latourette has a PHD in oriental studies at yale university, unlike you.
The Chinese and their History and Culture" by Kenneth Scott Latouretter FOURTH REVISED EDITION 56892 Library of Congress card number- 64-17372 Printed by Macmillan ISBN 0-8160-2693-9
Gantuya eng correctly pointed out below that this article is trying to ignite hatred between Chinese and Mongolians, and you're obviously quite aware that you're continuing in this vein. You don't need to be Chinese to do so. Eg it would be possible to detail the systematic bias persisting in a sinology originally devoid of ancillary sciences. G Purevdorj (talk) 08:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lautorette had a PHD inj oriental studies and is not sinocentrist. otherwise he wouldnt have tried to convert them to christianity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.138.30 (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 1. Mongolia did not exist when the Tang dynasty shortly invaded the Turkic khanates, so Mongolia could not be subject to the Tang rule. 2. Article Göktürks has mentioned the short invasion. So, there is no need and basis for creating this article. It must be deleted. GenuineMongol (talk) 12:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
physical area of mongolia was ruled by tang dynasty. and latouretter said the khitans were mongols, and he had a PHD in oriental studies at yale university, unlike you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.157.126 (talk) 04:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete "Mongolia under Tang?" To me it doesn't sound scientific. There was a short period of Tang occupation during the Turkic Kaganate, and that period has already been described in other articles in a more scientific way. In addition, the author of this "article" is the same person who, under varying IP numbers, persisted inserting veiled vandalism in China and Mongolia related articles intentionally trying to humiliate the histories of these two modern nations and trying to ignite hatred between these two friendly peoples beginning from mid-December. In this light, the "Mongolia under Tang rule" article is also seen as a veiled vandalism. This is also proved by the non-civic and rather unhealthy behaviour of the author in the talk lists of certain members. Gantuya eng (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Canvassing Please note that this editor was contacted here Ikip (talk) 07:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please note message on article talk page:
Unhealthy behaviour of the "author" of this "article" in the talk page of User:GenuineMongol and other factors justify the AfD nomination of this and as well "article" "Tibet during the Tang Dynasty". These are actually a well-veiled form of vandalism. Gantuya eng (talk) 04:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can't justify an article being deleted, because you don't like the editor. Dream Focus 07:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At least for User:Gantuya eng, this AfD appears to be a personal vendetta against another user for "unhealthy behavior". Ikip (talk) 08:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Canvassing Please note that this editor was contacted here Ikip (talk) 07:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
which incidently has a single source written by a MONGOL? obvious unreliable source exposed right away —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.164.128 (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, i would like everyone to know that all the users who voted "delete" have a message from USer:G Purevdorj, telling them to come here and hurry to vote delete. he then switched into mongol language to the ones who spoke it. not to mention the fact that all users who have voted delete, have edits primarily concerning mongols AND have pro mongol POV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.164.128 (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Retain Tang rule over Mongolia (618-755) is valid, should nto be counted as simply "Turkic Period". The Gokturks had very little control over this area after 645.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who were defeated by Tang? Mongols? Or Turks? Did Mongols exist in that time? Did Khitans, who are claimed by the author of this article to be related to Mongols, dominate the area when Tang invaded? It is risky to vote on a subject you are not familiar with.GenuineMongol (talk) 02:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Latouretter has PHD in oriental studies at yale univesity, and he says the Khitans are mongol. It is also said by liguists that khitan language is a proto mongolic language. Linguist list groups khitan language subgroup as mongolian OWNED
Khitan language and Mongolian language are equal siblings of the same language family and none of them is ancestral to the other. The modern ethnic group of the Daurians are thought to be the genetic descendants of the Khitans. In one of the articles related to the Chinese history I was disappointed to read that the Khitan state is described as one of the Chinese dynasties rather than one of the nomadic empires. Even I expressed my opinion in the talk page of that article. Gantuya eng (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i provided a source, yet Gantuya eng fails to show one. this means everything she just said was original research.
G_Purevdorj isn't the first initiator of the deletion of this article. I had already expressed my deletion suggestion in the talk page of the article before he wrote me in my personal talk page. He has the right to exchange opinions with other editors and he is always welcome to write in my personal talk page. Gantuya eng (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE- wikipedia policy forbids the kind of activity USer:Gantuya eng said was okay for USer:G Purevdorj to do
