Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 February 4

< 3 February	5 February >
Discussions scheduled to run until at least 9 February 2009.

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete as blatant copyright infringement. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Treatment for the plague

Contested PROD. A school essay, full to the brim with POV and original research, probably written by a ten year old. The user was given a final warning two days ago for uploading this kind of stuff, despite several requests not to. role^player 23:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I added the PROD. Wikipedia is not for essays or original research. — neuro^(talk) 00:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Plague (disease)'s treatment section. SMSpivey (talk) 00:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - To Plague (disease)#Treatments. Changed from delete; redirects are cheap. — neuro^(talk) 00:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per SMSpivey and — neuro; future students who enter "treatment for the plague" in the search box may be inspired to add to the main article instead of writing an essay that will wind up getting deleted. Baileypalblue (talk) 01:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Likely search term and good use of redirects. _ Mgm|^(talk) 09:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bandwagon redirect. Bearian (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not quite, this is not the sort of material worth keeping behind the redirect. There could be a redirect "Treatment of__" for every disease. None of them are likely search terms as a redirect. DGG (talk) 02:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio from [1], replace with a redirect to Plague (disease)#Treatments --Enric Naval (talk) 23:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William Shaw (mathematician)

Non-notable academic, possible autobiography (article creator is Shaww (talk · contribs)). There's no assertion of notability, let alone evidence of it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PROF except in publications, where he fails WP:BIO anyway. §FreeRangeFrog 23:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (A7) No indication that either WP:BIO or Wikipedia:Notability (academics) are met and contains no reliable references. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Afterboth (talk) 12:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #4 (significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions). Has at least one textbook, Applied Mathematica, currently in more than 320 libraries worldwide according to WorldCat.--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Mathscinet author summary reveals 30 publications, but only 12 citations. Subject has only achieved professorial rank 3 years ago, and his textbook is in the nature of a howto/reference guide for a software package rather than a major text. I conclude that he isn't notable yet. If somebody more familiar with financial math wishes to correct me, I'll be happy to accept the correction. Ray (talk) 21:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In this case, achieving professorial rank is actually above getting a full professor rank in the US. University Lecturer at Oxford would be roughly equivalent to associate professor at a very prestigious US university or full professor at a much less prestigious US university. In his case he is professor at King's College London, which is not as prestigious as Oxford, but always considered in the top 5 UK universities. The King's math dept has 49 faculty most of whom are permanent faculty and only 17 of whom have the rank of "professor".
  - I'll defer. I'm not familiar with the relative rankings and positions of the UK university hierarchy. Ray (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See my comment right above. I don't know about his publication history or his work, but often an academic's rank at a prestigious research-oriented university is a better indicator than counting citations. --C S (talk) 05:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First, on the basis of his three books on Mathematica, all by Cambridge Univ Press. Each in between 100 and 200 libraries. One in particular is itself notable: Complex Analysis with Mathematica since it's a CHOICE Outstanding Academic Book. Second, co-Editor in Chief of the journal Applied Mathematical Finance, another key factor. Third, I do accept the Full Professorship at Kings as equiv. to a Full Professor in the US. (It's not automatic notability, since its not the sort of Head of Department that might be in other UK universities). Still, it certainly indicates that they thought him notable in his field, and that;s basically what we look for. I know there are some people at Wikipedia who prefer to trust their own judgment of academic quality in their subject, but I do not think that's appropriate, regardless of their degree of expertise. Put together, its notability, though I'm not sure whether to call it notability as a mathematician or mathematical educator. It's hard to judge applied scientists by the usual criteria for academics, but . DGG (talk) 14:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I did not claim to have any ability to judge quality in the professor's field, only that the citation rate for his articles seems low compared to other mathematicians with biographies on Wikipedia. That is a quantitative statement based on statistics in a database, and was intended to offer no opinion whatsoever on the quality of his research. Ray (talk) 15:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that comment was not directed at you, but in anticipation of other objections that are often raised. Apologies if it seemed otherwise. DGG (talk) 00:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment I think the citation rate comment was fine, but it probably just means his work is only cited in publications not covered by mathscinet. Mathscinet is so good at handling pure mathematicians (and not bad at applied mathematicians), that is a good test. However, it can be poor at handling math education, and I think much of this man's notability is from his pedagogy and his financial math (neither of which is as thoroughly covered by mathscinet as say algebra). I also agree with DGG that it can be very tempting to apply the more rigorous standards of academia directly to the person, but that we on wikipedia should only apply them through the guidelines and only through the sources. The "just a howto guide" comment certainly seems to me a good reason for Cambridge University Press to reject this man's work, but that they did accept it, that libraries then widely acquired the book, is what we at wikipedia need to look at. Presumably our personal viewpoint is just too narrow to appreciate his impact; luckily we have King's College's administration's, Cambridge University Press's, and Taylor and Francis's (who publishes Applied Mathematical Finance) viewpoint to guide us. JackSchmidt (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think Eric Yurken's point is sufficient for a keep, but the editorship, the (full) professorship, and two other widely held books seals the deal for me. JackSchmidt (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the opinions shown toward notability inre WP:PROF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. Rewrote to assert. Nerdy field. Surprisingly little web presence, but sufficient information for a keep. Article needs referenced. Can't do it, have to spend all my time defending plant articles from the ongoing two plus month naming convention attack, so no contributions right now. --KP Botany (talk) 06:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not sure about most of the arguments here but co-EIC of Applied Mathematical Finance (which should be mentioned in the article) seems enough for WP:PROF #8. That criterion requires the journal to be major and well-established; it's been published since 1994 which I think is sufficiently well established, and as for major, it has papers such as DOI:10.1080/13504869500000005 with over 200 Google scholar cites. It's not Nature, but I don't think it has to be to pass this criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do wish Wikipedia had as many articles on technical journals as on minor characters in single versions of now technologically outdated video games. --KP Botany (talk) 07:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All we need is more mathematicians editing than video game fans. But then... there are more games fans ticking away at keyboards than mathematicians. Strange place wiki... where World of Warcraft [2] is more popular than Quantum Theory [3]. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is becoming something of a digression. My personal opinion is that I don't particularly care if most of the material is on video game characters (and the outdated ones I find more interesting anyway), nor if most of the stuff on Wikipedia is "frivolous". My favorite articles are "frivolous" and I think the frivolity is what makes Wikipedia so fun and fascinating. What I find personally irksome is when somebody that spends the majority of their time fiddling around on anime characters starts AFD'ing more academically oriented or technical articles because they think it's crap and "unimportant". For these people, I think it's a kind of thrill to say, so-and-so, scholar of fossils of some ancient tribal culture, not important, DELETE. And then go back to re-arranging their list of rare appearances of timiki-kun in "Dangerous! Purple Lizard Mecha Yamato 3010".

I think that feeling is shared by many other people and is the only real reason so many people work to keep these CV-like bios on Wikipedia. Frankly, I could do without the CVs. For many academics, their bios aren't that interesting, not enough sources or whatever. If that means we apply a more stringent criterion for real people versus anime characters, I don't see what's wrong with that. The lack of stringent inclusion criteria for BLPs is what created the whole BLP policy/mess anyway. --C S (talk) 10:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Read the article, and I believe its a keeper. Dream Focus (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I do not know why a professor is automatic notable, there is thousands and thousands of professors and when they do not have second sources about them they are not wp:bio, my opinion. And most professors have more citations then this one. But important textbook is good and the Mayhew prize is big all tho it is for undergrad, it is at a fab school and some very famous people got it. RetroS1mone talk 16:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STARFLEET International

This association has no substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Just having a lot of members - though I note the claim is for the largest fan run science fiction fan club, not the largest science fiction fan club - does not make it notable - see WP:BIGNUMBER. I had a good trawl through a lot of the total of 572 google hits here [[4]] and didn't turn up any substantial coverage. Springnuts (talk) 22:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Star Trek fandom. If that claim about being the largest sci-fi club can be substantiated by a specific reference to the Guiness Book of World Records (claim uncited since August 2003), toss it into Star Trek fandom. --EEMIV (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete first? If you redirect without deleting, you give someone the chance to finally check on the record claim. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either/or. Whatever. Redirect it, then. --EEMIV (talk) 11:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I had no difficulty locating the reference to Guinness World Records which I have cited. Since this did not take long, this is just a matter of WP:NOEFFORT and WP:IMPERFECT. The organisation is evidently notable and the article should not be deleted per WP:PRESERVE. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Afterboth (talk) 12:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC) — Afterboth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete, only claim to notability (the Guinness record) is utterly trivial, and is misrepresented in the article anyway: Starfleet is not listed as the largest science fiction fan club, but the largest Star Trek fan club, which is a much more limited record[5]. I'll correct the article acordingly... Fram (talk) 13:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appearance in the Guinness Book of Records is obviously not utterly trivial but is a significant accolade. The lack of other sources is just as matter of WP:NOEFFORT as I have demonstrated by adding another source. Refusal to find and accept good sources and to explore alternatives to deletion is contrary to our policies: WP:PRESERVE, WP:BEFORE, WP:IMPERFECT. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, but often appearance in the Guinness book is pretty trivial. A local student club having some silly record for a few months is not suddenly a notable group for that achievement alone. As for your policies: preserve is curently heavily disputed, before is about nominating for deletion, which I didn't do, and imperfect is irrelevant: I did not claim that the article should be deleted because it is imperfect. As for misrepresenting a source first, and then claiming that the one pointing this out is guilty of "noeffort", is bizarre. There are sources mentioning the club in passing or in a short paragraph, but to me this is insufficient. Fram (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If they are the world's largest fanclub of an extremely notable fictional franchise then the rest is sourcing and clean-up which also seems to be met. Here's a few books that may also help. -- Banjeboi 16:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG - unnotable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable enough to make it into the Guiness book of world records. Dream Focus (talk) 15:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Versomina

Article of a non-notable organization, created out of bad faith with libelous statements and use of blogs and forums as sources. Starczamora (talk) 22:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Haven't heard of that firm; the author probably made it out of frustration or something... Blake Gripling (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have heard of this company and of its shady practices but there's no reliable sources covering this company that I know of. So delete especially since it contains unreferenced negative statements. (If this were a BLP, it would've been speedy deleted.) --seav (talk) 01:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable; first time I've heard of this company, the sources are not mainstream, plus the numerous name changes further put this entry in doubt. The article mostly focused on the lawsuits instead of its finer points. --Eaglestorm (talk) 02:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - may violate WP:COI. — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• ^Speak! 02:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Afterboth (talk) 12:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:COATRACK do we even know what this company does besides these allegations? no. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On the contrary, this company has been allegedly harassing and duping its current and former employees for nearly a decade. There is considerable online sentiment against the company already. This article is notable. CameronDouglas (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has plenty of references, and nothing was made that wasn't in a proper encyclopedic manner. Dream Focus (talk) 15:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Attack article based from online stuff?? Any one with a thing against a company can put anonymous stuff on blogs all day, it does not make notability. RetroS1mone talk 15:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You (Amy Lee song)

Contested prod, found clearing out the old prod categories (since the old prod tag had been reinserted). Original prod reason was "This song does not seem to fit any of the criteria for songs having their own pages. Being by a notable artist does not confer notability." I agree; no sources given either. Bencherlite ^Talk 22:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn per WP:MUSIC. On a related note, I really do dislike the attitude going around among article writers that every song a notable singer writes is worthy of inclusion. Feels a bit like the WP:Pokémon test issue all over again. Firestorm (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hear hear. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Afterboth (talk) 12:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having Googled around, this song has a notable story behind it. The new article just needs to be expanded, with references added. I've added comment to the Talk page of the article, and I believe the author will surely add things in the future. Dream Focus (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Not what AfD is for. However it is a copyvio (of her MySpace page) so I will revert back to what appears to be the last non-copyvio version. Black Kite 08:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Unitt

Copyright infringing material and information obtained from rachel-unitt.co.uk. The material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, or its agent, or the law Trainmoney1 (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm having trouble finding that website -- all I get are dead links. Is it possible the wrong address has been listed? Baileypalblue (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly a notable person. If there are copyvio issue with the article, then use {{copyvio}}. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly notable player on the England national women's football team and a FA Women's Premier League team -- satisfies WP:ATHLETE. Per User:Tagishsimon, any copyvio problems that exist are not to be dealt with via article deletion, since there is an earlier, non-infringing version; that's what editing is for. Baileypalblue (talk) 23:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly an extremely notable sportswoman. If there is copyvio material then just remove it or re-write the article, there is no justification for deletion -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bailey. If it's a copyright issue, then reword it. But she's definitely notable. – LATICS talk 07:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 21:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The NSW Thing

A non-notable church program that verges on promotional. The article has nothing in the way of reliable, independent sources supporting the claims made.

The article was proposed for deletion in September 2007. Mattinbgn\^talk 21:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability, not notable. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A youth retreat which has, according to the article, enrolled a total of 16 students in the two years of its existence. This is not notable. No reliable source coverage of the topic that is independent from the religious organizations associated with it, thus fails WP:ORG. Baileypalblue (talk) 23:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails Notability:products and services. WWGB (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and previous comments regarding notability issues --VS ^talk 06:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Afterboth (talk) 12:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sixteen participants in two years? Sorry, but that is not a notable programme. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability is not even asserted; speedyable. Springnuts (talk) 09:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Jonesy (talk) 09:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for preference; alternaitvely merge to Christian Reformed Church of Australia. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile phone terms across the world

This is not an encyclopedic article and I don't think it has any hope of becoming one. I think it should be deleted as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate colletion of information. I will verify that the interwiki links for all these translations exist on Mobile phone and list any that don't exist on the talk page there fo future reference. BirgitteSB 21:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lists of translations belong over on Wiktionary... and they already have one. Zetawoof_(ζ) 22:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zetawolf --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zetawoof
Transwiki Libanese, Welsh and several other languages are not yet listed at Wiktionary, so deleting the entry would result in the loss of information. Transwiki it and speedy G5 A5 after it is completed. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per Mgm. This would help expand the Wiktionary article where this belongs, not Wikipedia. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

College-preparatory course

Original research essay. No place on Wikipedia for this Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral since the great improvements have convinced me that this might be an encyclopedic topic now. Delete per nom--or per DICDEF. Drmies (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is an important component of the US education system and has been since the 19th century. It is also controversial as can be seen in the discussion in this work. The page was properly tagged for improvement but sending it to AfD 6 minutes after creation is, frankly, wholly premature. This is an encyclopaedic concept that should be sourced and expanded not deleted. TerriersFan (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TerriersFan. First, give the article a chance. Second, being a big cornerstone of the U.S. education system, it should have no problem finding reliable secondary sources establishing notability of these types of courses offered at American high schools. MuZemike 04:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, horrible article. But keep, since it's actually a very important part of the US educational system. In the unlikely (but not unfortunate) case that the article is deleted, it should be recreated. CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Edit: And if it's that new, it shouldn't be taken to AfD anyway. (That would explain the quality issues.) CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Darned if you ain't right. It was tagged for deletion 6 minutes after it was created. Just a touch to pre-emptive perhaps? No disrespects to the nom, but that's kind of a tough way for a new editor to be welcomed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Afterboth (talk) 12:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this stub and rescue it. It's a perfectly good idea. Bearian (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs work but definetely informative. Descibes a definite demarcation within the USA's educational system. College prep, technical, honors, magnet, and more are specific in their education curriculum and studentbody. If, in fact, this article was 6 minutes old when it was put up for deletion someone is misinterpreting article deletion requirements.--Buster7 (talk) 07:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable part of the education process. I have added sources and tagged it for expansion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep, I was partially hoping for some hoax concept or weird computer program of the same title, but no, it's just the same boring concept that is well entrenched in US high-schools to propel students towards college institutions. This is clearly notable and clearly sources exist so all that remains is regular editing. -- Banjeboi 17:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete; likely hoax, but if not still not verifiable despite valliant attempts. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Gaupher Eels

Between the three names (kanji, romaji, or translation), only a single Google hit could be found from Wikirage. Strongly suspected hoax because I find it odd that an anime series in production and announced in Japan wouldn't have any mention by any of the anime bloggers or news websites. Farix (Talk) 20:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if its real it sure isn't verifiable. Probably hoax. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is to be believed, it's not a recent production but from before 1998, and historical anime isn't always easy to find data on. OTOH, it's usually easy to verify their existences, and I can't find a thing on this one. Delete as failing verification, if not an outright hoax. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It doesn't seem to be real, and even if it isn't, it was cancelled early and there isn't one page on it. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax 300%. Guess someone wanted his/her instant of glory by putting some craps in Wikipedia KrebMarkt 21:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Hoax, IMO. ~Itzjustdrama ^{C ?} 23:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax. The only site mentioning its Japanese or English name is plazoo. Dream Focus (talk) 02:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Afterboth (talk) 12:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 19:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX and WP:V as I was unable to find any references on Google, let alone Google News or Google Books, obviously, and as such strongly suspect that it may indeed be a hoax (barring there's a Japanese translation that I missed or something). Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a search for the Japanese name would be more helpful? Ikip (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Focus seems to have tried already above with no real success. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had already searched the Kanji and Romaji forms of the title before nominating it and came up empty. --Farix (Talk) 22:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what was the point of copying the entire article to the talk page of Sunrise (company)?[6] --Farix (Talk) 14:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax or not, the failure of various editors' searches on the English and Japanese language names to turn up sources strongly suggests this material is not verifiable. – The Parting Glass 14:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep, likely bad faith nom. NAC. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Milky Way

Non-Notable Galaxy. Fancruft, must be deleted. MarksSpiteWeek (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like this galaxy, maybe you should move somewhere else. Mandsford (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Vandalistic nomination. Hqb (talk) 20:56, 4 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 to delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Barker (Civil Servant)