  • Hold on My first suggestion is to merge into appropriate sections of the History of China/Mongolia/Gokturks series. There really was no such thing as "Mongolia" during the Tang dynasty. It is on that basis that I feel there isn't much to say about "Mongolia during the Tang dynasty". Right now, the article looks like a brag-piece along the lines of "the Chinese conquered Mongolia before there was Mongolia. How amazingly accomplished of them!" If an argument can be made that that article can be populated with more substantial contents, e.g. detailed information of Tang administration of Mongolia, or the relations between the Tang emperor and his (her) various vassals, then the article should be kept. As yet, no such argument has been made out. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion was posted on Wikipedia:WikiProject_China, WP:Article Rescue Squadron, and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Central_Asia/Mongolia_work_group. Ikip (talk) 07:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually a mongolian people, the khitan, did live in mongolia at the time, along with the gokturks, tang taizong brought them under tang rule, see the source i put in my other comment —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.138.103 (talk) 06:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please let us know what are the research findings of the article. Mongolia can't be ruled by Tang, when they did NOT exist AT ALL! Mongolia was founded by Genghis Khan only in 1206. Khitans are not ancestors of Mongolians, but relatives of Mongolians. Please don't let your emotion take over your decision. Please be reasonable and consider the acts of the vandal on my talk page and other Mongolia related articles. --GenuineMongol (talk) 13:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
khitan is a mongolian language keneth scott latourette, PHD in oriental studies at yalu univeerstiy, says khitans were mongolians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.245.73 (talk) 04:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep plenty of references, and article looks fine. Reading the comments on the talk page, I'm wondering if it was nominated based on the content of the article, or because of a dislike of the article's creator. Dream Focus 08:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong delete: Have you checked those "plenty of references"? Gantuya eng (talk) 08:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC) Why not 3, while you're at it? yandman 09:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Classifying editors of Wikipedia as "pro mongolian" again indicates the vandalic attempt to ignite hatred between the Mongolian and Chinese people. Then, do you mean that those who are to keep the article are "pro chinese" or "anti mongolian"? Gantuya eng (talk) 09:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I've read the article and arguments and I don't find anything wrong with the article. But perhaps someone more familiar with Chinese and Mongolian history knows better.--Sloane (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE In my view, the only arguable value in this article is in its title -- see detailed analysis at:
1. Talk:Mongolia during Tang rule#Non-standard citation format
2. Talk:Mongolia during Tang rule#Difficult-to-parse text
3. Talk:Mongolia during Tang rule#References
While I can appreciate the plausible worth of an article about this subject, the blunt fact remains that the draft proposed for deletion is quite unworkable. I attempted to improve it by removing the weak parts -- and in the end, there was no substance remaining. I also attempted to enhance it's coverage by importing verifiable material from Horses in East Asian warfare ... but I don't quite see how that gesture can be construed as a sufficient reason for keeping this article without the investment of more work. --Tenmei (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The issues with citation format, test, and references are matters to be addressed by WP:Cleanup, not deletion. With respects to User:Tenmei, that he failed does not presume others will not succeed. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD was initially based on this version of the article -- here. No substance, no citations, useless references. The only thing this article had going for it was the subject and title. Was I wrong to try to figure out how to improve it? --Tenmei (talk) 00:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fully apprecite your good faith attempts ro bring it into line with standards. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
response to non standard citation format: i actually dont need those sources, because they say the same as the Book written by the yale guy with the PHD. in english, of course —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.136.193 (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
response to diffucent to parse text: i forgot to put the book reference" the chinese and their history and culture" in the right place. it clearly states that the Han chinese emperor Tang taizong of the tang dynasty defeated the gokturks, and khitans, incorporated their territory (including mongolia) into tang dynasty, and was given the title by the gokturks them selves after he defeated them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.136.193 (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i actually DO NOT NEED the chinese references, because the book "the chinese and their history and cultre" already says what the chinese references say already, they are extra. there is not issue with the references —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.136.193 (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even if "Mongolia" didn't exist back then as a political entity, we can talk about it as a geographic entity, for the purposes of denoting where it is we are talking about. Even if we don't want to use that term, it doesn't mean the content is invalid, only that the terminology being used needs to be changed. This article needs to be improved, its sources cited more clearly, but "need for improvement" is not a valid excuse to delete it. LordAmeth (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as historically notable and send to WP:CLEANUP to address the nom's concerns over cite format, as it is apparent there was a good faith effort to source the article even if the format is incorrect. This can be easily corrected and the article expanded. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
geographical area of mongolia existed at that time, and so did mongol khitan people, they lived in mongolia, see the source i posted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.245.73 (talk) 04:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The original intentions of the creator might not have been the best, but the article is about a notable topic and it is well-sourced, so I don't see why it should be deleted. Being new, it's not the most informative article at the present, but there is room for expansion and it has done more than prove itself notable. And yes Ikip, this does seem to be a biased AfD. I hope the closing admin will take their !votes with a grain of salt. Themfromspace (talk) 04:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop and regroup

edit
This AfD-thread seems a little bit like a car collision in an uncrowded intersection -- a crash involving two vehicles traveling at low speeds.

Stop and regroup If I may summarise, it looks like:

  • the article when the AfD began was weak and biased;
  • G Purevdorj misunderstood (in good faith) policy on 'canvassing';
  • the article has since been improved a lot; but
  • the article is no longer about what the title says it's about.

I don't see any bias in the AfD itself; I do think that the bias in the original article was problematic in a way that was obvious to Mongolians but not so obvious to non-Mongolians. But given that the article is now very different, I'd like to ask the Mongolians who've !voted if they can answer:

  • Is the text of the current article broadly accurate / less biased?
  • Would it be acceptable as an article if it were renamed something like "The Tang Dynasty in Mongolia"?
  • Or is there some other way to rework the content to remove any bias?
--Zeborah (talk) 06:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Due to Tenmei's efforts, the bias has lessoned somewhat. While the first version was just chauvinism, the contemporary content of the article might be subject to critique. I've just given some points on the talk page, but without looking up some literature (which I cannot do before the 6th of March), I won't be able to properly assess some parts of the article. But probably some other people of the Mongolia work group will know more about this than I do. Anyway, any title of this article that contains "Mongolia" (maybe besides "... in the area of modern-day Eastern and Central Mongolia") will be unacceptable. You would have to name political or ethnic entities that existed then. G Purevdorj (talk) 09:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response to purevdorj-- The khitans did inhabit mongolia, as noted in latourette's book, and he calls them "khitan mongols" Khitan is also classified as mongolian by linguists, there for, during the tang dynasty, mongolia was then a territory primarily inhabited by Mongols as a linguistic, historical and cultural group, and also under tang control, as even the LOTC source points out, parts of CENTRAL mongolia, which even by greater mongolia terms, would be in modern day outer mongolia. meanwhile, purevdorj has provided zero sources countering these sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.153.147 (talk) 20:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
These Wiktionary definitions may help us clarify responses to Zeborah's timely and reasonable questions:
* [ during]
*Tang Dynasty
  • [ rule]
In this context, I notice that there is a corollary article -- Mongolia during Qing rule ...?
What needs to be done next? --Tenmei (talk) 16:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary is NOT a WP:RS
your "wiktionary" definitions are not sourced, AND other wiki projects are not WP:RS's —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.153.147 (talk) 20:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of "gaming the system" complaint is unhelpful, counter-productive. Any benefit-of-doubt is devalued by the fact that an anonymous participant's objection is unsigned. Anyone who is well enough acquainted with Wikipedia's policies to hazard using WP:RS to discredit the use of Wiktionary in this thread seems demonstrably sloppy at best in "forgetting" to sign his/her contribution. --Tenmei (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i really dont want to waste my time with the four extra tildes because sinebot does it anyway, and i dont need to think about it. and about gaming the system, its not my fault my ip isnt static. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.246.158 (talk) 03:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G Purevdorj and Tenmei, thanks for your answers. It looks to me like a bit of a culture clash: to me I see a country's name as referring primarily to the landmass, so it makes sense for me to talk about New Zealand in the tenth century even though there weren't any New Zealanders. Whereas it sounds like G Purevdorj sees "Mongolia" as referring primarily to the people, so it doesn't make sense to talk about Mongolia before the Mongol nation actually formed.