Contested PROD. Is this civil servant senior enough to warrant an article? Computerjoe 's talk 20:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N §FreeRangeFrog 21:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has this nomination passed WP:BEFORE? It doesn't seem so as the topic is evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many are for another Ann Barker and I question whether mentions are trivial. Computerjoe 's talk 12:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously we use the sources that relate to this Ann Barker. I question whether you have done the slightest work on this topic per WP:BEFORE or whether this is just a drive-by deletion grounded in ignorance? Colonel Warden (talk) 13:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does been quoted a couple of times consitute notability or is it simply trivial coverage? Perhaps if Colonel Warden is suggesting I should read WP:BEFORE, he should familiarise himself with WP:CIVIL. Back to the argument, WP:N requires 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article.'. My problem is whether coverage is significant or trivial. Computerjoe 's talk 14:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for deletion should be cross-examined closely as deletion is a serious matter. WP:BEFORE is a sensible and proper part of the deletion process so please tell us which of its steps you have followed. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue I am not being examined in this debate, rather the article is. You are electing to make this debate ad hominem as opposed to about the matter on hand. Please would you tell me whether you consider these reports to be sufficiently notable? I have expressed my views but you haven't expanded on yours. That would seem to be the logical next step, as opposed to questioning the events leading to the nomination. Computerjoe 's talk 15:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I indicated above that coverage of this person in the sources provided such as The Guardian is adequate evidence of notability. I have further edited the article to improve the format of its references. I have also asked whether the process of WP:BEFORE has been followed in this case. This is relevant information since details of your discussions with other editors about the topic, your searches for sources and consideration of alternative to deletion might save us the chore of doing these things ourselves. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately, it's irrelevant. My issue is that the coverage is not sufficient. And, at any rate, a Google News Search only takes a few seconds thus it is not really a 'chore'. If anything, it is a much bigger chore for the Wikipedia community to read the steps I have followed, which you ordered me to post. You made several implications such as my being lazy, my not taking AfD serious and you implied I was ignorant. To me, that constitutes a personal attack rather than helping the deletion process. Computerjoe 's talk 17:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is anyone who gives a quote or opinion to The Guardian automatically notable? Computerjoe 's talk 17:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested intervention at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Computerjoe 's talk 15:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Afterboth (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Afterboth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete as nn per BIO. Eusebeus (talk) 17:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:BIO. Coverage doesn't establish notability. Verbal chat 17:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No prejudice to recreation if she does attract substantial coverage in reliable sources. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep do to WP:POLITICIAN which has guidelines which I believe have been met. The example given, says even local mayors and judges, just getting local media coverage, are notable. I found that surprising. Is there any mayor anywhere that hasn't gotten some coverage in their local paper? Dream Focus (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But is it 'significant press coverage' she has? Computerjoe 's talk 19:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://browse.guardian.co.uk/search?search_target=%2Fsearch&fr=cb-guardian&search=%22Ann+Barker%22&N= The first three of the four articles listed are about her. Having read through it, I believe its notable. And the Guardian is a major news source in that country. Dream Focus (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Civil servants are not politicians, and wp:politician doesn't apply. Verbal chat 20:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She is not a civil servant of that sort. She is, amongst other things, a judge and they are explicitly listed in WP:POLITICIAN. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Chair of the Complaints Audit Committee is notable. Judges are listed in politicians only because most US judges are elected. DGG (talk) 02:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rather 'a' complaints audit committee. According to the article its only the one for the immigration service. Computerjoe 's talk 15:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as per above, references include Guardian, The Independent, and The British Times. Ikip (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I have closed this early due to the new accounts that were showing up. It seems there was canvassing off-site to keep the article. Articles for deletion pages are not a vote. --Deskana (talk) 02:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Foswiki

Article and software fork of TWiki. The original software maybe notable but just because the community forked does not mean the new software inherits the notability. There are no significant third party reliable sources that I have found. 16x9 (talk) 20:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another article for a brand new software project that has not established notability in any way, and the fork is hardly controversial. §FreeRangeFrog 21:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an important software fork which took the majority of developers away from TWiki. --Milovlad (talk) 01:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)— Milovlad (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Considering the history, I'd suggest that the TWiki page has less notability than the Foswiki page - the fork having been forced by the takeover of the open source project by the founder's company. Given that all the open source developers - (now at 37 commitors) have moved to the fork, leaving only the founder and his employee as active core developers, I would disagree that the 'fork is hardly controversial'. Additionally, it seems that the TWiki project is doing everything it can to suppress the existence of the fork - most users have never heard of it, nor of the issues surrounding it, and when told pretty much switch as quickly as they can. - Sven Dowideit — SvenDowideit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep Foswiki is a professionel high quality software which has been released as a stable version 09 Jan 2009. We are in progress upgrading TWiki to Foswiki at my own working place Motorola. Sourceforge statistics show an average of 100 downloads per day and growing already 3 weeks after first release. Foswiki will be in the top 20 of Wiki software within long. It makes little sense to delete the article. It also make no sense to delete the TWiki article. Kenneth Lavrsen —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC). — KennethLavrsen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep TWiki project was stalled for a long time and after the fork Foswiki evolved very fast. It has a very active community and contributors. I personally know many users that are migrating cause they have no faith in TWiki and its remaining developers and cause they think Foswiki is the future. Personally I'm involved with Foswiki and much more motivated than I was with TWiki. So I think Foswiki article is absolutely relevant. Gilmar Santos Jr. —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC). — GilmarSantosJr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep I think there should be not even a discussion started about that. Foswiki could be also thought about as a rename, instead of a ork. 99% Of the working community members have left TWiki and joined Foswiki. There is no need for Foswiki to establish. It has at least all features included in TWiki with some new one, and a lot of new one coming. As 99% of the people which have been build TWiki are now building Foswiki, its clear that Foswikis quality is at least as good as TWikis. Looking at both project activities you look at a "2ManProject" ( TWiki ) and a hole, community drive developmemnt of right now 37 developers of Foswiki. Nearly all plugins are maintained on the Foswiki site instead of TWiki. So this one ist just a try of trolling. To give a fact about how Foswiki looks like, this are a list of registered ( mostly real name ) users : [7]. I dont think there should be any doubts that this project is interesting for a lot of people. There is no single reason to register on this page expect: Contributing. Everything except editing can be done anonymous. So i think this is quite a good picture how many people are actually contributing. -- Eugen Mayer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.66.151.218 (talk • contribs) — 88.66.151.218 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment It seems we have a massive conflict of interest here. Please understand articles are removed from Wikipedia because they don't meet guidelines for inclusion, not based on how many developers work on the project or what it was forked from or what its features are. §FreeRangeFrog 04:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note — article tagged for {{coi}}, all involved users notified about editing with a COI, and issue reported to the conflict of interest noticeboard. MuZemike 04:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not have a conflict of interest. I have no ties to Foswiki developers nor to TWiki.net. In the interest of full disclosure, I do maintain a TWiki 4.2.3 site as a minor part of my job, and I did notify the Foswiki developers of this Deletion notice because I thought they needed to know. So, let's call this "massive conflict of interest" all my fault and move on. The split between TWiki.net and the majority of the current developers is significant and notable because it represents a change of licensing. The Foswiki software is notable because it likely would not exist without a dedicated group of open source developers who worked on the TWiki software in the first place. Foswiki appears to have an active community and a viable 1.0 release. The topic is notable because the fork and the project name "Foswiki" is directly referenced in the article pertaining to the TWiki software. --Milovlad (talk) 06:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC) — Milovlad (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep I expect one of the two projects to die in the long run. In any case the TWiki-Foswiki story alone is notable in any respect. Even when TWiki died its history will be interesting for any Open Source project out there building an environment of "Community & Commerce". Besides that there is a clear market trend for users to "upgrade" to Foswiki instead of to the next TWiki release for three reasons: (a) all core developers of TWiki are now on Foswiki, (b) Foswiki has already become a better product and (c) Foswiki has all of the momentum on its side while TWiki.org is a dead place. I can't see why such a viable Open Source project like Foswiki will be less notable in the terms of Wikipedia than a dead project like TWiki. Give it at least another year before deciding to delete Foswiki, TWiki or both. -- Michael Daum 5 February 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.70.40.96 (talk) 08:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC) — 88.70.40.96 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. The Keeps seem to be all from new users unaware of our policies and guidelines and especially WP:Notability. dougweller (talk) 09:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Afterboth (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'll admit right away that I use this software at a large University so there is likely a conflict of interest. Keeping that in mind. Foswiki is a rename of the original fork which was titled nextwiki (copyright issues prevented that name from sticking). Nextwiki received considerable coverage at the time of the fork. TWiki the original project has as well. Here are a few articles to help along the notability argument [8] [9] [10] [11]. I understand a large user/developer base is not enough to establish notoriety, but one would think that plus a the sort of controversy related to the fork and the implications for other open source projects would suggest a certain noteworthiness. But I am not an editor 128.101.102.64 (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Drew Stevenson — 128.101.102.64 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

updated the above so the links hopefully show128.101.102.64 (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'll also admit that I am biased toward this project, as I have used TWiki/Foswiki for more than a decade. That said, this is not a new project, it is in fact a continuation of TWiki, which is very notable in the history of wiki technology (it predates both Wikipedia and Mediawiki by several years), and was the first true "structured wiki". The codebase is very mature, as are the developer and user communities, and the forking has raised notable interest in the technology media world (see references above). I think it important that an objective entry be maintained to help people understand what the project is, that it is fact not new, etc.. My own interest in the project aside, I have reviewed the guidelines for inclusion, and believe this is a useful and notable topic for an article. Tsnfoo (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC) — Tsnfoo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep A former user of TWiki who also followed the natural progression to Foswiki. But this is seriously even being debated? Come on hyper-editors. Vet the table of wikis as I just have, with topic pages on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_wiki_software and please post a convincing argument that Foswiki has less notability than any number of the existing entries. This topic is more informational, more fully cited, and arguably more useful to greater numbers of people than others on that list. It's notable to me, an end user of both Wikipedia and Foswiki. It's notable to universities and fortune 500's that use it. OddMuse or IpbWiki are more notable? More informational and useful to readers than this page?

Craigwbowers (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC) — Craigwbowers (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

'Keep The history makes it notable. COI? There could be in both supporters and deleters. Me? I'm strictly neutral in terms of working on it or using it - or being part of the other side. (I don't and ain't respectively.) No-one's convinced me yet that it's not notable. Peridon (talk) 20:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not a developer, only a user, but I rely on the TWiki/Foswiki codebase to organize collaborative information for a NASA spacecraft mission. We operate seven installs in all coordinating dozens of astronomers and physicists across a dozen universities. Make no mistake, Foswiki *is* TWiki -- it's the same code, the same developers. The only thing that has changed is the name, forced by legal saber rattling, ownership of the ___domain, and of the trademark by only one member of the community -- one whose code contributions the last few years had become minimal. The codebase is notable by any reasonable standard: Gartner's magic quadrant for team collaboration and social software in 2007 puts the codebase at the top of both "completeness of vision" and "ability to execute" among free software Wikis, though of course under the name that the developers and codebase used at that time, namely TWiki. http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=6777 If you look at commit traffic, for TWiki: http://www.ohloh.net/p/twiki/contributors activity has been dying for a while, with a slight rekindling this year after the community formed a governance organization. When that was locked out of use of the name, activity practically ceased, and *all* the primary recent contributors went to Foswiki: http://www.ohloh.net/p/Foswiki/contributors. Activity continues on TWiki by two people, the trademark holder, and a paid employee. Activity level at the continuing community site on the codebase is an order of magnitude higher. Foswiki 1.0 is really TWiki 4.3, an evolutionary upgrade which significant deployments are tracking for upgrade, for instance Motorola, which uses this wiki codebase extensively in house, and the University of Michigan, which manages over a thousand wiki webs with this codebase for student/departmental/organizational use. COI disclaimer: I am not a developer of this software, though I rely on it extensively. I am leaving this comment under my IP, because most of my edits on Wikipedia are tagged just by my desktop IP. I am also the initial creator of the Foswiki page, and registered a name with Wikipedia to accomplish this because it was the first page which I have created from scratch, and thus required me to actually have an account. Don Barry, Ph.D., Spitzer Space Telescope Science Team, Cornell Astronomy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.236.6.98 (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Dayewalker (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In further support of my Keep vote above, I draw attention to the famous case of the Esso trademark battle in the 70s. In the end, the Esso corporation was forced to change names to Exxon in the United States (it remains Esso elsewhere). Obviously "notability" was unchanged in this branding effort. But when the name of software written by people is involved, it seems among some here that the presumption that the new name is not notable until some time has passed, even if the codebase and community is essentially unchanged (particularly when the renaming is not by choice). That would appear to me as a very unfortunate pro-corporate bias, especially in light of the stated Wikipedia culture which is supposed to avoid links to web pages which primarily exist to sell products and services, e.g. the TWiki.net external link on the TWiki page, or the subordination of the twiki.org page to advertising for TWiki.net after the community was locked out. My contributions to Wikipedia have been primarily casual ones, however, and I do not presume to understand the complexities of the culture which has evolved -- I'm merely stating my perspective. (Don Barry) 132.236.6.98 (talk) 20:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. (WP:CSD#G3) Mgm|^(talk) 09:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a gibby

This cites no reliable source - the book listed does not exist - and anyway Wikipedia is not a dictionary or guide to slang made up one day. New author Dacorr (talk · contribs) seems to be the subject of the Bebo link. PROD removed by IP. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neologism at best, should have gone off on WP:CSD#G3, IMO. §FreeRangeFrog 21:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--boy what nonsense. Drmies (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

High Possil

Article has no content other than to state the existence of its subject. I put a prod on it but another user disagreed, therefore I'm listing it here. Furthermore, the article states that the area is 'now known as Milton'. Since Wikipedia has an article for Milton, I'd suggest making High Possil redirect to Milton, Glasgow Cynical (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not merit a standalone page. §FreeRangeFrog 21:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Milton, Glasgow per nom. Firestorm (talk) 03:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the article on Milton mentions buses with High Possil as a destination, this site appears to contradict the idea both are the same place. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 21:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Jack for President

The article speculates about a movie that may or may not be made in the future. It puts the expected release date of the movie as 2008, a date that now is in the past. I can find no evidence that the movie has in fact been made. With the end of the Bush Administration, it is increasingly unlikely that the film will be released. Malatinszky (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NFF - no evidence that it is in production. JohnCD (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It rates a mention in the article about Tom Laughlin, who peaked in 1971 with Billy Jack, but never has recaptured that success. When the article was written a year ago, it said that the film would affect the 2008 election. Try again in '12. Mandsford (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL, among others. Upcoming films that have articles involve some sort of notability criteria above and beyond the notability of its actors/directors/producers/writers. This isn't even close to that. §FreeRangeFrog 21:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The project has apparently been re-named Billy Jack and Jean. Given the name change and likely re-purposing of the project in the wake of the 2008 elections, its sketchy production history, plus Laughlin's history of unfinished projects and health problems, the project would have to be very far along before its release could be said to be almost certain to take place. Baileypalblue (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NFF. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Billy Jack. It was already mentioned there and I adjusted the text to say it wasn't released. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per JohnCD. - Damian Doyle (talk) 12:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Afterboth (talk) 12:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge/redirect to Billy Jack. Oddly enough.... there is enough to support the rumour and discussions of a "possible" film in the main article... but not enough for a seperate article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 21:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hikuta

Non-notable martial arts technique. No indication of wide repute nor any sources arguing for same. Prod tag removed with the comment, 'Gsearch found 1,800 hits for "hikuta self defense"', to which I say:

a) search numbers are not a substitute for actual sources or arguments

b) The actual number is 210 [12]

--CalendarWatcher (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Looks like its already up for a speedy delete (G4), I can't find anything to argue with that. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Add blurb to the Jack Savage page. §FreeRangeFrog 21:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I removed the PROD, mostly because the sole reason was "Non-notable martial arts technique. No indication of wide repute nor any sources arguing for same". If a PROD appears poorly argued and perhaps hastily done, I may remove it with the same ease as it came. "No indication of wide repute nor any sources arguing for same" is indeed a poor reason, because it does not indicate what kind of effort you have gone through to check that - it only says that the article (and not necessarily the topic) lacks indication of notability and sources. I would never have removed the PROD, had you said it was 2nd nomination. I'm sorry to waste people's time on the AfD circuit. Power.corrupts (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I removed the Speedy as the content of this article was different to the content of the deleted articles so it seems appropriate to let this AfD run its course. There is material out on the web about Hikuta. Though nothing rock solid. A review of a book on the subject is done on a dubious website - [13]. I wouldn't say this is an obvious quick delete, though the sources need examining and may not stand up to scrutiny. If someone is interesting in saving this they have a few days to produce some decent sources. SilkTork *^YES! 01:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn; note, the link to Jack Savage actually goes to a baseball player's page. JJL (talk) 00:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think there's any evidence that hikuta even exists. It looks like a joke to me. (Note also that we just got a hikuta question on the Ref Desk -- the timing seems suspect to me.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 12:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What Captain Disdain said. --ColinFine (talk) 23:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G12 (copyright violation from http://www.matriux.com/), if the owner chooses to release the text: G11) advertising. Mgm|^(talk) 09:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matriux

According to the Matriux web-site, this software has not yet been released (not even as a beta), therefore notability cannot have been established. Only references found on internet are self-promotional (eg. YouTube). The "Overview" section is a copy of the text from the web-site's home page (with a couple of words changed), so it is also likely to be a copyvio. MightyWarrior (talk) 19:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable software that doesn't even exist yet? Hard to establish notability for inclusion there. §FreeRangeFrog 21:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I gaze into my CRYSTAL ball and see this article being deleted. But I have no prejudice about the article being remade when/if this distro actually gets released. Grandmartin11 (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Ware-Lane

Individual is merely a candidate for office - the only references are to his selection as a candidate. LondonStatto (talk) 19:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is blatant self-promotion. If he does get elected, he can get an article as a current member of whatever government he's trying to get into. §FreeRangeFrog 21:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. Wikipedia is not an election billboard. His 1980s punk bands and his notable great-great-grandpa aren't enough. JohnCD (talk) 22:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Afterboth (talk) 12:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:POLITICIAN. DWaterson (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Stripey Zebras, as he was a member of a notable band - He was also in Autumn Poison but only passing through. Springnuts (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Kittybrewster ☎ 00:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Cook (songwriter)

No evidence of notability, and totally unsourced. His employers may be notable (both have articles), but that doesn't mean that everyone on their payroll is. This material was originally posted directly to the Steve Cook disambiguation page, for some reason (complete with categories and a stub tag!). I moved it into a proper stub article, but really feel that it should probably just be removed, unless the subject can be shown to be notable with multiple, independent, reliable sources. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Actually, the page Steve Cook was originally a stub about the cyclist. The author of the songwriter material simply nuked that stub in favor of his/her own, and someone later converted it into a DAB page. I have restored the original stub, with additional sourced material, to Steve Cook (cyclist), as he appears to be genuinely notable as a Mountain Bike Hall of Famer. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: If Steve Cook (songwriter) is deleted, he should be removed from the Steve Cook DAB page. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless the author(s) can come up with some sources that establish notability per WP:MUSIC §FreeRangeFrog 21:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching pulls up no reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Song-writers tend to get little praise for their work unless they are the ones to sing it as well. Still, a songwriter would meet WP:CREATIVE if they wrote a notable song. Rather than featuring on the negative aspects of the current articles, someone with access should check if he wrote any. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: "Access" to what? BTW, the article credits him with a single song, which does not appear to be a notable one. The Google results I've looked at for "Before the Throne" all lead to an 1800s song by someone else and various other uses of the phrase, not Cook's song. I do agree that songwriters are often sidelined, and also understand the idea that WP:CREATIVE might be the better subject-specific notability guideline to apply, not WP:MUSIC. But I'm skeptical that this subject would pass that one either. Right now, this article doesn't pass even the basic Primary Notability Criterion in WP:N, so I don't see how it is going to pass more stringent topical tests. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS: More searching turns up various sites crediting his wife, Vikki Cook, with the song, while others confuse his/her/their song with the one from the 1860s ("Before the Throne of God Above", by Charitie Bancroft and William Bradbury). Some get really confused, and credit it to Vikki Cook and Charitie Bancroft! I guess this is evidence of time travel. :-) Also found the Cooks' personal website. Still nothing independent and reliable. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no independent reliable sources WP:MUSICBIO. JamesBurns (talk) 05:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Diaz

Article on a radio show producer who lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Did survive a previous AFD with no-consensus but appears to be known only for the death of his wife, seems to be a case of WP:ONEEVENT at best. Rtphokie (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:ONEEVENT and notability by association at best. §FreeRangeFrog 21:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets general notability guidelines. [14]. I added 4 references to the article, more can be had. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 23:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There might be a case for merging this to the radio show or the radio station because its coverage is pretty local, but deletion for lack of 3rd party coverage clearly doesn't fly. The coverage exists. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment coverage exists but does significant coverage exist? The references in the article are largely local and either only briefly mention Diaz or are concerning this one event. Even this event doesnt seem notable enough since it happened to his wife, not him. But if other editors feel it was significant enough then a merge to the radio station page where he was working at the time seems reasonable enough.--Rtphokie (talk) 13:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is alot of confusion about what about means, i have asked at wp:bio but not much response, for me about means articles mostly about a person, and this does not have it, it is more trivial and one event. RetroS1mone talk 16:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Stanley

Who??? Books Moore (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked the nominator to clarify their reasoning. The mere fact you don't know a person doesn't mean they're not notable. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being a brand new contributor, "Books Moore" may not have realized this. -- Hoary (talk) 09:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I did it. If the delete votes weren't there, I would've closed this nom if it came from a established user.- Mgm|^(talk) 16:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Stanley the photographer is apparently using Wikipedia to promote himself. He has no grounds to have an encyclopedia article because no news report has ever even written him up. Simple as that. In other words: David Stanley. Who??? Books Moore (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This could conceivably be a news article mentioning him, but I wouldn't call it non-trivial, and it may be a ref to the other David Stanley who shows up on Google, who is a travel writer. Either way, the only mentions I can definitely find about this guy are his own websites and a namecheck on places he's uploaded images, so fails WP:BIO. Ka renjc 19:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Links to stock photography websites are not WP:RELIABLE §FreeRangeFrog 21:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In his website, Stanley doesn't resort to Flash gimmickry; so I rather like him. But even his own site doesn't assert his notability. (And his one book is self-published.) So delete. -- Hoary (talk) 09:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC) (Shortened Hoary (talk) 09:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Delete - David Stanley the photographer is apparently using Wikipedia to promote himself. He has no grounds to have an encyclopedia article because no news report has ever even written him up. Simple as that. In other words: David Stanley. Who??? Books Moore (talk) 18:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was created by "Rabid.oneuk.com", who appears to be related to this website and who has also created articles on at least three other people. The percentage of his edits that have been devoted to David Stanley is quite a bit less than the percentage of your own devoted to Stanley. Are you saying that Rabid.oneuk.com is Stanley? -- Hoary (talk) 01:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep** Hi, this is the first time I wrote a page and it got put up for deletion!!! I set up this article. David Stanley is well known in Photography circles. I read David Stanleys book on Holiday, noticed his name in photography magazines and saw some of his photos in an exhibition, noticed his work in a few places and liked his work so looked him up.

He's notable in that is well known in Landscape Photography. 1) Is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. 2) His work has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition and has won significant critical attention and is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries.

One of those names I keep hearing and wanted to know more about. I tried not to put anything in the wiki article I couldn't substantiate with a reference, and was hoping others might know more about him and add stuff, I think the Cuban website is also him, but not 100% sure so didn't ref it. It's a common name, and quite a few news articles refer to "David Stanley" photographer, but wasn't sure enough that it was the same bloke to include them as references. See what others think, his website does not self-promote or anything, he was just someone I was interested in and kept hearing about that wasn't listed on Wikipedia, and I am not Stanley!! :)

Keep David Stanley provided the images for this years (2009) DWP Shared Services Calendar, used by 1000's of UK Government officials. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.25.238 (talk) 08:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete does not have reliable second sources so wp:bio is not there, it is i think promotional RetroS1mone talk 16:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD G5 (creation by banned user). Khoi khoi 23:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nilufer Tarzi

Notability in Question ttonyb1 (talk) 18:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nilufar Tarzi is a very famous person and her jewelry and designs had made some loud noises in the Fashion industry. I sure can expand the article, ie such Bio/life etc but again I think the article should remain, and not be deleted. I am very sure if one in the fashion industry would notice. This maybe boring for some, but not to her fans, fashion lovers etc. Thanks Alishah85 (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. AFD is not the correct venue to discuss mergers. To Mandsford: mentioning material in another article would be a merge which by definition requires a redirect to keep the edit history intact. Mgm|^(talk) 09:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perfection of Wisdom School

Merge:

No sources
Very short
Too much jargon
Should be merged into Mahayana

Jofakēt (talk) 20:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's no need at all to bring suggested merges to AfD. Please see WP:MERGE for the process you should follow. Nick-D (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As Cunard said, best to boldly try the merge or redirect. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Be bold and merge it Jofakēt. This would be Articles for Deletion, not Articles for Merging. Have a lovely weekend. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reason that this can't be mentioned in the article Perfection of Wisdom, which refers to the Prajñā pāramitā. Mandsford (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 02:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chak No. 4 JB Ram Dewali

This article is the subject of a removed speedy deletion notice. It most certainly exists. The question is whether it has any notability apart from a resident who was, for a time, the world's probable youngest Microsoft Certified Professional in some field or other. To me that gives the person borderline notability, not their place of residence. I can find very few references to it online. Offline sources I do not have access to. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ; well, Faisalabad is a metropolis, so there's a reasonable presumption that it has some notable subcity components. But the article makes no claim of notability, and there's not any real information in the article; what's the population, area, important features? The name just doesn't sound notable (notable subsections of a city are rarely numbered), but I wavered between adding without prejudice against recreation or not anyway. There's nothing here worth saving, in any case.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Chak is apparently a nomenclature (accompanied by a number) applied to small villages in Pakistan stemming from the time of British rule in the area. Ram Diwali is the name of a village just north (not west) of Faisalabad. One can assume that Chak 4 and Ram Diwali are different names for the same place. Whether the place is notable or not is another question. However, it has generally been Wikipedia consensus that ALL named places are notable. This article may not be the best representation of the place, but I think it should be improved rather than tossed. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't cite sources off the top of my head, but it's not true that ALL named places are notable. Parks, for one example, aren't. Named buildings aren't. Anything denoted in the census as a city is, but parts of a city rarely get judged worthy of their own article, unless they're really notable parts of a large city. Frankly, as long as we must "assume that Chak 4 and Ram Diwali are different names for the same place", I seriously question whether the article's any good to anyone.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps what WikiDan61 meant to say is that there's been quite a bit of consensus that named inhabited places are notable.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still, no. If I make an article for Pawtucketville, the northwest part of Lowell, Massachusetts, I don't feel at all confident that it will stand.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Ram Diwali and make Chak 4 a redirect. per research by WikiDan61 - Mgm|^(talk) 09:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But reading Chak (village) leads me to conclude that there are dozens of Chak 4s in Pakistan, one for every city. It simply means village 4.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It does seem to be a real place. The question seems to be what the correct name of the article is. Perhaps someone from Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistan could weigh in and help with that? I've left a message there asking for education.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Searchmercials

Neologism, four hits on google, two of which are wikipedia. Tagishsimon (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article (if deleted) can be included in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_advertising article. I have no reason to try to gain hits on Google as I have no websites of my own relating to this subject matter. http://darlenejanis.com is my website. I trully believe that this term does implicidly describe this new trend. DJanis (talk) 13:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms explains why it is a bad thing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand now what Neolodism is. Do you think it can be included in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_advertising article. I still trully believe that this term does implicidly describe this new trend and should be explained. DJanis (talk) 13:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as protologism; the first source in this article apparently invented this term on January 30, 2009. Regrettably, the term "searchmercial" cannot be used even as part of the contents of another article, see Wikipedia:NEOLOGISM#Using_neologisms_within_articles. If sources besides that original web page can be found discussing the idea of "video commercial[s] designed specifically for online search engines," and if those sources meet Wikipedia's reliability standards, then discussion of that subject could be included in Search_advertising, just not under the term "searchmercial". Let us know if you have any more questions about Contributing to Wikipedia; we do appreciate your efforts to build Wikipedia with us. Regards, Baileypalblue (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I can't link to the first source I mentioned because it's blocked by Wikipedia's spam filter, but you can find it by googling "Local Search & Online Video - Why SMBs Need a Video Searchmercial". Baileypalblue (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologisms must go. §FreeRangeFrog 19:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adhara Observatory UFO Lunar Transit

Non-notable event. Google news has zero hits, web hits show only non-reliable sources or pages related to the Wikipedia page, books has no hits, as does scholar. The one reference that is linked in the article is to a non-RS, which has only one paragraph on the event. Article does not rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Fails WP:V. Atmoz (talk) 16:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~~Other editors might find better luck searching under variants of the observatory's name (not clear that "Adhara" is the correct spelling),~~ but I'm not finding any reliable sources under anything I search for. Baileypalblue (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added a reliable source with images. Q Science (talk) 08:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a step forward. I don't know that it's a reliable source, but it does have a references section; if someone were to confirm that those references discuss the event, that would be enough to satisfy WP:FRINGE. Baileypalblue (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very minor event indeed, even by the standards of UFOlogy. I consider the likelihood of any RSs very low.DGG (talk) 02:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no RSes, nn; if I take fuzzy photos do I get to have articles here too? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Ain't no Roswell.--Peephole (talk) 02:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zettai Ryōiki

AfDs for this article:

Simply a definition to a Japanese neologism. References used are blogs and other wikis. Farix (Talk) 15:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this survives I suggest removing the {{anime}} tag, it's of questionable scope to the project Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Commnet Previous AfD discussion includes references that are not blogs/other wikis. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You already tried once to delete it. It is a legitimate term, as they proved in the last discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zettai_Ry%C5%8Diki Having read the past debate, I say keep. Dream Focus (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you're looking for is WP:NOTAGAIN. I would agree, but right now the article is in WP:DICTDEF territory. Compare with, say, tsundere. Now, if the article were expanded, I think we could say "keep" a little more easily. 159.182.1.4 (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge Neologism at best. Isn't there a list of anime terms somewhere where this could be merged? Certainly doesn't seem to merit a standalone article. §FreeRangeFrog 19:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This term is more of a sexual fetish then it is an anime or manga term. --Farix (Talk) 21:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain Not my cup of tea ;) I reposts here the two references that tipped the balance of the previous Afd Akiba Kazei Shumbun Colloquialism dictionary entry up to you to assess their worth again. A pity that people didn't amend the article with those refs. KrebMarkt 20:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Based on a Google translation, the Akiba Kazei Shumbun article appears to be something else entirely, body shaped PC cases, with just a briefly mention the term and the Colloquialism dictionary only provides a definition. While these sources verify the content of the article, they are not the significant coverage needed for inclusion. --Farix (Talk) 21:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A "brief mention"? The article is about those PC cases following the "golden ratio of zettai ryouiki"! If you think that's not enough coverage, it's trivial to come up with more:

[15] Another article from Akiba Keizai Shimbun about a zettai ryouiki photobook.
[16] A column in Mantan (Mainichi Shimbun) solely about zettai ryouiki and thigh-highs.
[17] An article in Asahi Shimbun on Akihabara culture going over the definition of zettai ryouiki.
[18] Interview on ITmedia about some video game focusing on why one of the characters lost her zettai ryouiki in the sequel (a symbol of maturity and adulthood, apparently).
[19] New-Akiba article.

Need I say keep? It's crystal-clear that the subject is notable, as the previous AFD should have demonstrated. I don't have time for article writing at the moment, but then AFD is not the place to ask for article cleanup.

As an aside, AkibaBlog, despite the name, is not a blog but a personal news site. It's certainly no less of a reliable source than Anime News Network, say (if only because it is not unusual for those ANN reporters that aren't Japanese illiterate to use AkibaBlog as a single source). Bikasuishin (talk) 23:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have two objections to this. Firstly, Akibablog is most definately a blogsite - from their about page "AkibaBlog is for people who love Akihabara. This blog is written and updated by Mr. Geek (pen name) and he talks about what is going on at Akihabara.Unlike Akiba PC Hot Line, which talks about news about PC and its relations, AkibaBlog gives you information about stores, figures, comics, DVD, CD, magazines, cosplay, games, events, etc. Mr. Geek goes around Akihabara 360 days/year including New Year’s Day and Christmas". Akiba blog is basically someone going around Akihabara blogging special offers, quickly selling items and the latest eroge products. It is most definately not remotely as reliable as ANN, which is a site that reports "proper" news and not someones casual observations. Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AkibaBlog is a published, third-party, independant source with a reputation for reliable fact-checking, hence meeting the criteria for WP:RS. The fact that it's mostly a one-man operation that commonly reports on pornographic material is hardly a reason to dismiss it. I don't know what "proper" news is, but I do understand that Geek has ample industry recognition, and reports on actual facts as opposed to the kind of gossip and rumors [20] that is frequently found on ANN. Not that all this is really related to the issue at hand, but still. Bikasuishin (talk) 11:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article exists on three other language Wikis, establishing notability. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't work like that Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I wrote in the previous deletion discussion, "Delete for the following reasons, quoting the entire text of the article:

"Zettai Ryōiki (絶対領域, Zettai Ryōiki?) is an anime/manga related term for describing the area of bare skin exposed on the thighs between the skirt and socks for female characters." This is a dictionary definition. "The socks are preferably over the knee type." This is one editor's opinion. "It is a common Tsundere/Meido attribute." This is original research. "The term Zettai Ryouiki loosely translates to Absolute Territory in Japanese." This is plausible, and has no apparent relation to the meaning of the term. "The ratio of exposed skin to the skirt and the socks is generally agreed in standard anime geek/otaku lore as 4:1:2.5 (Length of the skirt : Skin on thigh exposed : Length of the sock above the knee)." This is unreferenced, and I don't anticipate a scientific poll of anime geeks/otaku to find its way into scholarly literature soon. We may have to settle for a careful meta-analysis. "The term is said to have been inspired from the Neon Genesis Evangelion's AT field, but this has no relation to its present meaning." This is unreferenced, and even if a reference were provided, would not elevate the article above a dictionary definition of a neologism. One wonders how much information having no relation to the meaning of the term being defined belongs in its definition. "Anime characters known for their Zettai Ryouiki include Rin Tōsaka from Fate Stay Night, Louise from Zero no Tsukaima, and Karen Stadtfeld from Code Geass." What is the charactistic of their "zettai ryouiki"? Who has noted them? Is there any reason why Wikipedia should have this statement? References: Two blogs and a user page (I think) on some wiki. In short, this is a one-sentence dictionary definition of a term that, as a neologism, does not deserve coverage in Wikipedia, and refers to a concept that itself is not worth an article, even if mentioned on Japanese television (what's not?), used in the porn industry (that doesn't help its case) or trademarked (making something a trademark doesn't contribute to its being noteworthy). Apart from the article, Google claims hundreds of thousands of matches, but #871 is the last one it serves up." The offending text had mostly been deleted, and the article was stable for several months, but the original research with weasel words ("is generally agreed in standard anime geek/otaku lore") and the copyrighted illustration with no fair-use rationale for this article have all been restored. Fg2 (talk) 02:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources provided above (and previously) make it clear this is a notable subject about which an article can be written that is more than just a dictionary definition. Complaints about the current state of the article amount to pointing out it needs cleanup and better sourcing, or WP:NOEFFORT. AfDs are not about the current state, but about the subject itself. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable original research unless non-trivial sources other than the current wiki/blog pages are added. --DAJF (talk) 05:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wiki is not a dictionary. Besides, it's an manga-related slang word, not a standard noun. Oda Mari (talk) 08:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's unquestionably otaku lingo, and the article is unquestionably in pretty bad shape. Neither points are serious reasons for deletion, though. Don't you agree that a good, encyclopedic article can be written about this subject? Reliable sources are a-plenty. Bikasuishin (talk) 11:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article doesn't have reliable references and I couldn't find any either. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an insignificant neologism. Last time, people wrote such comments as I would like to say that people don't decide what's notable, sources and verifiability do. Uh huh. So let's take a look at the three "references": tvtropes.org: "We are not Wikipedia. We're a buttload more informal. There Is No Such Thing As Notability, and no citations are needed. ... We encourage ... original thought". donmai.us: unreferenced blog. akibablog.net: "アキバBlog(秋葉原ブログ)は、『アキバが好き』という方のための、管理人であるgeek(ペンネーム）が運営しているアキバ情報サイトです。" Well thank you Mr or Ms person calling him/herself "geek" (pen name). If Bikasuishin (above) is so certain that there are better sources, then Bikasuishin is welcome to rewrite the article accordingly; and then I'll look at those sources too. -- Hoary (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Personally, i stumbled only once on Zettai Ryōiki while reading anime-manga related blogs so it's a kind of anime Fringe theories. I also looked for others anime related neologism in WP and noticed that something more covered like GAR was absent. KrebMarkt 08:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Barisic

Subject does not mean notability guidelines. There are probably thousands of project managers in IBM. Camw (talk) 15:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable. Bladeofgrass (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply being a project manager (even with IBM) does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO, at best. §FreeRangeFrog 21:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - A7 material. dramatic (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow keep, notable. Bencherlite ^Talk 22:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Moffatts