The Mongolia during Qing rule article is different because there really was a Mongolia by that time no matter how one looks at it.
"Central Asia", as suggested on the talkpage, sounds like a reasonable compromise for the Tang article to me. (With appropriate clarification within the article.)
And, anonymous-person, Sinebot is for people who forget to sign or don't know better, not for people who are too lazy to type four characters. It may look like it happens by magic but it still takes resources to do it, and it's just rude to take that for granted. It's also a bit rude to take part without bothering to create a log-in, but that's not what "gaming the system" is about: "gaming the system" means using the letter of policy to advance your argument in a way that detracts from the spirit of policy, which is to work together in good faith to achieve something we can all agree on. So, your defense of Latourette and the term "Mongolia" notwithstanding, do you have any objection to the term "Central Asia"? --Zeborah (talk) 04:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that Central Asia would make more sense. The current article topic is a bit like "Luxembourg in the Roman Empire". Of course it can make sense in some way, for example if you are writing from a local Luxembourgish perspective, but it is nonetheless a somewhat strange way to look at things in a general encyclopedia. And it would even be ambigous - does it only deal with the country Luxembourg, or also with the Belgish province?
I guess Central Asia would widen the scope of the article. The current article seems to deal primarily with relations between the Tang and the Eastern Turks, maybe the renaming (if there is a renaming) could rather go into that direction. Yaan (talk) 11:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I second the proposal to use Central Asia instead of Mongolia. --GenuineMongol (talk) 12:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that at this point User:Enerelt has renamed the article as Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty (a redirect is still in place from the old name). --Zeborah (talk) 08:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

edit

Nothing in this "canvassing"-thread is altered. It is temporarily "collapsed," which arguably minimizes it as a distraction.

This collapsed format serves a constructive purpose by focusing attention on Zeborah's comments and questions.

Extended content
You're a nuisance. As you rightly say, I didn't rally any disinterested editor, and therefore my behaviour is accurate. In the cases where I wasn't sure about the actual opinion of the editor (eg Angarag), I put it completely neutral and didn't make any suggestions. G Purevdorj (talk) 01:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
apparently your not reading policy. [66] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.164.128 (talk • contribs)
Here is the message, copied 6 times, can someone translate what it means?:
Message:
Hurry to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mongolia_during_Tang_rule#Mongolia_during_Tang_rule and write down your opinion. Iim muuhai novshiin oguuleliig ali hurdanaar ustgah heregtei shuu. Eniig uldeemeer hun hojij bolohgui!!!
Ikip (talk) 07:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement is not correct. I did use this post to address the Mongolian editors whom I knew to share my position, that is, three times. As I didn't use Mongolian for secrecy, but did address every editor in his native language, I shall translate it myself:

  • "It's certainly necessary to erase such a worthless article as fast as possible. Those who want to keep it may not succeed!"