This article on a minor band has only one source cited, and that turns out to be the home page of a site which might or might not cover the subject, but woudl likely turn out to be unreliable if it did. Guy (Help!) 15:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - far from being a minor band, this shows that they had a number 1 hit single in Canada, which would seem to easily be enough to pass notability requirements..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional info: They also charted three singles (including one inside the Top 20) and one album in the UK (source: the Guinness Book of British Hit Singles and Albums, 18th edition), so they enjoyed international success too. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, um, this was hardly a "minor" band--even I have heard of them and I don't usually listen to this genre of music. Number one hit in Canada, appearances on national TV shows including Good Morning America and Sally Jesse Raphael, not to mention all the numerous appearances in teeny magazines in the late '90s--they switched genres at a convenient time that allowed them to take advantage of the boy band craze. Redfarmer (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Redfarmer. Quick Google search yields plethora of hits. RMJ (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the article lacks sources, tag it as needing sources. Bringing it here just wastes time. Several chart hits, nominated for a Juno, and plenty of Google news coverage:[21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], plus Allmusic bio, and reviews: [31], [32], at least some of which could be used to address the sourcing concerns.--Michig (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This one could probably be considered a case of WP:SNOW if no one has an objection. Redfarmer (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If they have a verifiable single or album that charted in any country, as per WP:MUSIC. §FreeRangeFrog 19:49, 4 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) 02:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raynes Park High School

No asserted notability, unsourced and full of the most unappealing schoolboy drivel, though some of this was removed here. Still a lot of unencyclopedic content, though. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 15:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep High schools are inherently notable as per long-established concensus and an article needing improvement is not grounds for deletion. Edward321 (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per lack of any articulation of notability, lack of sources and lack of a guideline establishing 'inherent notability' (consensus changes by sufficient people saying 'I don't agree', so I'm registering my disagreement with this one). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible keep. I have tidied the article, the school is a comprehensive school, it holds the Sports Mark, it has FA Charter standard, it has Design Technology status, all such schools in the UK have so far been deemed notable which I am aware does not mean this one is but deleting this school would set a very unfortunate precedent. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 16:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks notable and thanks for removing the drivel. Unfortunately, there are millions more articles full of it, still needing to be cleaned up. JBsupreme (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: still no secondary sources, so still no establishment of notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A very important point; my one precisely! ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 17:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete High schools are not inherently notable. Google shows WP as its first hit, and no other sources which provide independent third-party reliable sources with enough material for this ever to be more than a stub. GNews has a few links to articles such as this and this. Fails WP:V. -Atmoz (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I wasn't aware that being a stub is a reason to delete, WP is not the first hit at Google Merton Council is. The article is now referenced by Merton, Ofsted, Direct Gov, E Teach and the BBC. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 17:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per consensus high schools are notable. ArcAngel (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you perhaps provide a link to the policy/guideline which confirms this consensus, for those who don't trust vague references? Thanks. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 17:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Quoting from WP:SCHOOLS In general, tertiary degree-awarding institutions and senior secondary schools are considered notable. 'Senior secondary schools' exclude middle schools and schools that do not educate to at least grade 9/age 15. They include high schools in the US and grammar schools and comprehensive schools in Australia, Hong Kong, and the UK, for example. .Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 17:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The page you quote from is marked with a large red "X" and is clearly labelled, "failed to reach consensus" - is that the source of the consensus referenced above? ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 18:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh dear, cutting sarcasm. No I was merely indicating what many contributors feel about secondary schools. I have no idea what percentage of UK and US 'secondary' and 'high' schools have a listing in Wikipedia but it would be the majority. There is nothing to be gained by deleting this one.Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 18:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on WP:SCHOOLS and User:Paste's research. The Steve 18:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (i) WP:SCHOOLS failed to gain consensus, (ii) this school fails it anyway as it has not "been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources." The passage quoted above was merely an "indicator" not a criterion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not only a high school but a specialist school with Sports Mark status. This is a former grammar school which adds to its notability. It is also the only school I have come across with a Guinness World Record which is a clear claim to notability. sources available to meet WP:ORG.TerriersFan (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but not because it's "inherently notable". Again, this is a case where "high school" has a different meaning in Britain and Australia than it does in the United States and Canada. As the article points out, the students are aged 11 to 16. Does that mean that British people are smarter than Americans, since most Americans don't graduate from high school at age 16, or that Brits are less educated because they don't go beyond "Year 10". No. However, as Terriers points out, this school has demonstrated notability on its own merits. Mandsford (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is an interesting and important secondary school with a long history. As with many historic schools, it has undergone a name change in recent years. There are a number of Google hits for its old name "Raynes Park County Grammar School" such as this one from the National Archives' website [33]. There are also a number of what look like important alumni. The change to 11-16 education will have been a recent innovation, and the children will presumably move on to the local sixth form college. It is meaningless to make comparisons with American schools as the terminology is completely different in the two countries. 00:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment: if the notability of the topic is asserted to be due to its history under other names, then both the name-change and the prior history must be discussed, and sourced, in the article. All these unsubstantiated claims about "Sports Mark", "FA Charter standard" & "Design Technology status" means very little to those not intimately involved in the UK school system. To have actual meaning, they need to be described in the article, with sources and with links that explain their context (not random links to semi/un-related topics as has been done to date). Articles need to clearly articulate notability -- not leave both readers and AfD commentors to guess what it might be. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sportsmark is sourced; design college status and the FA award (and other awards) are sourced by the Oftsed report. If you are not familiar with, for example, "Design Technology status" then follow the link. Sure the article needs expanding and better in-line sourcing but this is a reason for expansion not deletion and I look forward to your contribution in this regard. TerriersFan (talk) 05:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Design Technology' in the article links to Technology College. 'FA' above links to this disambiguation page, which contains no relevant link. One would normally expect schools to receive all sorts of minor accreditations. Were the accreditations notable, one would expect to see them documented in secondary sources (not just primary sources such as Oftsed, or similar regulatory bodies) -- an expectation that wikipedia itself explicitly makes. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:22, 5 February 2009

(UTC)

Speedy Keep It's snowing and so this school should be closed. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for better or worse, call it consensus or practice, high schools are kept - no reason to depart from that practice (or consensus) here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Denny's. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nanerpus

I can find some blogs that discuss this commercial, but no reliable sources. I have a hard time believing this will ever be considered in the category of 1984, or even the Budweiser Frogs. It's a silly commercial...just like most of the commercials you might see nowadays. There's nothing to indicate anything's special about this particular one. I wanted to add a speedy tag to it, but none seemed to apply well enough. Prod was removed. Onorem ♠Dil 14:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Denny's. This is a useful redirect -- plenty of ghits and blog coverage, but a complete lack of reliable sources means it fails the primary notability guideline; even marginally notable ad campaigns like Subway's "five dollar foot long" get reliable source coverage. If it had some RS coverage, WP:NOT#NEWS would still be an issue. Could eventually be covered as a section of Denny's or developed as a stand-alone article if the campaign ever develops reliable source coverage and historical notability enough to warrant it. Baileypalblue (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: could also be redirected to Super Bowl advertising if people think that's a better ___location, but I don't think this will ever have notability as a Super Bowl commercial, though it could one day have notability as a Denny's commercial, if the campaign is extended. Baileypalblue (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's too early to determine the significance of this spot -- it's part of a major national campaign by Denny's (gangsters and cowboys) that's been created by a major creative ad agency. There is clearly a groundswell of popularity around this that could become a phenomenon in time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlebabylamb (talk • contribs) 21:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's too soon to assess it's significance. That's why it doesn't belong here right now. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The breakfast event may have been covered, but that doesn't extend notability to a character from one of the commercials. --Onorem ♠Dil 21:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok this is how it is. Nanerpus is thebomb.com and is basically the most ballin outrageous commercial ever and all you haters can get lost cause nanerpus is where it's at. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.0.20 (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to Denny's, merge small amount content to the super bowl commercials article, if need be. The is the saddest redirect !vote of my life because I completely agree with the anon IP that it is thebomb.com. No really, I LOVE THE NANERPUS. For what it's worth, theconsumerist.com seems a bit obsessed with the commercial, see here, and here. SMSpivey (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Denny's. Not notable enough to warrant its own article. -- Darth Mike (join the dark side) 04:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there should be an article for The Perlorian Brothers - which Nanerpus can then become a section of that article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.125.6.101 (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legal challenges to NSA warrantless searches in the United States

While adding wikilinks for Vaughn R. Walker, I discovered this orphan WP:FORK. I'd suggest merger to NSA warrantless surveillance controversy, but the WP:COATRACK material is wildly out of date (there don't seem to have been substantive edits in over a year, during which there have been several court decisions tearing apart some of the more poorly-reasoned district court opinions, not to mention bipartisan congressional legislation that has generated its own litigation), factually inaccurate, and incomplete, with one-sided reliance on unreliable sources. Even if the article were kept, and even if you disagreed with me on the NPOV problems, it would require a complete rewrite from top to bottom to have any quality. THF (talk) 14:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nominateor puts it perfectly. While there are sources, and while AFD is not cleanup, we need to take a tougher stance against coatracks. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No reason why any salvageable material can't be dealt with (with appropriate concision) as part of the parent article.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ArcAngel (talk) 17:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 19:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't see the rack for the coats. §FreeRangeFrog 19:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bladeofgrass (talk) 01:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not a place to debate mergers. Significant portions of text can not be found in other articles, and there is no specific article on the "legal challenges". Invalid arguments like "material is out of date", or "there are inaccuracies" only show the lack of any rationale for deletion.Biophys (talk) 02:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yasir Iqbal Randhawa

This non notable resumé keeps having its speedy deletion tag removed despite total lack of notability. It also keeps popping back up after speedy deletion. It seems a great shame to have to tell the originator by full discussion that he is plain not notable and should be deleted, but it looks as if that is what we will have to do. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fast as possible. Peasantwarrior (talk) 14:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
note that the originator has removed the AfD banner and has been warned. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

note that the originator did it once more and received a final warning. Peasantwarrior (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete pure vanity page with no notability!! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JS Huntlands

This article appears to be written by the actual person (see username of creator and book cover image file), meaning a conflict of interest. The article fails notability for an author as she hasn't been subject to Multiple independent reviews. External links to buying the book have been removed as spam. DFS454 (talk) 13:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ADDENDUM This article contains so much original research that if it was removed there would be hardly anything left. Remember the criteria for inclusion is verifibility not truth see wp:ATT--DFS454 (talk) 16:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. CoI is not a reason for deletion. "Huntlands is currently taking part in interviews. She has been in the newspapers and on live radio shows." implies that multiple references exist, and three radio appearances are listed. Possibly not a great book and the article needs copyediting, but I think it squeaks by. -- Eastmain (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The book has only just been published so I think with publicity in Wales (swanseasound) and heartfm in the midlands there is coverage. I have also found copies sold in New Zealand which I feel should be added on to the artical. JS Huntlands (talk) 15:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Saying it's been talked about on Heart FM is not enough. Can you provide a web link to a transcript? Most of the "references" you added were just external links to buy it. Which is against policy--DFS454
(talk) 16:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)1:authorhouse/publisher September 2008[reply]
KEEP

is this ok? --JS Huntlands (talk) 16:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I truncated the so called "references" as it was a very long unformatted series of spam links to buy the book. The list cn be viewed here --DFS454 (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, not really. Your own website is not OK and listing of the book on booksellers websites are not OK. However, the Burton Mail article[34] is good because it is directly about you by an independent, third-party,reliable source who thought you were worth writing about. Got any more like that? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. JS Huntlands is waiting on interviews with derbyfm RAM FM. She is also waiting on aa interview conducted by The Loughbrough Echo. Please keep this artical for another few weeks and watch the 'third partys' add up. Now added 4:Heart106 Feb.2009

5:Loughbrough Echo 2009 6:Derby FM 2009 7:RAM FM 2009 8:Measham Messenger 200882.19.176.162 (talk) 09:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AFD is not a vote please do not "vote" twice whilst logged out. "While the third partys" add up? Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball. And not adhereing to this seems like you are using it for self promotion. --DFS454 (talk) 10:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This doesn't even come close. If all there is is an interview in a local paper about the upcoming book, that is not enough. If there are reviews about the book those would be relevant. But this isn't simply about finding an article that mentions it. It has to be notable on top of that. The notability has to exist, and then articles are used to demonstrate that it does. The book is available on Amazon in the UK, so that bodes well, but from what's listed here, I'm not seeing enough. Yes WP:COI is not a default reason for delete, but it is strongly discouraged. Also, posting large unformatted lists of links is not helpful. Pick a few good ones and post them with proper links. Shadowjams (talk) 09:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Please help me so the page can be kept82.19.176.162 (talk) 10:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think this is a good example of why writing your own biography on Wikipedia is discouraged. The article suffers from most of the problems outlined in WP:Yourself. The notability of the subject has been questioned, there's lots of original research, and the article fails to maintain a neutral point of view. Due to the article's tone, I feel that it may also be questioned whether the article was written with promotional intent. decltype 15:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cant you delete what is not to be used on the artical so as the page can stay?82.19.176.162 (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC) KEEP please do NOT delete I even added This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this article if you can. (February 2009)in hope that somebody might help me to meet wikapedia instructions. 82.19.176.162 (talk) 14:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note As I'm sure you've noticed, the attention that has come from this debate and the cleanup tags have led other users to the article and they have improved it. Personally I have done a fair number of edits, added the infobox, etc. However the issue being discussed here is not as much about the style but about the article's topic (although it would be naive to say that the style of the article doesn't influence editor's opinions about the topic). Within the Wikipedia world there is nothing new that can be done to increase a topic's notability, other than to add WP:RS to the article.

I strongly suggest that you take just a few minutes to read through this for information on what needs to be added to this page. I also strongly suggest that you browse, and use a markup reference when writing on wikipedia. I've noticed you've been trying to add references to some of the fact templates, but the format you're using isn't recognized by the wiki engine and as a result it shows up in bizarre ways on the main page. The above link should show you the wiki format for these tasks. Shadowjams (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted as a brief article without context: Ekotata is a word created by ... . The word has yet to have a definitive meaning, but according to Matt the closest true meaning of the word is "whatever you want it to mean" ...

Ekotata

The article admits to failing WP:MADEUP, and thus fails WP:N and WP:V in the process. Is also a WP:DICDEF and is completely unsalvageable; it clearly does not belong in the wiki. Firestorm (talk) 13:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as the original prodding editor, I completely agree with the nominating editor's reasoning... - Adolphus (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP. Salih (talk) 14:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ditto. Ddawkins73 (talk) 15:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wayles Browne

Non notable academic who fails WP:PROF Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 13:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no articulation of why this topic meets WP:ACADEMIC. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Wayles Browne is also one of the few significant poetry translators of contemporary works by Bosnian authors into English. —User:Stephkru (talk) 22:00, 4 February 2009 (EST)
Keep: One of the most significant American linguistics experts on contemporary Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian language. See [[35]] User:Stringbergrex^Talk 22.50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Question: what RS evidence do you have that "Wayles Browne is also one of the few significant poetry translators of contemporary works by Bosnian authors into English" or that he is "One of the most significant American linguistics experts on contemporary Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian language." Differences between standard Croatian, Serbian and Bosnian makes no explicit mention of him. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: The following might be considered as RS evidence: [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43]User:StrindbergRex Talk —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: none of these links substantiate any of the above grandiloquent descriptions, nor demonstrate that Browne is more than an averagely-capable academic linguist. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Given the specificity of the topic, I would say that these Google Books and Scholar search results indicate notability.--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: and I would state that they demonstrate nothing of the sort. Running 'Harzing's Publish or Perish' on 'EW Browne' yields a total of only 10 citations to his work -- a pitiful total. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: However, please note that even Harzing itself notes that their impact factor may be inapplicable to narrow fields and less applicable to Humanities than other areas: If an academic shows good citation metrics, it is very likely that he or she has made a significant impact on the field. However, the reverse is not necessarily true. If an academic shows weak citation metrics, this may be caused by a lack of impact on the field, but also by one or more of the following: 1. Working in a small field (therefore generating fewer citations in total); 2. Publishing in a language other than English (LOTE - effectively also restricting the citation field); 3. Publishing mainly (in) books. All three of these things hold true in Browne's case. He 1. Works in a very small field (the journals in which he publishes, such as the Journal of Slavic Review, are NOT EVEN LISTED in Eigenfactor Linguistics, for example - so how could he have a high impact factor if this is the case?; 2. He publishes in languages other than English and 3. He publishes mainly in books. Additionally, if one considers translation to be a form of art, he must also be measured beyond the academic standards. It is true that translating from Serbo-Croation is a very narrow area, but because of the Yugoslav war, there is almost no functioning publishing system in that country. Bosnian artists have been spread across the world as refugees, and their translators are rare. Please do reconsider this in your evaluation. --Stephanie Krueger (talk) 14:40, 5 February 2009 (EST)

Weak Keep A classic example of when not to use citation counting. Negative results in GS are not necessarily meaningful. However, that an incorrect argument was used by itself does not make him notable. A just adequate publication record [44] On balance, keep because of likely cultural bias in finding material.DGG (talk) 03:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His linguistic work makes him a significant within his field. I've added some evidence of this to the article, and I'm sure that more could be found by someone with knowledge of the area. The fact that Slavic linguistics has only a few English-language journals makes apparently low citation counts (even on a more thorough search) unreliable as evidence against notability. EALacey (talk) 11:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World Constitution

Original research. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 13:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, likely speedy delete because it really doesn't have a subject to be about: This collection of material was put together and does not exist in this form in reality. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NFT, but I don't see this falling under A3 speedy. Might as well just let this run. Townlake (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; prototypically WP:NFT and WP:BALLS; threatens to blossom into WP:COATRACK ("a combination of the world's best laws and ways of governing" inherently requires opining on what are the "best" and the criteria for making the determination); lastly, even if all the foregoing weren't so, and if we resolved to take it seriously, it would be WP:CRYSTAL. Doesn't appear to meet any CSD, though.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like Tears for Fears said, everybody wants to rule the world. This appears to be a cool idea from a high school student, who concedes that "This collection of material was put together and does not exist in this form in reality." and that "This constitution is only viable if all the world is united under one government". However, it's only one man's opinion about what the ideal constitution would be. Mandsford (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; opinion, speculation, original research. FreplySpang 02:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SAXA, Inc.

No sources except company website; small company; non-notable —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 11:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree, fails WP:ORG Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 14:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no showing whatsoever of importance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ArcAngel (talk) 17:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should have been WP:CSD#G11 to begin with. §FreeRangeFrog 19:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel james mccrory jr

This was tagged for CSD A7 but several medals assert notability and a Google search on the name suggests there might be sources, though I didn't found them directly. It is sufficiently fishy to warrant discussion instead of leaving it lying around unattended (which would happen if I merely removed the tag) Mgm|^(talk) 11:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Googled it and couldn't find anything at all. Can you show me some of the results you got? I suspect a hoax/vandalism (I realized I tagged it for A7 in error, but it was too late by than, I'd tag it for G3. Thanks! Peasantwarrior (talk) 11:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found this, but that's just titles without actual articles to peruse. Hence me calling it fishy. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per fishiness outlined by MacGyverMagic. That one website doesn't say anything, it doesn't even state who the person is and it certainly doesn't account for all the medals claimed in the article. Peasantwarrior (talk) 13:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of verifiability, possible BLP violations (especially relating to the subject's parents and step-family), and generally for looking like spam. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced, unverifiable. Edward321 (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone. JBsupreme (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless it can be sourced and cleaned up. Fails WP:BLP big time. §FreeRangeFrog 19:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 21:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Occupations of the future

This entry is pure speculation and original research. It only links top level domains, and even if it would cite any relevant studies, it would be a copyright violation for directly repeating the study. No matter how hard you study, there's no solid way to predict the future. Article also doesn't state the relevant country the study was done in. I recommend deletion. Mgm|^(talk) 11:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment a splendid example of an article which could well be written, but as is, is not. Many hundreds of sources, and definitely not limited to the one study cited. Because it is an "Actual topic" of discussion, it is not WP:CRYSTAL - we pretty much know that there will be occupations in the future, and all the article needs to show is where the main studies and articles think they wll be. Collect (talk) 11:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added some concrete material, deleted spamlink. No OR needed. Collect (talk) 12:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are certainly some reliable sources that could be used to come up with a reasonable article if someone had the time to do it. —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 13:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Mostly WP:OR and wikipedia's not a WP:CRYSTAL ball for such speculation. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Speculative and essay-ish at best, nevermind WP:OR. §FreeRangeFrog 19:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the subject inherently invites crystal ball material. While it might be a subject of interest, it is not a subject of interest about which anything definite can be said, even using published sources. WillOakland (talk) 04:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This falls squarely under WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 14:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; misses all the major ones: Starship captains, Carbon cops, Glacier measurers, and Klingon translators. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 21:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ballymacelligott Handball Club

Appears to fail the notability guidelines for groups/clubs. Asserts no secondary sources of any kind (fails "significant coverage"). Very limited scope of activity (fails "national/international scope"). Etc. (Also article was previously primarily a "copy and paste" from the group's website and appears to have been created by an account with COI issues.) Guliolopez (talk) 10:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Guliolopez (talk) 10:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CSD A7 (club). Should be non-controversial. Firestorm (talk) 13:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete makes no claim to notability and has no references that might alter that. ww2censor (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ArcAngel (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Snappy (talk) 09:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Professional mastermind network service

Spam disguised as neologism. We already have articles about Napoleon Hill and Think and Grow Rich. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article for Professional mastermind network service is not another page about Napoleon Hill the author of Think and Grow Rich. The article sets out to distinguish and help netcitizens learn the variations between a social network service, professional network service, and professional mastermind network service. The "Mastermind Principle"Italic text as setout in the article about Hill's book "Think & Grown Rich". It is a great biography of Mr Hill and links to other articles and his life long mentor Andrew Carnegie. The unique difference between Hills article and this article Hills article is an biography it does'nt educate wikipedians on the emergance of a new catagory of mastermind network service ofprofessional network service^[1] or social network service^[2]. - Danholmesdxb (talk) 11:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article seems to mostly be on the book "Think and Grow Rich", not its title. It has no real references on the title and the infobox seems to be spam for a website. References used do not meet WP:RS in many cases (refs are to Wikipedia articles in some cases). A Google search on "Professional mastermind network service" reveals only this article. I see no chance of this being saved, delete it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- sources What is PERFECT NETWORKER?^[3],Search results for ‘Mastermind’ on Ning^[4] see google for mastermind groups and how they're using such network services. Danholmesdxb (talk) 12:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you search the exact phrase (in quotation marks) "Professional mastermind network service" on Google, you find nothing except the Wikipedia article. This phrase is a neologism and not notable. Furthermore, the infobox links to the website of someone (Dan Holmes) whose name matches the article creator's user name, so this has major WP:SPAM and conflict of interest issues as well. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Preferred term seems to be Professional network service and this article already exists. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The articles terminology as it is being used is trying to establish one clear major differance from Professional network service - in contrast a mastermind network service is not a business contact or Professional social network. A mastermind network service members work in close nit groups of well established personal relationships within each private mastermind network group. This sets a Professional mastermind network apart from other such services - the benefits are clearly different for its members. Maybe a article name change move to Mastermind network service is needed? Ideas, Thanks Danholmesdxb (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the criteria on notability: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. I do not find any such coverage in reliable sources (like news articles) that are independent of the subject (so a website from a firm that bills itself as such is not independent). Finally since you seem to be the owner of the website linked ion the infobox, you have a serious conflict of interest and should not be writing this article, even if it were notable. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete...as per Editor:Ruhrfisch above and my comments below. --Buster7 (talk) 02:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Discussion page is the only purpose here now only to delete? That's why there are discussion pages I guess and for Wikipedians to copyedit together if they so want too in the free encyclopedia. Cleanup & helpme have been used and change have been made, further work still to be done with time. Danholmesdxb (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's why it is called "articles for deletion" - delete, keep, and merge are about the only options here. I looked at all 7 references. One is about brainstorming, six are either about Napoleon Hill or his book "Think and Grow Rich" (including three sepearte refs to the book itself in various editions). None of them mentions the title of this article by name. As noted (repeatedly) we have articles on Mr. Hill and his book and brainstorming already. If your business takes off (and I hope it does) in a few years there will be lots of independent third-party sources on this. Until then, it is not notable, you have a major conflict of interest and the article should be deleted. Wikipedia is not advertising for internet start ups - see WP:NOT Ruhrfisch _{<fontcolor="green">><>}°^° 20:14, 9February2009(UTC)

- - I also have made efforts to improve this article but it was under the assumption that PMNS's actually existed. Now I'm not so sure. Currently, my belief is that this article is being created under false pretences. No amount of referencing to obtusely connected sites will "pass the mustard". I suggest that this article be deleted until such a time as it is notable enough for Wikipedia--Also...your contributions show only involvment with this article and others pertaining ONLY to it. That seems to confirm a conflict of interest.Buster7 (talk) 20:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Professional network service." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 3 Feb 2009, 20:37 UTC. 4 Feb 2009 <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Professional_network_service&oldid=268321025>.
^ "Social network service." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 30 Jan 2009, 02:36 UTC. 4 Feb 2009 <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_network_service&oldid=267326391>.
^ http://www.perfectnetworker.com/
^ http://www.ning.com/?view=search&term=Mastermind

I wonder...

Is their such a thing as PMNS (Pro MM netwrk Service)? Or is this just an army of one?? Have we been duped??? Is this an attempt to gain notariety prior to realtime existence????--Buster7 (talk) 14:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100%. The main author of the article is Danholmesdxb or Dan Holmes, with DXB being the airport code for Dubai. The founder and sole member of the imindlive website / PMMNS linked in the inforbox is Dan Holmes and the company is in Dubai. Under what is a PMMNS on that website the first link is to this article on Wikipedia. Quack! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 21:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Covenant Church of God

This is a disambiguation page for redlinked articles. Notability for such a page is not established. Drumpler (talk) 10:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Drumpler (talk) 10:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are also a number of redirects which link here that likewise seem non-notable. See [45] Drumpler (talk) 10:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment Appears to have been caused by renaming one article in the past which no longer exists, and, apparently, one person felt a disam page made more sense than a simple redirect. Does anyone know why the NCCG(Sweden) article is now gone? The LDS links are clear -- this was a former LDS sect. Actually an interesting topic perhaps - but not needing a disam page at this point. Collect (talk) 12:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion log should provide some insight. The group renamed itself and so the disambig page was originally made, but it was decided that it wasn't notable enough for mention in an encyclopedia. Drumpler (talk) 12:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with all the redirects that link to it. It does not appear that any organisation notable enough for an article exists at the head of all the chains of redirects and DAB pages: if an acceptable article gets written one day, any necessary links can be provided then. JohnCD (talk) 12:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is just a list of redlinks. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete collection of nn churches; parishcruft. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of birthday songs

AfDs for this article:

This is being relisted for further discussion after a deletion review to take account of a major rewrite versus the end of the previous discussion. Note to closing admin: I have not restored the revisions containing the removed lyrics, but if the list is being kept, it might be advisable to double check if that was actually necessary. Procedural nomination. Tikiwont (talk) 09:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep albeit the copyright status in the US of the song should be noted. [46] Collect (talk) 12:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well referenced, I don't see the problem. Ikip (talk) 14:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good standalone list for a notable topic. Is this simply a procedural nomination, or is there a rationale for deletion to advance here? Townlake (talk) 15:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A procedural nomination as suggested in the DRV (now also amended above), noting that even after the rewrite participants in the previous discussion argued for deletion. --Tikiwont (talk) 15:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. References are very poor. Stifle (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ as a directory. Its content would be better placed in the relevant articles for the songs. Benefix (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having this information in one place serves to improve wiki. Readers can then follow internal links back to articles they never even knew existed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Providing internal links to other articles is obviously a useful, directory type function and does not justify the existence of an article. However I have withdrawn my !vote because I can see where this is going. Benefix (talk) 19:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is cool. Might consider WP:CLN but there aren't enough inclusions there to merit a category, either. That doesn't mean the information isn't useful. §FreeRangeFrog 20:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an invalid argument per WP:USEFUL. Benefix (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't care. This is a non-controversial list of things that is not violating any guidelines at all. When someone Googles "birthday songs" and ends up on this page, maybe they'll say hey, I know the traditional birthday song for Micronesia and add it, or maybe click on a redlink and create the article for one of the songs already listed there. That's the whole frakin' point of this frakin' project, if I recall. §FreeRangeFrog 16:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm glad this was relisted, since it was substantially improved while the first deletion debate was going on. Mandsford (talk) 21:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improved quality, content, and sourcing. Nice job. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep definitely a notable subject.Smallman12q (talk) 00:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the editor who did the improvements and brought the DRV. Ironically, I think we may need to actually restore the deleted revisions for copyright reasons (i.e. to comply with the GFDL), as there was a lot of edit history and I did derive the list from the previously existing list that included the lyrics. Given the suspect status of the copyright in Happy Birthday to You, and that having these revisions lurking in the edit history in no way harms any commercial value of the song, which is based on public performance and recording rights rather than reproduction rights (what commercial value could there possibly be in publishing just the lyrics to a short and simple song that is already well-known to almost everyone on the planet who natively speaks the respective language?), I think it is a slam-dunk fair use case to restore these revisions in order to comply with the GFDL. DHowell (talk) 02:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - some cleanup is needed and more entries need to be included (such as "Happy Happy Birthday Baby" by the Tune Weavers), but it is clearly at a higher standard than the version I saw at the previous AfD. With the withdrawal of the "Delete" !vote above, are we getting close to a WP:SNOW keep? B.Wind (talk) 03:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Since the nominator did not suggest deletion, I'm closing this nomination. While a merge may be a valid outcome, AFD is not the venue to discuss mergers. Mgm|^(talk) 13:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations Security Council Resolution 884

Merge and Redirect to UN Security Council Resolutions on the Nagorno-Karabakh War. The article is about one of four resolutions passed by UNSCR regarding the Nagorno-Karabakh war. It has no prospect of growing out of its stub form. VartanM (talk) 08:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think this article and those about the other 3 resolutions should be kept. Each resolution had its own background, and these articles have a potential for futire expansion. For some reason the other 3 articles were redirected without any prior discussion to the general article that only lists the 4 resolutions, not providing any details. So keep this one and the other 3. --Grandmaster 08:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May I also remind you that this falls under WP:NOT. VartanM (talk) 10:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a catchall for UNSC resolutions - I can imagine people wanting to see what they are, but, in general, they make for short articles. Their impacts generally are found in other articles, hence no need to have these grow much at all. Collect (talk) 12:28, 4 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). —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Solar power in Alameda County

Not a notable topic, seems like an advertisement Troyster87 (talk) 08:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Santa Rita Jail. This article mainly consists of material that should be there (including a source that is better used to reference the entry on the jail). - Mgm|^(talk) 12:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is one of a series of articles relating to Solar power in the United States. It discusses "one of the largest solar roofs in the United States" and so is notable. It is encyclopedic and obviously not an advertisement. There is no point in burying this material in Santa Rita Jail, and the source referenced is about clean technology, not the jail. Johnfos (talk) 21:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should be renamed largest solar roof in united states. solar power in alameda county is not notable.Troyster87 (talk) 23:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The title of the article was structured to include not just the solar panels on the jail, but all aspects of solar power in Alameda County, which is a huge county, something like Suffolk County on Long Island. Being in the Bay Area, it is right next to silicon valley (Santa Clara County), and you can expect a lot of solar projects there. I will look for some other bits that can be included. Apteva (talk) 22:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no content on anything other than the santa rita solar roofTroyster87 (talk) 23:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look again. Apteva (talk) 00:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'd prefer to see articles about solar power by state rather than county to avoid getting masses of articles, but it passed the concerns I had before. (Next time: write the article before putting it live to avoid votes like the one I made above). - Mgm|^(talk) 10:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment again how is this topic notable? one of the largest foortop solar systems, cite that? and if so, why is one of the largest notable, shouldnt just the largest be of note. there is no state level article either. there is no precedent for this kind of article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Troyster87 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kristen Aldridge

AfDs for this article:

Since article was created presumably by the subject (Celebjournalist), article has lacked any reliable third party sourcing that would reasonably expound on subject's career and notability achieved in her field. Since first afd nomination, article has undergone a series of edits by multiple parties to improve sourcing and conform to BLP standards. Since that time the two sources that remain outside of self-published are a Minnesota Monthly link that leads to a questionnaire absent of a reporter and reads entirely in the first person, and a New York times link which apparently leads to a filmography aggregator listing one credit. Subject recently added having won a Regional Emmy which is somewhat true but in so far as it was awarded to an organization of which she was part of a larger team. In my own experience with local television and related Wikipedia articles, even those awards given for individual achievement are generally not considered encyclopedic unless the subject has amassed a number over their career, or received something akin to a lifetime achievement award such as a Silver or Gold Circle designation from NATAS. Tmore3 (talk) 07:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO sets the notability threshold at having been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." This broad statement is then qualified; simply being mentioned in such a source doesn't suffice: if "the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." Aldridge is certainly the subject of this MM Q&A, and I assume arguendo that MM meets the standard of being reliable, etc. Nevertheless, the nomination seems to stand or fall on whether this lone Q&A is of "substantial" depth; if it is not, the other materials cited in the article don't make up the deficit. The NYT link doesn't even rise to the level of trivial (pro forma, if anything), and the other two references fail the independence prong (one is a story by her employer; the other is by her company). I'm undecided at this point, but wanted to put my thought process out there in case it helps other editors.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete bit-part player, no non-trivial reliable independent sources offered. Guy (Help!) 19:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability by association is not notability, at least not here. §FreeRangeFrog 20:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am willing to accept the regional emmy as notable for her region, and not refuse it simply because no one in London or Paris might care. Notable is notable and it should be considered under WP:CSB. Further, I am willing to accept the less-than-trivial article in Minnesota Monthly and the in-depth Busted Coverage interview as tweaking the GNG. She need not be a correspondent in New York or Los Angeles to be notable. I suggest the stub article be tagged for expansion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply http://www.bustedcoverage.com/ is not a reliable source, per WP:BLP Reliable Sources. The ESPN link is an employer link, and the Minnesota Monthly link is neither an independent article or review. This publication incidentally has featured many in-depth balanced profiles of notable Minnesotans. To see an example, go to the search on the top of that MM page and type "Lori Swanson", the first result is noted as an 'Article' and going to it reveals a reporter and publication date of when it was featured. Similarly, type in "Kristen Aldridge" and note it is listed as a 'Page' with no reporter or publication date listed. In also reviewing WP:CREATIVE subject seemed to fail virtually every criteria and has been given more than enough time to find a few independent reliable sources. Tmore3 (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stick Arena

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable webgame. No reliable sources. Only blog and amateur coverage. Fails to meet WP:WEB and WP:CORP Peephole (talk) 21:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no sources and no notability. Jofakēt (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete you have to be a pretty notable Flash game to cut the mustard. This one doesn't even have a knife. JuJube (talk) 08:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - reviewed by Channel 4, a reputable source, but nothing else besides that fluke. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If this gets deleted, and it seems that it probably will, what will happen to the Stick Arena: Go Ballistick! article, which is basically a fork of this one? FlamingSilmaril (talk) 12:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ArcAngel (talk) 17:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Planetarion

AfDs for this article:

After two deletion nominations, the article still has no multiple, reliable sources establishing notability. Delete as per WP:WEB. Peephole (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Besides the PC Zone review cited in the article and the other sources brought up in the previous AfDs, there's a GamersHell news item and brief mentions at Eurogamer and Blue's News. SharkD (talk) 05:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: None of those sources provide "significant coverage", as is required per WP:NOTE.--Peephole (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I said, the PC Zone article is a review and is therefore significant coverage. SharkD (talk) 06:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage available seems to be adequate to me. JulesH (talk) 09:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: computer 'zines are fairly marginal sources, and the type of coverage they give games is generally does not give enough depth to form a suitable basis for an encyclopaedic article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Computer zines are the sort of sources that exist for this sort of material., & are reliable enough for the purpose. DGG (talk) 03:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: that after multiple AfDs, the "sort of sources that exist for this sort of material" has failed to verify the vast majority of the material in the article would appear to confirm that this material does not form the basis for an encyclopaedic article. Game reviewers and encyclopaedia writers have very different priorities. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's early 2009 and this was created mid-2004, enough time has passed for someone to make a case for this article via multiple sources. The PC Zone source is a good reliable one but it is extremely unlikely that it is substantial due to this being an online game. No matter how big it is, it's a single source, and that doesn't cut WP:N. No prejudice at all against recreation should additional reliable sources which are at least moderately in-depth be found. Someone another 04:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep man, three attempts to kill it, somebody sure has something in for Planetarion i tell you what. i am unsure as to what those who want to delete it would properly accept as evidence for notability -- on its own merits the game has been around since 2000 and i am kinda surprised it is still going so welp Pthag (talk) 06:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, that ain't nothin' until you see the attempts to "kill" WP:AFD/FUCK. MuZemike 09:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, by the way. There is at least one good reliable source in the article (the print one) and the ones found above. There's enough there that should pass for notability. MuZemike 09:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 21:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vvornth and Kothaar