This contrasts to the text I posted to those two editors whom I didn't know to be partisan:

User:G Purevdorj, you seem to be fairly new at editing wikipedia, but you can't do what you did. You can post a "neutral" message on the talk pages of articles, and on wikiprojects (which are groups of like minded editors), but you can't post such slanted messages on users talk pages. Yes, the rule doesn't make complete sense, in that you can post on one type of page the same message as you cannot on another page, and it tends to favor veteran editors who are well organized and have taken over a wikiproject, but such illogical, though necessary, rules, which are:
  1. selectively applied and enforced
  2. condone one type of behavior while condemning another, and
  3. which favor veteran editors over new editors
...are the norm on wikipedia.
Note, there are penalties to post a message like this:
"It's certainly necessary to erase such a worthless article as fast as possible. Those who want to keep it may not succeed!"
...anywhere on wiki. Ikip (talk) 08:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been editing wikipedia for some time, but I usually kept away from arguments based on ideology and never before had to address an article whose mere existence constitutes what should be considered vandalism. I agree that the choice of language wasn't ideal, and I shall try to choose something more politically correct next time. Eg "As this article might indeed merit deletion and I consider this question of high importance, I would greatly value if you could contribute your opinion in order to clarify this issue". But as far as I understand the policy linked above, I am well entitled to address individual editors (even a number of individual editors) whom I know to be knowlegdable on a topic. You may notice that I didn't rally anyone not affiliated to some degree with Mongolian HISTORY (eg I didn't rally anyone whom I just knew to be Mongolian), and as I contacted 4 editors whom I considered partisan and 3 editors whose opinion I did not know (you can clearly see that from my post to InMongolia), my intent not only to influence but also to improve the discussion should be discernable. G Purevdorj (talk) 08:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

its sort of obvious that a user called "inmongolia" would vote delete for this article no matter what you tell him and you know this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.136.193 (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Collecting people sharing his opinion is the right of G_Purevdorj. Go and tell a parliamentarian "Stop building a faction on a certain bill". His approach is fully valid and democratic. He didn't force anyone. If some of those who received a message from G_Purevdorj don't agree with him or lazy to participate in this discussion, they a free not to participate or even to vote to "keep" (because they get aware of the discussion). Gantuya eng (talk) 09:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly. Wikipedia isn't a democracy, and we try to avoid politics here. We don't tolerate overt faction building either. Moreover, there are no votes on an AfD: participants give arguments, debate them etc.. and the closing editor judges which arguments are better. yandman 10:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1) So you "try to avoid politics here". What the author of this article has been doing in Wikipedia since mid-December is clearly politics. Classifying editors into "pro mongolian" is also politics. Forbidding anyone to be "pro mongolian" is what?
2) Anyone has the right to invite potentially interested editors to participate in a discussion. Gantuya eng (talk) 11:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE- wikipedia policy forbids the kind of activity USer:Gantuya eng said was okay for USer:G Purevdorj to do —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.136.193 (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOTe- Gantuya eng denies that mongolians existed before 1200s AD. and yet she contributed to this article, which has the name "mongolian monarchs" for people that existed before 1200 AD, at least over 1,000 years before that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.136.193 (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While there might be cause to delete or merge this article, this doesn't appear to be a good faith effort to get a broad consensus; rather faction building like 162 said. Now if some of those references indeed demonstrate the topic's notability, then it needs to stay whether or not the article is in good shape. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised that people completely uninterested in the topic of Mongolian or Chinese history are voting here. Isn't that like peasants faithfully voting for MPRP? Gantuya eng (talk) 05:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ganyuya eng shows complete disregard for policy in this edit, claiming that a warning not to post mulitple votes on this AFD and keeping civil was "vandalism", —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.138.103 (talk) 06:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible that a mere format change may help us move towards consensus? --Tenmei (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Sublime (band). MBisanz talk 22:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jah Won't Pay the Bills

edit
Jah Won't Pay the Bills (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Demo albums, even by notable artists, are typically not notable unless they have plenty of coverage in reliable sources. There are none for this demo. DisturbedNerd999 20:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miracle Camp and Retreat Center

edit
Miracle Camp and Retreat Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable camp facility. Not even an assertion of notability. Google search turned up few mentions. Only news coverage appeared to be in a local paper with regard to storm damage. TastyPoutine talk (if you dare) 02:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Transwiki. Transwiki MBisanz talk 03:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Metaphilosophy/quotations

edit
Metaphilosophy/quotations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A list of quotations. If any of the individual quotes are missing from Wikiquote, they can be transwikied, however this should be deleted.PhilKnight (talk) 14:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Most of the opinions expressed below in favor of keeping the article were disregarded for either being clear sock or meatpuppets or demonstrating a clear lack of understanding of policy. Please review the large template box below for more information if you are concerned about this closure. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maziar Zand