Fails WP:MUSIC. The band is clearly extremely notable, but the pseudonyms of potential one-time members are not. There is no further information in the article concerning these band members, no sources, nothing that isn't already in the main article. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not notable enough to warrant its own article WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 01:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing to show stand alone notability per WP:Music. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Born in the Streets

Band hasn't yet met the criteria of WP:MUSIC for notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with a proviso. The article asserts that the band's first album "broke into the top 40 of the Irish Album Charts." If that is verified, WP:MUSIC 2 ("Has had a charted hit on any national music chart") is satisfied. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: could not find any charting releases on the IRMA (Irish charts website). Nothing on Google WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 04:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Simon Dodd reasoning --Cybercobra (talk) 08:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, searching gave me the same results as JamesBurns. No notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete LexisNexis made me draw a blank too. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failing WP:MUSIC. ArcAngel (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NET (sustainability)

Also nominated for speedy. No indication of notability. Organization with environmental goals but only internal and press-release style references. None of the references have detailed links or widespread availalbility. Article reads like an advertisement. Shadowjams (talk) 08:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A Swedish organization that proposes an alternative socioeconomic system, no doubt a modest and achievable goal. But the references provided appear not to be about this organization itself, but rather are given to bolster its views. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ArcAngel (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep If it can be cleaned up... See Twin Towers Alliance for example of giving them a chance (time's running out on that one though). Non-profits, charities and social organizations should be strong inclusions, as long as there is no spam involved and they're well-sourced. §FreeRangeFrog 20:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep in today's socioeconomic environment I fail to see how any ñon profit organisation that addresses the problem can be seen an not relevant, especially a scientific organisation! As to the "press-release style references", those are not press releases, they are reports from reporters who reported on the organisation not releases from the organisation. "None of the references have detailed links or widespread availalbility", prob true for the moment but as noted when I first wrote the article I need to work on the references. I have quite a few more but just need the time to work on it. Time is the problem! The article is still note worthy, and as we have more and more economic problems, organisations, especially organisations of scientists and engineers, who address the currnet socioeconomic problems will become even more not worthy. I think its more a case of cleaning it up and working on it more, not deleting it. "time's running out on that one though" I will w8 till this deletion issue is over and then redo it as suggested. Has there ever been a wiki article that was perfect 1st time? Tarci (talk) 08:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SHAHIDLIPI

AfDs for this article:

Unnotable language implementation. Over a year after its last AfD, article remains in the same shape with the only "references" being three self-published, non-WP:RS sources, and one dead link. Fails WP:N having no significant coverage in reliable third party sources and article is primarily composed of unverifiable claims. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable --Cybercobra (talk) 08:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Besides, anything that includes so many {{fact}} tags must go. §FreeRangeFrog 20:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looney Tunes Golden Collection: Volume 1

AfDs for this article:

Fails WP:N and Wikipedia is not a sales catalog. Individual DVD releases are generally not notable apart from their actual media, in this case Looney Tunes Golden Collection. Since previous AfD that closed in November 2007, the articles have remained completely unsourced without any demonstrable notability as in significant coverage in reliable, third party sources for each specific DVD. They are basically big advertisements. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - I agree Wikipedia should not be an advertising page, but I own this DVD series and am currently ripping them to store in my iPod. This page is being perfect to get the correct information on every cartoon, in the correct order. It would be a real pain to find the page to every episode by hand, specially because this cartoons are more than 60 years old, and weren't presented in a formal order. Deleting this page would be the same as deleting any episode list of any TV show out there. This DVD box is a real treasure because it organizes those classic cartoons. Wikipedia should have this information, no doubt about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitridon (talk • contribs) 11:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC) — Dimitridon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That is beyond no reason to keep it. Wikipedia is not here to help you rip cartoons to your iPod. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP--I also own this DVD series and for the reasons stated above. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any reason for keeping it beyond WP:ILIKEIT?-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP--Unlike some other DVD collections, the entries are not in order of release, so these lists are a good reference not available elsewhere in Wikipedia. This is, in my opinion, a bad-faith, "I-don't-like-it", nomination. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not try some WP:AGF. Not being in order of release is irrelevant, nor is Wikipedia here to provide minute details about DVD releases. Other individual DVDs are covered in the main article page, why should this one be special? Numerous other individual DVD releases are NOT notable, nor is this one. There is an article for the cartoons. That's where its DVD releases should be discussed.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't like it, therefore nobody else can have it" equates to bad faith. Lists to other articles are used extensively in wikipedia. Maybe it's the title you have a problem with. If it said "List of..." then maybe you would find it worthy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except, I never said I don't like it. Love Looney Tunes, thanks, and your presumption that I don't like the DVDs is bad faith, not the nomination. However, many previous AfDs have shown that individual DVD releases are NOT notable. And this isn't a list of the releases, nor any kind of valid list at all, this is five individual articles for five individual DVDs that repeat give you the back of the box/inside of the box details on the contents. Looney Tunes Golden Collection has a list of episodes, and it has a summary of the DVD releases. Excessive details are not necessary. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your complaint is that it's "advertising". Where were you last February, when this SPA [47] was using the Superman music article for the express purpose of pushing his "limited edition" CD set, alleged to be the original-original soundtrack of the Superman film? I raised a large ruckus about this and was nearly pilloried for it. At least the Golden Edition DVD's are actually available in stores, nor is the presence of these articles purposedly intended as "advertising", but merely as convenient references. In fact, that stuff about the "limited edition" CD set is still staining the Superman music article. Maybe you could turn your deletionist sights on something that actually deserves it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Had I know about it, I would certainly have supported your efforts and its rather sad that it was actually kept like that. *sigh* Unfortunately, I don't follow those particular sets of articles articles (I mostly work on B-movies for film stuff, and some made-for-tv stuff; did you post about the problem at the Films project?) In the anime/manga project, we recently had a major issue with a publisher coming and creating articles for every last title they had licensed, completely with ad copy. We're still cleaning up through all of those, with most being deleted after extensive project discussion over all of them. Alas, I'm sorry the experience seems to have left you a little bitter, though I certainly can understand the feeling. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Covering all the discs in detail in the main article would make the article overly long. This seems to be an appropriate use of Wikipedia:Summary style. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Per summary style we should not have articles giving the entire breakdown of the contents of each volume of the DVD, but should have summary paragraphs for each release noting that it has X number of episodes and maybe a noting how many from each decade. Not "here is every last feature and every last episodes." -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Has anything changed since the first nomination? Why are we discussing this again? (And its the same editor nominating it for deletion.) All of the comments from the first round are still valid. All of the "waves" from the Walt Disney Treasures have their own articles. Of course, seems like there is a WP-tag to refute any opinion here, so slap one on me. DavidRF (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, nothing in the article has changed, at all, nothing. Not a single reference added in over a year. Nothing showing it actually is notable, just seems like another round of "OMG, I love this" and yeah, there is a WP-tag about the whole "other stuff exists" argument, but won't bother adding since you should know that one already. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's been lots of edit activity on these pages. Maybe not the kind you want, but you incorrectly characterize these pages as being "dead". As for WP-tags, I'd mention WP:CON but then you'd counter with WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. So, I remain unimpressed by these tags. DavidRF (talk) 16:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Activity doesn't mean actual improvement. And consensus can change...its been over a year and some policies and guidelines used before have changed since then. So time to see if consensus still agrees that some DVD releases are notable apart from their actual series, when for 99% of other series, they are not. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: No sources, no encyclopaedic content, no articulation of notability. Just lots of explicit WP:ILIKEIT. Wikifanpaedia at its worst. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all No sources means this fails WP:V. While the articles may be useful to some users, without any independent, secondary, reliable sources these articles are purely original research. Keep !votes above have no basis in policy. -Atmoz (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep these toons are a part of television history and as such are quite notable. ArcAngel (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The toons indeed are, that is why they have an article, Looney Tunes Golden Collection. Their five DVD releases, however, are not notable apart from the toons themselves, and should not have separate articles. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep These DVD boxes are very high-profile, yearly releases, receive wide coverage and reviews. Obviously notable. Second nomination? This kind of time-wasting AfD is disruptive to the project and should not be allowed. Dekkappai (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- PS. Yes, I'll do the nominator's work, and add some sourcing later on. Again, this kind of hijacking of the time and effort of other editors is disruptive to the project. Dekkappai (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing obviously notable about it and your personal attack and serious bad faith accusations are what is disruptive. The last nomination was well over a year ago, and it is well within guidelines to renominate if article has not actually been improved and continues to have the same issues.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Don't understand why this was put through AfD to begin with. §FreeRangeFrog 20:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The individual DVDs have enjoyed media coverage on their respective releases: [48]. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've just started, and I find articles & reviews on each release in many mainstream sources... Washington Post, New Yorker, etc. Yet the nominator shows no intention of not re-nominating this again, hoping that "Consensus has changed" (i.e., no one cares enough to continuously defend the articles from nomination.) And why not? What does a Deletionist have to lose? By allowing criminally disruptive nominations such as this one, the Wikipedia community actively encourages this sort of behavior. Dekkappai (talk) 00:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK, I've taken the time to add sourcing/reviews from mainstream media to-- I think-- every one of these articles, plus volume six. The nominator, rather than appreciating my doing the work, has instigated some kind of kangaroo court against me, further casting a shadow of doubt on the good faith of this nomination. I'll step out now. Dekkappai (talk) 01:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal: no, all you've added are some external links. Not one of these articles has a single citation (or even a general reference). This means that either (i) the sources don't provide the topics with significant coverage ~~(do they really discuss each volume individually?)~~, or (ii) that they are not being given WP:DUE weight in the articles. Either way, it is not clear how they establish notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "do they really discuss each volume individually?" Those are contemporary news reports. A full year separated the release of each volume. How could the 2003 links be about anything other than volume 1? Likewise on the links on the other pages. How can you issue such a scathing rebuttal when you haven't even read what you are rebutting? DavidRF (talk) 06:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Right, DavidRF-- What the ~~expletive~~? I've provided citations to articles on each individual DVD release. These are articles, and reviews, from mainstream reliable sources. New Yorker, Washington Post, Associated Press, etc. This is evidence of significant coverage of each one of these releases in mainstream reliable sources. Each new external link (some are actually newspaper articles-- not links) is entirely about the individual release. If you don't believe it, check it. Now that I have provided plenty of sourcing and evidence of notability, anyone who cares about the articles can use these to flesh out the articles. That is how articles are written-- find the sources, then use them to build up the article. Someone does care about these articles, don't they? I've taken time out of my usual editing interest areas to find these sources to save these articles from deletion, and I for my efforts I get dragged in to some sort of tribunal, and then told that I haven't done anything to improve the article. Jeez. Dekkappai (talk) 06:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Y~~ou're blaming DavidRF for my comments.~~ I'd hardly call The Digital Bits, au.dvd.ign.com, a Businesswire press releases, the Gonzaga University paper, tvshowsondvd.com, .the-trades.com or Animation World Network to be "mainstream reliable sources". The only "mainstream" sources are unlinked (as well as uncited), so it is unclear how much information they provide. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I agreed with DavidRF. I signified that by typing, "Right, DavidRF." I lay the blame for your comments at your feet. Is there a language barrier here? In any case, my work here is done. De-watching the whole mess. Dekkappai (talk) 07:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~/Merge: The individual pages are a mess even if the articles are notable; we just don't go into that much detail about what a DVD release is (WP is not a sales catalog). That's not to say that the list of cartoons on each set is bad. My recommendation is that Looney Tunes Golden Collection be about the releases, with an introductory lede, sections summarizing each volume and their reception, incorporating any relevant information, while a new article, List of cartoons in the Looney Tunes Golden Collections be made from the existing list on that page, make it into a sortable table on cartoon name, year, and Collection #, to make it all easy to find. A sampling of the bonus features can be added to sections in the Looney Tunes Golden Collection article. (Some means of identifying which disk has which cartoons and listing these out is a good thing given the culture influence of these works.) However, an article for each individual volume is overkill. --MASEM 06:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Noting that my suggestion is more towards a merge, not deletion, but I am noting that it is only a merge in the sense that these should be replaced with redirects, not necessary retention of the info on these pages. --MASEM 11:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merging the articles would make the merged article way too long. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note the suggested plan of merging. The list of available shorts would be placed on a second page and in a table to allow a number of ways of sorting (including by-volume). The full list of DVD extras are not appropriate for WP, though mentioning the types of extras in section volume's section on the single page would be appropriate, in addition to the critical response to each volume. --MASEM 13:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making an interesting, and I think a valid and quite workable suggestion that would address the major issues with these individual volumes while also improving the main article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't the individual articles being discussed "second pages" already? Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are secondary pages, but they have too much detail per WP:NOT#CATALOG. This is not to assert than any one of them is not notable, but that instead, a more comprehensive article(s) can be obtained by addressing the collection as a whole (all 6 DVD sets, now) with one article describing what the general effort has been done to improve the cartoons, the general content of each volume (not detailed lists of DVD extras), and the reception of each volume and the series as a whole; the second one would be the list of the individual cartoons within the volumes (which, undeniably, is important because many of the individual tunes are independently notable) The only information lost by this rearrangement would be the lists of DVD extras, which is just extraneous. --MASEM 14:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -It is a valid start on a notable release, but admittedly it is missing some paragraphs of text which would improve it beyond its current status. I say keep and expand. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These articles are well organized and surprisingly NPOV without puffery and filler. This gives a reasonable overview of the subject, which is, I believe one of the most notable cartoon empires in the history of the world - I may be overstating that. Disney is known for extensive marketing and coverage of all their properties so there is little doubt that reviews exist and editors have done a good job at keeping the articles free of nonsense. The concerns raised all seem to be clean-up issues. -- Banjeboi 23:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, The articles are definitely well put together as zapfino said. Also, they do have notable significance.Smallman12q (talk) 00:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The DVDs are notable and the articles are appropriate. Even if the articles couls stand improvement, that is not an apprpriate reason to delete. Rlendog (talk) 01:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 12:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK, I've taken time to add a little to the articles. At least two in the series have won release-of-the-year awards, and reviews of individual releases are all over mainstream media, including at least one Oxford University Press publication. These articles are outside my editing interest and expertise. But it's obvious that much, much more work can be done on these, and that they can be expanded greatly. I so reason why each article could not be built up to FA status. Most of the reviews note that the extras take up more disc space than do the cartoons. The extras receive almost as much critical attention as do the shorts. So I do not think the proposed merge with an article listing only the shorts is acceptable. These are simply notable-- highly notable-- releases. Though my opinion of this AfD have been twisted, I'll state it again, I think this AfD is absolutely ludicrous. Dekkappai (talk)
Keep The DVD releases are individually notable, and have each been covered in reliable sources. Here is even a reliable source for the fact that Volume 2 was covered in another reliable source! DHowell (talk) 02:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A look at the Google News links in the Article Rescue Squadron tags reveal that almost all of these sets have been discussed in reliable sources such as The New Yorker, Forbes, and The Washington Post. The one exception would appear to be Volume 1, which has much less coverage for some reason. However, I think that, given the fact that the notability of the other sets has been established, Volume One could be considered worthy of an article as the first volume in a notable series. Also, one question: why isn't Looney Tunes Golden Collection: Volume 6 nominated here as well?--Unscented (talk) 12:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice a sixth article had been created until after this AfD had already received comments. Didn't think it would be appropriate to add it after that. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per Unscented, DHowell, Colonel Warden, Rlendog, Smallman12q, Dr. Blofeld, Pastor Theo, FreeRangeFrog, Dekkappai, ArcAngel, DavidRF, MacGyverMagic. I don't know if I have anything to add to there excellent comments. Ikip (talk) 18:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I like reading this article, and so do a lot of other people. It has a lot of interesting information. This topic has been cited in the media a lot. And it's not as if wikipedia is running out of storage space. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is a tremendous difference between not having any coverage in reliable sources and not citing reliable sources: the former is a very strong reason for deletion under the appropriate notability guideline; the latter is not a reason to delete without first trying to locate such coverage. In this case, all five DVD have had extensive coverage, both at release and in reviews. In addition, some of these have had sales counts reported. The importance of the contents of those DVDs should be beyond question... and they are. B.Wind (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I feel I need to put my two cents in. Normally I'd agree with those who say Wikipedia isnt a sales catalog, but as many have pointed out, This isnt a typical dvd series. There's no chrolological order to the videos. It'ts not say, Star Trek, with movie releases numbered 1 through...whatever, and tv episodes released in Season 1, Season 2...etc...

Even if it were, say, a typical TV released in groups by Season, having a basic sumamry of the contents of the dvd sets (even just a list of episodes - and this current article is barely more than a list of "episodes") i would think would fall into the scope of Wikipedia. I have all 6 volumes, and frankly there's a LOT of material(24 discs, with around 15 shorts + bonus material on each disc). It's much easier to come check wikipedia to find a specific video, than sort through all the discs. Now I admit this next reason may give some of you reason to say its a comercial entry, but I've also used the DVD entries to decide that i do/dont need to buy/borrow/rent/whatever other Loony Tunes dvds - to check for duplication of videos. Alienburrito (talk) 07:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)alienburrito[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, obvious keep (non-administrator closure), with a wet trout slap to the nominator. Zetawoof_(ζ) 07:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erlang (programming language)

The article lacks notability. Fikusfail (talk) 04:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well referenced article on a notable subject. Camw (talk) 04:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ditto --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable subject. 173.64.118.131 has been pasting unofficial notes of deletion ... inserting manual entries into deletion logs ... I.E., wasting our time. Proofreader77 (talk) 04:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Erlang is not notable enough to be warranted its own page. Perhaps we could consider adding it to a page on lesser-known languages of its' class? Fikusfail (talk) 04:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is well-established in the article. Townlake (talk) 04:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All three programs written in Erlang do not constitute notability. There are many small, specialized programming languages with more known projects that are not considered notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Fikusfail (talk) 04:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - This is preposterous. It's a very popular example of a language that does distributed computing and concurrency Right (tm). It's concurrency model has been cloned as libraries in many other languages. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Prove that its concurrency model has been cloned. I do not see any references to this on the page. Fikusfail (talk) 05:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - An example. Google for "erlang-style concurrency" and observe the results; its model is clearly notable and well-discussed. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The example listed above has not been touched in 5 years. Clearly no one has a use for this. Existence does not make something notable. Also, "it's" is a contraction for "it is". Please learn and use proper English, since this is the English Wikipedia. Fikusfail (talk) 06:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Um, there's no such thing as bit rot; an old last edit date doesn't magically make the project irrelevant. The very fact that that there are several clones (I just added a bunch more examples to the article) lends credence to its notability. (unrelated grammar nazi point well taken) --Cybercobra (talk) 06:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - People familiar with distributed systems and fault tolerant systems know and use Erlang. Fikusfail is only showing ignorance. Scala is an Erlang clone made to make Java programmers feel better.
- I would recommend actually finding some sources rather than making opinionated claims like the one above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fikusfail (talk • contribs) 05:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would recommend doing something constructive with your time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.102.189 (talk) 06:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Highly notable programming language. Nominator appears to be a WP:SPA. Jfire (talk) 06:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Yates (novel)

Novel does not (yet) exist; article had been proposed for deletion in November, 2008, but proposal was removed three days later with no explanation or improvements Tim D (talk) 05:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lin claims the novel is finished, but its release date apparently has been pushed back from fall 2009 to 2010 -- so this article is WP:CRYSTAL. There's been some blog coverage of the fact that Lin sold 60% of the royalties to Richard Yates before it was written, however I can't find any reliable source coverage to justify having an article now. Baileypalblue (talk) 05:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: for now. The entry on the author's page will do until publication is confirmed. Alberon (talk) 12:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The book is already covered in the article on the author and there is insufficient information to support a separate entry. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definite WP:CRYSTAL. §FreeRangeFrog 20:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - You can't even pre-order it on Amazon. Puffino (talk) 16:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voices of Love

This article was created by a representative of Aurora Publishing as a form of promotion. The work has received very little coverage from reliable third-party sources, trivial mention of the English language license, and has only received one review that WP:ANIME can find. However, that one review does not meet the significant coverage test of WP:NOTE. See WT:ANIME#Aurora Publishing review for more details about the WikiProject's Aurora Publishing review. Farix (Talk) 12:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain It was licensed in France Asuka & Italy Jpop. Not in Germany & Spain. My good sense say that there is evidence of notability but the fact that it is discontinued now in France also say it probably an editorial fail. --KrebMarkt 13:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By "discontinued" I assume you mean out of print? (Since it's only one volume, it's not like they stopped mis-series, after all.) —Quasirandom (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Out of print on Amazon.fr, their editors are scuttling their whole lolita collection (don't ask) --KrebMarkt 08:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with only one review and no other coverage beyond Aurora's own promo stuff and the "hey it was announced", fails WP:BK. Foreign licensing with no coverage in those countries still = not notable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that it hasn't coverage period. That coverage is made of short reviews no enough to my taste, not enough to chew :p --KrebMarkt 14:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide links? —Quasirandom (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just one to see how succinct can a review be in France Rating 13 out off 20 the review is in the critique tab, 5 sentences and they are done :(

That from a serious RS french website who get ads from french publishers and host also their sample chapters. --KrebMarkt 18:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In short, it is a rather trivial review. --Farix (Talk) 21:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that the only review you found, or are there more of comparable, er, length? (Though I note that when you combine it with the summary, it's not out of line with some comparable English reviews.) —Quasirandom (talk) 22:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That probably the only RS french review, i have. There were more review for the Voices of love of the same author. --KrebMarkt 08:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er, this is Voices of Love. Or did you mean a different series? —Quasirandom (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zut, i mean give me you love of the same author i got confused along the hunt for review :( --KrebMarkt 19:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. When I searched for the title and the authors name, I found plenty of good leads. http://www.wewriteromance.com/reviews/review/140 has a detailed review on it. Dream Focus (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's also a self-published website. --Farix (Talk) 21:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Contra Dream Focus, in English I'm finding only the one reliable source review already identified -- the others do not qualify, as far as I can tell. However, that one combined with reviews in other languages do add up to sustainable claim to notability. Witholding !vote for now, pending further consideration. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like KrebMarkt, I'm conflicted about this one, as it's not a clean-cut issue. There's indications of marginal notability in multiple languages, but not enough in aggregate to demonstrate to the letter of the guideline that this is notable. Author doesn't have an article, so there's no merge target. Delete without prejudice against recreation if someone finds any further evidence of notability. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kur ykh 04:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above comments without prejudice toward recreation. Once nontrivial coverage in reliable sources arises, a source replacement article can be written. B.Wind (talk) 04:30, 4 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. No consensus to delete, especially given the rewrite near the end of the AfD. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Lake, Thurston County, Washington

This appears to be a subdivision (housing estate) rather than a municipality of any sort. It's not incorporated, it's not a census-designated place, the GNIS does not recognize this as a populated place (though it does recognize the actual lake), and the U.S. Postal Service doesn't recognize it as a destination for mail (recognizing Olympia as the "actual city name" for the 98512 area code and giving only Tumwater as an "acceptable city name"). I can envision the possibility of a subdivision's being notable if there are reliable sources of non-trivial information to establish that it is out of the ordinary in some way, but I'm not finding any in this case. Deor (talk) 03:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. —Deor (talk) 03:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From the first paragraph it would seem an advertisement, but looking further it isn't exactly, but it's not notable. a earnest attempt by a new person here to write an article where there just isn't material for one. DGG (talk) 04:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can personally verify that Scott Lake exists... and is almost certainly insufficiently notable. :-) Anything worth keeping should be merged into articles on Olympia or Thurston County, Washington. Jclemens (talk) 05:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Scott Lake is not part of Olympia. Its actually closer to Tumwater than to Olympia.

User:Appple

Convert/merge According to [49][50], there are two voter precincts named after the lake. While I'm not sure if there should be an article about the community, it should be possible to convert the article to one about the lake rather than houses around it. As it's the only lake of this name in the state, the title should be Scott Lake (Washington). To sort out what should stay in the article or not, I'd remove anything that can't be referenced (at least through local newspapers). BTW please mention the "Scott Lake Groundwater Study 2008" [51] -- User:Docu
Keep/convert re: User:Docu. The lake is absolutely notable. Hill of Beans (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why don't we try to clean up this article before deleting it? It seems to contain some notable information, but it seems to contain mostly unsourced junk. If we clean it up (which could be as simple as deleting most of the page), we can then decide whether to merge the notable information into another page, or keep this as a page in its own right. Cazort (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into some other page...I'd like to see some mention of the lake itself stay somewhere, on some page. I'm open to suggestions. Cazort (talk) 22:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You might not care about Scott Lake or the community because you don't live there. But the people that do live there are gonna be interested in the history of it. I've changed the article so that it talks about the lake first. So if you're only interested in the lake, you can read that part, and just not read the rest of the article.

User: Appple —Preceding unsigned comment added by Appple (talk • contribs) 22:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as re-written The lake seems notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope Dialect

Almost speedyable (unsigned, no real assertion of notability). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see evidence that this band satisfied any WP:MUSIC criteria. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I searched all the usual suspects, and all I could dig up was this, which is good, but not enough. Nothing to back up any of the tour claims too. Not quite there yet in the WP:Music notability stakes. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC. ArcAngel (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless anyone can find more sources. Cazort (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

METRO CITY

Prodded as a non-notable micronation. Deprodded on the grounds that it is fictional. Although the lead sentence does say so, the rest of the article is written as if it were in fact factual in real life. The article also fails to state in which work of fiction this micronation was introduced and/or exists. Also, no sources. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fictional--the story? What story? Drmies (talk) 02:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it's fictional, it's not supposed to be written in an in-universe style is it?Camera123456 (talk) 02:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NFT. I can't find any evidence that this isn't made up. Townlake (talk) 03:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, based on these diffs [52] [53], this can probably be safely speedied. Townlake (talk) 03:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonsense. Ecphora (talk) 03:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable fiction. Dude 2006 (talk) 03:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe the technical term for this is "crap". JuJube (talk) 03:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, maybe a redirect to Final Fight would work, too? JuJube (talk) 04:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable fiction & Nonsense at all. Daniel5127 ^(talk) 04:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There is not even a work of fiction to source this article to. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is non-notable and clearly the product of someone's imagination. I'd suggest a redirect to either Final Fight or Inspector Gadget as the setting for both of those media, but the all-caps title precludes that. Nate • (chatter) 09:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've created Metro City as a dab page per the suggestions above. We don't need to retain the miscapitalized version. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: as an obvious hoax[-on-wikipedia, not hoax-on-real-world =? vandalism or =? patent nonsense] (as there's no fictional work that it's claimed to be from). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If this is speedied as a hoax it'll be open to challenge, since hoaxes are specifically excluded from the speedy criteria. It is, however, clearly part of a vandalism campaign. Townlake (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all above. ArcAngel (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX and WP:V as I was unable to verify this article's content, which seems like something someone just made up? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have no idea what story this editor is talking about. Ikip (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT. Gsearch for any of the character names mentioned come up empty; this piece of fiction seems to only exist on Wikipedia.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Unanimous keep, nomination withdrawn Mgm|^(talk) 09:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Consumer Products

Not particularly notable; article has nearly no non-advert-ish content Cybercobra (talk) 02:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that a company which supposedly generates 26 billion dollars a year can establish notability in some fashion or other. Did the nominator actually look for sources? For crying out loud, in Google Books I get 345 hits for "Disney Consumer Products"--you can't tell me that no reliable sources are going to come out of that. I propose a very speedy keep of this article, especially since someone *ahem* has cleaned up the article by removing spam and duplicate info. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ditto ^ . Additional comment - it's a very short article. Perhaps such brief pages for Walt Company Divisions should be merged to a new "Walt Disney Company Divisions" page and their links redirected to there, any divisions which have significant content (quantity) being left as they are (as separate pages). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddawkins73 (talk • contribs) 04:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it wasn't always that short... Cybercobra cut some, and I cut some more. No doubt stuff can be added, but what was there should not be restored. But do the Google search and you'll see there's plenty of material out there. Drmies (talk) 05:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I second the sentiment regarding merging this into another page; there's just not enough material to warrant its own article. DCP isn't very notable outside of its relation with Disney, hence this AfD, but I am fully open to merging it. Additionally, going back into the history, the article seems to have originated from some possible SPA/sockpuppet accounts and was edited a good bit by a Disney IP --Cybercobra (talk) 07:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Shortness is not a reason for deletion - especially when the shortness is less than a day old. Arguably, any article could be pruned as much and deleted if that were the case. So we are left with "notability" - it passes. Too short? restore the material just deleted and add cites for it. Collect (talk) 12:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Drmies reasoning. ArcAngel (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Don't merge. I think a short page is better than merging this into something else...it's an entity of its own. And I do think this page could be expanded considerably. Cazort (talk) 22:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion request Withdrawn per aforementioned recent changes since AfD listing. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Free Art Studio

No refs, no relevant G-hits. Fails WP:CORP too. flaming lawyer 01:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KeepImportant should be expanded.Links should be search for.User talk:Yousaf465

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Links have been searched for, and they aren't there. Just 19 non-wiki ghits for "Free Art Studio" + Kuwait, all of which are directory type listings. No hits in gnews, gbooks, or gscholar.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SDK carbine

I am not convinced this gun actually existed, or if it did, as any more than a one-off or prototype. I have been unable to find any reliable reference to it either on the internet or in any of my reference books and the article itself provides dubious references at best. This article appears to have been written using third hand information and hearsay, and I do not believe it can be improved as there just doesn't appear to be any information on the subject available to either verify or improve the article with. Commander Zulu (talk) 01:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Had a look myself, could be a hoax. Ryan4314 (talk) 12:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have an inkling that I've got some information on this tucked away and it rings a bell. I'll hit the books and see what I dig up. Justin talk 18:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete Seems to be De Lisle carbine. I say merge the blurb and delete the article. §FreeRangeFrog 20:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oh, and probably keep the redirect. I can take care of it if AfD reaches consensus, but I don't want to tag it right now. §FreeRangeFrog 20:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The DeLisle Commando Carbine is a completely separate gun for which a number of reputable print, web, and photographic references exist. The SDK Carbine is, as far as I can tell, fictional, or, at very best, a prototype. Given the intense interest in WWII German firearms in the US (and elsewhere), I would expect there to be at least as much information on the SDK Carbine as there is on the DeLisle. The fact that a Google search turns up nothing of note, and that none of my reference books mention the SDK Carbine, I can confidently say that it's got nothing to do with the DeLisle Commando Carbine and it probably didn't exist in the first place. In short, there's nothing to merge, IMHO. Commander Zulu (talk) 11:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nukes4Tots posted this on the SDK Carbine article's talk page: "Delete this article. This is a pure user:Jetwave Dave fabrication. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 17:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)" (Posted here by Commander Zulu (talk) 11:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Keep Does in fact exist, pictures here [54]. Justin talk 12:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's the only non-wiki reference to the gun (besides a paintball gun website) I was able to find and it's not in any way reliable. There's nothing in Small Arms of the World, nothing in any of Ian V. Hogg's books, nothing in A.E. Hartink's various books on guns, nothing in any of the myriad other gun books (ranging from Serious And Respected Academic Reference Works to Glossy Colour Coffee Table Books) that I have access to. In short, there are no reliable references to this gun existing, and even if it did exist, there's still no reliable references to back anything in the article up at all. Commander Zulu (talk) 12:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response There were a lot of odd little weapons produced by the Germans for their Special Forces. Its such a fringe subject that there are few references for them. Justin talk 13:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ReplyThat's very true, but the ~~Hitler~~ History Channel has been running various shows on pretty much every aspect of WWII for years, and I don't recall ever seeing them mention it (and they seem to make shows on even less notable WWII topics, IMHO). The SDK Carbine is just such an odd and unusual German WWII gun that I'm staggered no-one has mentioned it in print or TV documentary for over 30 years. I'm willing to concede the gun may not be a hoax, but I still don't think there's enough reliable information available to justify a dedicated Wiki article on the gun.Commander Zulu (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply It is still bugging me, I've heard of this before but can't find where at the moment. Justin talk 14:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From an old gun book possibly? You are a man of *cough* advanced age, so you might remember it from the first time around? --Narson ~ Talk • 17:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not doubting your memory, but I do think we need more than "I vaguely recall seeing it in a gun magazine in the 1960s" as a reference. Like I said, I'm prepared to acknowledge this gun might have existed, but the current article is completely lacking in reliable and verifiable sources, which is also grounds for Deletion, AIUI. Commander Zulu (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My instinct here was for delete, all Icould find was the same person posting it to various forums. However, on one of the forums one of the gun nuts recognises it and identifies it as being from Waffen Revue Nr. 20, 1976 publication. He also suggests it was in some US magazines of the 60s and 70s. Might be worth checking out the paper sources. Also apparantly in Saga magazine April 1970 (Both sources are listed in the article). The gun itself may be a hoax, the article is not. Pending confirmation of the paper soures, Keep. --Narson ~ Talk • 13:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if Narson's thoughts check out, delete if they do not. Someone may want to go through the rest of DaBallScractha's contribs if this is proven to be a hoax... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is an image of it on the front page of the Waffen Revue n.20. I think we may be up against our bias for online resources at the moment. Do we have anyone with access to any of the two journals listed as sources? --Narson ~ Talk • 09:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The "gun nut" posting it in various forums is none other than your friend and mine, Jetwave Dave. I would take a pretty large grain of salt with anything posted by him. Parsecboy (talk) 03:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the lack of sources means that this doesn't pass WP:N, even if the gun did exist and WP:V can be met (which it isn't at present). Forum posts are in no way reliable sources. Nick-D (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Real or not, we still have no evidence of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Jetwave Dave championing it on forums only makes it more suspect. Maralia (talk) 00:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Information The article is in error, its not SDK Carbine but GSDK (Gestapo SchallDämpfer Karabiner). It was made by J.P Sauer & Sohn, Suhl, it used 9mm parabellum but was tailored for nahpatrone, which was a reduced power round intended for target practise at reduced ranges. Found nothing on cyanide tipped ammunition, that seems fanciful. Seems that less than 10 were made. Justin talk 03:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Where did you get that from? Thanks for the help :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 04:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was from a gun nut I know on another forum, he doubts that you'll find the information in a reference book as its so obscure. Justin talk 09:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Which brings us back to our original point that the article is unverifiable and should be deleted.... Commander Zulu (talk) 10:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - It lists two gun magazines, one of which definatly featured it. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NORC (service)

Unsourced and looks like it hasn't been properly released yet as its still in beta. Looks like it would not meet WP:WEB. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, let's delete the google article too! Viva deletionistas!