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

Notability, Verifiability, see also: [69] محمد.رضا (talk) 23:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear محمد.رضا this amount of international exhibition that his works are selected,in this category is recognized as Notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maziarzand (talk • contribs) 01:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete Poster art is a significant part of Iranian modern and contemporary art. So, the artist should be evaluated within that cultural context, and the list of Biennales of poster art looks impressive. On the other hand, many (all?) of the more notable looking exhibitions are open-submission. The links given above don't look particularly important: the icograda site has a "call for entries" banner, and the graphis information doesn't name the artist.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In case of open submission you are right, but as you know always there is a district jury board for selecting the posters. And in mentioned exhibitions the posters are selected. It goes without saying that the www.icograda.org and graphis does same, and accepting the works by them is important for graphic designers. The graphis website has not name of the 2007 winners now but in this Persian magazine my name has been mentioned:
http://www.rasm.ir/default.asp?base=1&Aid=1080
•Moreover the New Graphic magazine published my works and Reza Abedini as two different view point of Iranian contemporary graphic designers. in this link you may see some of the pages. http://www.seecoo.com.cn/index.asp?mag=newgraphic&issue=13
m.zand (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think maziar zand is Creative professionals due to:
    -The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
    -The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.36.248.66 (talk) 07:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— 158.36.248.66 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Please have a look at the first article in the mentioned category who is also an Iranian too. In my opinion, Zand is not notable at all when comparing to Reza Abedini. One may also argue that there are at least dozens of Iranians who do not have an article but they are more notable than Zand. I think even this article could be speedy deleted. --محمد.رضا (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— 193.157.235.68 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • To 158.36.248.66 - I do not see how he has "...[originated] a significant new concept, theory or technique." Nowhere in the article does it state and support that claim. In addition, winning a couple of awards nor being featured in a style magazine does not seem to satisfy, "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." If I am wrong, please help me understand my error. ttonyb1 (talk) 00:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete he fails WP:BIO, and has no substantial third party references. I've had a look at the links, but those with his name etc look to be what he has placed there or are showing him due to membership. Even I could show websites with my name, due to my being a member of the associations and unions, doesn't make me notable for being on the Wikipedia though. Artypants, Babble 11:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment please note that Maziar zand was created and deleted Three times! Twice on the 19th Feb and then again in 21 Feb. Now we have Maziar Zand started on 22 Feb. Also of interest is the Talk:Maziar Zand. I feel the reason of Wikipedia is lost on some people, this is NOT a personal site. Artypants, Babble 13:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My dear friend,

1-It is not a personal site,here is only two simple of my works and list of exhibitions and not my writings or interests.

2-I have not made any of those websites (please try to find a way to truth or have a look at websites carefully)

3-having membership is not the reason for being the name here that you mentioned.m.zand (talk) 15:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find nothing the Wikipedia article that proposes this is an original theory by the individual. Additionally, the use of negative space in composition has been explored for quite a long time and is nothing new. The assumption that this is "a significant new concept, theory or technique," lacks support or evidence that he provided a new and generally accepted theory.
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them
The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.
1)-icograda-(International Council of Graphic Design Association) have selected and introduced him.
http://www.icograda.org/feature/galleria/galleria204.htm
http://www.icograda.org/feature/galleria/galleria281.htm
2)- his works are selected in NewGRaphic Magazine as Iranian graphic style,in KAK magazine
http://kak.ru/news/foreigndesigners/a4472/ and Linea Grafica magazine.
He has won the golden price of Graphis publication in poster 2007:
http://graphis.com/store/?p=53 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.36.248.66 (talk) 13:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— 158.36.248.66 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ http://www.ladygaga.com/events/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_February_24&oldid=1142645048"