I vote No.--Klimov (talk) 08:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of multiple, independent, reliable sources. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TheDetroiter.com

Fails WP:WEB; no substantial coverage in independent sources referenced or found. Jfire (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is some coverage in news sources, but I'm not sure that it's enough to meet WP:WEB. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 03:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added two references (one of which is rather shaky)—I'll go out on a limb and say Keep. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 03:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those don't do it for me. The second is just a quote from and link to an article on the site itself, and the first, while providing some minimal coverage, is oriented more as a biography of Nick Sousanis. It notes that the site "gets a couple of hundred visits a day". Overall, short of WP:WEBs guideline: "subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". Jfire (talk) 05:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you're coming from. But unlike promotional website articles that get added daily, I think this one documents a worthy site in a non-spammy way. Too bad there aren't better sources available. Also, the "couple hundred visits a day" was from a few years ago-- presumably it has increased. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 23:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question - this article ([55]) looks promising. Does anyone have a newsbank account? LinguistAtLarge • Msg 23:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Rutgers University student organizations. I copied the content to the talk page of Rutgers student orgs yandman 08:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the Bull's Blood

AfDs for this article:

No proof that this exists at all. The sources given do not prove anything. either way (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Into Rutgers University. Some media coverage alleging its existence can be found: [56], [57] and [58] (you need to pay for the third one). Pastor Theo (talk) 23:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The first article is just based on an interview with one alleged member of the group. It does not prove anything about it other than one guy says it exists and it does things like pranks. The second article uses Wikipedia as a source, so that proves nothing. Any clue what's in the 3rd article? either way (talk) 23:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose deletion. Isn’t it in the nature of secret societies for people to deny they exist? Doesn’t it play into that to delete the page? There is already a discussion on this subject on the talkpage from 2 years ago and the conclusion there is there are credible sources for its existence. If there is a doubt surely the answer is to write a “controversy” section” showing both sides of the debate, without drawing a conclusion. The purpose of an encyclopaedia is to provide easily accessible information: Having come across the term, I was interested to know what it was; now there’s the suggestion it’s all a hoax, I’m interested in that, too, and I’m sure I’m not the only one. So I think it should stay. Moonraker12 (talk) 13:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge. I guess this could be a search term, so let's not delete it entirely. The one full paragraph could be merged into the Rutgers article. As for the previous editor's references to this being interesting, well, that's neither here nor there. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide verifiable information--there's nothing verifiable here, since there are no reliable sources. Of course a campus paper is going to run such a story; that Cap and Skull thing, that's nothing; the NY Press story seems to have disappeared. Pastor Theo's other sources (the first one was already in the article) don't do much--the NY Times article gives only passing mention, and the article from the Washington Post (I have full access) doesn't mention this joint at all. Drmies (talk) 03:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you suggesting we merge? The information in there is unverifiable and the sources don't help at all. either way (talk) 03:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, this: "In the Spring of each year, twelve members of the junior class are chosen, or "tapped," by the outgoing members from the senior class of the Order and are tied to a series of continuing pranks at Rutgers and at historic rival Princeton University, including allegedly being involved in the 1875 theft of a cannon at Princeton—an event (and the ensuing debate between the two university presidents) reported in nationwide newspapers—and an unsuccessful repeat attempt in 1946.[citation needed]." Or parts of it. A bunch of this "info" is already here, Rutgers_University_student_organizations#Secret_organizations. It won't be much more unverified (not the same as unverifiable, I acknowledge) as some of the other organizations. Now, don't get me wrong--by saying "keep some of the information" I am not suggesting that the "organization" is notable, only that the belief by some (as irrational, silly, or whatever it may be) that the organization exists is notable. A conspiracy theory, sure, one verified by the sources in the article: they verify at least the belief that this joint exists. Sheesh, I can't believe I'm breaking a lance for a secret society, they can all, allegedly, bleep my bleep. But here it is, and there was one where I went to school, and those nuts make it notable by believing, or pretending to believe, or wanting to believe, that these things exist. Drmies (talk) 04:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - To put in another ha'pennyworth; I think the page is worth having, for the reasons I gave, but adding it to the Rutgers article could be giving it undue weight. The most notable thing about it may be the possibility of its existence; otherwise it sounds pretty picayune (not to mention unpleasant. And illegal; isn't "Tapping" a euphemism for harassment?) Moonraker12 (talk) 18:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - The possibility of its existence is all that is proven, IMO, by the sources provided (and I failed to find any more), but not to the extent required by WP:N. Adding it to the Rutgers article (we're really talking about a sentence or two) lends less weight than this article dedicated to the organization (not to the possibility of its existence). So I don't see it that way. As for tapping, often that really means that, tapping. In the basements of the Old Row Greek houses at various campuses in the South, it's a tap on the shoulder, from behind, so you don't see who tapped you, to indicate you are chosen for some mission or other--slash a tire, become SGA president, etc. Mind you, I'm speaking completely hypothetically and allegedly, of course. See Theta Nu Epsilon, allegedly. If that article exists. Shhh. Drmies (talk) 04:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Fair enough; I was seeing a separate page as being in the nature of a footnote, somewhere away from the main text to go to if you are interested; while even a couple of sentences in a 5 paragraph section on all the societies at Rutgers seems like a lot. But we can agree to differ on it.Moonraker12 (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So where does this go from here? We’ve got 4 contributors giving 3 different options so far; not a recipe for consensus, really...Moonraker12 (talk) 12:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rutgers University student organizations as a possible search term. The sources in this article are dire, and unsuitable for use due to bias, unavailabilty (that's not strictly a factor, but it doesn't help) and unreliability. However, if this society does exist, which is seems it does at least, then it could be a reasonable redirect to the main article on student organisations at this university. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 07:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quality

There already exists a [rather shoddy] page for quality in the business sense (see Quality_(pragmatics)). This page, however, contains nothing of value and is largely a collection of original research. Ironically, this page does not live up to Wikipedia's quality standards. ←Spidern → 18:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- ←Spidern → 18:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- ←Spidern → 18:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- ←Spidern → 18:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to Wiktionary:quality. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replace with Quality (disambiguation) per Clarityfiend. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to or replacement by Quality (disambiguation), as per my suggestion on the talk page. Merge anything useful to Quality (pragmatics). Clarityfiend (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you kindly point me towards this "anything useful"? I can find nothing worth salvaging. ←Spidern → 03:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
deletion is the last resort of the desperate. let's this once try not be desperate but instead come to the realization that the suggested merge between "quality" and "quality (pragmatics)" would indeed lead to the desired lemma about quality in the common sense and its outgrowth in business language (which is closer to the common sense understanding than to the philosophical basis). this would definitely help a lot. btw: i am willing to jump into action. -- Kku (talk) 12:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm all for preserving good material, the problem is that I can't find much worth keeping there. The section, "Variations of a business definition" is not definitive and is one interpretation of what should be included on the page (the fact that it's a numbered list doesn't help). "Improvement of quality" is once again a selection of terms deemed to be important and not a definitive list. "Market sector perspectives" contains one inline citation (which isn't even formatted optimally, see {{harvnb}}), and reads like an opinion piece. I've got nothing against improving either of the quality articles, but this page just doesn't strike me as adding much value (quality) to the encyclopedia. If you could address any of those issues, then please do. ←Spidern → 14:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete before there is a stable merged article combining Quality and Quality (pragmatics). The list of variations in definition is worth keeping and improving. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 20:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The page as it stands is terrible, but it should be rewritten and improved, not deleted. Quality is a highly important topic. Yes, it's difficult to write a good page about it but that doesn't mean we should delete the page. We should selectively delete all the bad material from the page and go from there. Cazort (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've gone through the page and attempted to find anything worth preserving, but to no avail. Can you point me in the direction of exactly which content you wish to preserve? Because the term "Quality" has such a broad usage, the page should not be limited to one mode of usage, especially when that mode of usage already has an article about it. ←Spidern→ 13:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Another thing to keep in mind is that we can still merge material from the old Quality article's history if we change to a redirect or disambiguation. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay, have you found any good revisions with content worth salvaging? From what I can tell the very first revision seems to be in the context of business. ←Spidern → 14:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP, This page was especially helpful to someone studying for the six sigma exam. It contains a compiliation of terms and definitions that I have not found elsewhere in a compact format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjames7118 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin: This user only has one edit, which is on this particular AfD. ←Spidern → 13:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red Clay (disambiguation)

No entries actually ambiguous. Note previous discussion on Talk. ENeville (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While Red Clay Consolidated School District asserts that its topic may be identified as simply "Red Clay", no media citations support this and it seems implausible that one would expect to find this topic so listed in an encyclopedia. ENeville (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless dab page, lists only partial matches. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 04:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep aside from Red Clay Ramblers, everything else seems appropriate. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 05:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The partial title matches are for the most part consistent with what would typically be included on other disambiguation pages. older ≠ wiser 23:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - still a valid dab page as all entries are of the form "Red Clay ****". Thus it is collecting article titles associated with the phrase "Red Clay". B.Wind (talk) 04:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's no rule against partial matches on dab pages.- Mgm|^(talk) 12:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On the grounds above. As a side-note, I have driven across Red Clay Creek numerous times and found that page very interesting and relevant: I think sometimes these loose disambiguation pages are useful/informative for the more curious readers and help people like me stumble across something interesting by accident. Cazort (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I find it helpful in cases were I can't remember the exact name of something or when the full name is especially cumbersome to type or spell. A dab like this isn't just for curious people it makes WP more user friendly. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, and block article creator as hoaxer. DS (talk) 02:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doku

This article is a hoax intended to embarrass Wikipedia and its users likely by showing that they will assume anything that looks professional and uses hard-copy sources is unquestionably true. Some evidence (copied from the talk page: 1)On this thread the author announces that he's going to Wikipedia to create a hoax article, and uses the same name as he does here. This thread may soon be deleted however; 2) I assume that the author used paper books as sources to make the hoax harder to uncover. However, I must say, he didn't do such a good job as the books in question don't even seem to exist. Furthermore, the title of the second book would be misspelled even if it did exist: Brazil is spelled Brasil in Portuguese and Ou means "or" not "the". I would have just used plain old speedy deletion but I've been told that it's not appropriate for suspected hoax articles. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:57, 4 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 MGMT. Mgm|^(talk) 12:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew VanWyngarden

VanWyngarden is a member the band MGMT and is only notable for the band. At present the article is mostly trivia. Previously this was a redirect to MGMT but a user keeps reverting it back from a redirect. William Graham ^talk 23:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect --William Graham ^talk 23:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not sufficiently notable on his own. JamesBurns (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - and it should remain that way unless he gain notability independent of the band. -- Whpq (talk) 18:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as a plausible search term to MGMT, no reliable, third-party, sources to show stand alone notability outside of the band. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--I don't see the need to redirect. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to MGMT (possible search term), not notable outside the band. Matt (Talk) 04:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to MGMT per everyone else and the white stuff on my driveway. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 04:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark ivey

Discussion to run until at least 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This elected official, from a Texas county, does not meet WP:POLITICIAN standards. And a Google search does not confirm "Porkchop" as his nickname. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability, lack of content and as a possible subtle attack. PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for notabilityCamera123456 (talk) 03:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete border line attack page, not notable doktorb _words^deeds 19:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems like a subtle attack page to me too. Cazort (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G10) as childish name-calling of an elected official. Poopy-heads! MuZemike 23:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Kittybrewster ☎ 00:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Kennedy Road Stakes. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Connections (horse)

Unnotable race horse. According to the article, the horse's "claim to fame" was that it won the Kennedy Road Stakes, which would not make it notable under the "one event" policies. Also, if you take a look at the Kennedy Road Stakes article, there is not a single horse who won the race that even has an article. Tavix (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "One event" is a guideline that is supposed to avoid biographies about not notable or marginally notable individuals. Since the race is held annually and supposedly worth an article, I believe that winning such a race would make the horse notable under WP:ATH: "People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis". The criteria aren't really made to determine the notability of animals, which is particularly hard in things like horse racing, but if anyone's gonna be a stickler and say it only applies to people, at least a merge with the article on the jockey should occur. Either way, the fact no one wrote an article on the other horses yet is not a good reason for deletion. One has to be the first. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One medium important victory does not make a notable horse. whether ONE EVENT applies depends on the notabiity of the event, and this isn't high enough. DGG (talk) 03:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect Into Kennedy Road Stakes, which itself could use expansion. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per Pastor Theo's remarks, seems like a win-win. Cazort (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SCAR (programming language)

Discussion to run until at least 9 February 2009 (UTC)

AfDs for this article:

Still no reliable sources, and sketchier than it was the last time it was deleted. David Eppstein (talk) 01:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think that the product website is a reliable enough source for the product in question? GSMR (talk) 02:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For its existence, sure. WP:N requires more than that, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless notability can be proven, which doesn't seem too likely. GSMR: product websites and the like cannot be used to establish notability - see WP:SPS. Xenon54 (talk) 02:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. Just some random, unpopular, Win32 closed-source language. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. Just a failed, unpopular software product. No arguments or improvment to the page adfter previous AfDs address this major failing.Yobmod (talk) 12:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ArcAngel (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. decltype 14:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Discussion of a possible merger can occur outside of AfD. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine (Video game series)

Discussion to run until at least 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Prod contested on the grounds that it is a Nintendo DS game. To be sure, the article also claims that it was made by Ubisoft, a claim I will not question. But other than these two tidbits, the article asserts no notability for this game. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 03:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it's a series article and they definitely exist, they're bombarding me with advertising.. *retch*. The first game on that list has its own article, Imagine: Animal Doctor, and a search of that title alone produces an IGN review and a press release detailing some of the games. So at least of them definitely exist, and if one gets an IGN review then collectively they should be notable. Not inclined to pick through each game to see what should go where though <.< Someone another 03:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think any game by a major publisher for a major platform meets our notability standard. The stub certainly needs expansion, though. — brighterorange (talk) 04:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and redirect As per brighter orange. Also redirect this page to Imagine (video game series)--SkyWalker (talk) 06:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - More info about some of the games can be found here. However, none of the individual articles link to reviews. SharkD (talk) 07:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / Redirect - Merge into Ubisoft. There is little content, and most of the article is a WP:List, something to be avoided. I don't think deletion is appropriate here though. Can we change what little content there is on this page into prose and make it redirect to Ubisoft? If the game later becomes more notable, then it can get its own page. Also note for the discussion there are TWO separate (identical?) pages and only one has been marked for deletion, one with a capital V and one with a lowercase v. Cazort (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think a merge would be a good idea since Ubisoft is responsible for publishing so many game series. SharkD (talk) 02:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I.e. the Ubisoft page should be strictly business-related. SharkD (talk) 07:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Split !votes, but policy heavily favored those arguing delete. As always, I will be happy to userify this article for further improvement, and possible restoration if reliable sources showing notability appears. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kirepapa

Discussion to run until at least 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Non-notable manga by an author who is also non-notable. The work has received very little coverage from reliable third-party sources and trivial mention of the English language license. Although it was adapted into a direct-to-video anime, there is no indication that the anime ever received notice by reliable third-party sources either. See WT:ANIME#Aurora Publishing review for more details about the WikiProject's Aurora Publishing review. Farix (Talk) 00:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the redlinked Ryô Takagi in hopes it will be developed. Author is probably notable per gsearch. JJL (talk) 01:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Basic common sense should dictate that companies do not go through the trouble and great expense to produce TWO OVAs and THREE drama CDs of a "non-notable" manga. 159.182.1.4 (talk) 13:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Only one OVA and audio drama series. However, Wikipedia bases notability on if the subject has received significant coverage by independent reliable sources. Simply being adapted into other media itself doesn't mean the manga is notable. Even WP:BK doesn't cross that bridge. --Farix (Talk) 16:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for being a manga AND an anime. Common sense over current rules for English language wikipedia. Dream Focus (talk) 18:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subtle part was that OVA doesn't count. Anime adaptation with national broadcast does. Movie adaptation does. KrebMarkt 18:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BK; unnotable manga series by an unnotable author. A single short unnotable OVA adaptation nor a series of equally unnotable drama CDs are relatively irrelevant. The series has not received any significant coverage anywhere, the author is not notable, even its original publisher isn't notable, with only a handful of titles in its stable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pending finding multiple reviews or other notice of the manga, its notability depends on the adaptations. Quoting WP:BK C3: The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement. That is, the OVA and drama CDs would have to be notable as well, and so far no reliable notice of them has been found. That they exist is an indicator of notability, but does not demonstrate it to the letter of our guidelines. Delete as failing WP:BK. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Releases date of the Drama CDs aren't sourced. I found that Kirepapa CD ? and that Kirepapa CD2 ?. Not enough to assert notability. KrebMarkt 11:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Warren

Discussion to run until at least 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This article was prodded due to concerns about unsourced material in a BLP. I addressed those concerns, cleaning up and sourcing the article. But after reflection, I'm concerned that this might be a case of being notable for only one event (accusations of rape). He is also an author, but apparently a non-notable one. Finding references has been hard, with a lot of Gsearch noise due to other people with the same name. I am neutral on the outcome of this AfD. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 00:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now since I have the feeling that this might not be a tiny little event. Then again, of course this article comes too soon, but it's here now. But "Andrew Warren" on Google News gives lots of relevant hits. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article focuses too much on giving a negative event WP:UNDUE weight. _ Mgm|^(talk) 12:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - While not as notable as Doc Hammer he is certainly more notable than Aubree Miller.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Absolon (talk • contribs) 15:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Multiple independent reliable sources cover notability. Thought I can see where the nominator is coming from with his only being covered for one event, I think that coverage of his book & promotion make him noteworthy for the time being. RMJ (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. I would be open to revisiting this deletion discussion after a year or so has elapsed. I want to note also that no pages link to Andrew Warren in the context of prose. Is their a context to his being accused of rape? Can this context appear as prose somewhere, other than this just being an isolated fact? If so, I think that would make him more notable. If not, I think that would be an argument for deletion. Cazort (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is a WP:BLP issue with the accusations given undue weight (of course, if there turn out to be an indictment or official action by either the United States or Algerian government, then it would necessitate an article). What's notable about the book? It seems to be trivially mentioned. So the question is, why is this individual included in Wikipedia? It's clearly not because he a CIA station chief; there is not enough mention of his book to establish him under WP:AUTHOR; so, the push must be due to the accusation. It's not enough... yet. B.Wind (talk) 05:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - How many station chiefs of CIA offices are (a) converts to Islam, and (b) outed? Bearian (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nontrivial mention in independent reliable soures = notability. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very Be Careful

Discussion to run until at least 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not confident this band meets the WP:MUSIC notability standard. I'd like some input here. Thanks. brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unable to find sources asserting notability, seems to fail WP:MUSIC. — neuro^(talk) 00:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant 3rd party notability WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 01:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#C1 for a review in The Independent ; [59] , an interview in NME; [60], Paste Magazine; [61], The Daily Telegraph; [62]. The Telegraph reference also establishes WP:MUSIC#C7. Passes WP:MUSIC#C12 for appearing live on BBC Radio 2 during a 3 hour show; [63]. Passes WP:MUSIC#C4 for a tour of Europe; [64] as well as various shows in the States; [65]. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 12 says: "Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network." I doubt they spent 1/6th of their time on one band. Appearing on a show is different than being the subject of a show. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was was the weaker claim, it was more of making a point that there was a hell of a lot out there with what amounted to 2 minutes searching. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#C1 as established by Esradekan. An argument can be made for passing C7, I'm not in the position to determine if C4 is met, but meeting one criterion is enough. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC. The Man Agree?
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:MUSIC#1, as demonstrated above. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 09:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Professional network service." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 3 Feb 2009, 20:37 UTC. 4 Feb 2009 <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Professional_network_service&oldid=268321025>.

[2] "Social network service." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 30 Jan 2009, 02:36 UTC. 4 Feb 2009 <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_network_service&oldid=267326391>.

[3] ttp://www.perfectnetworker.com/

[4] ttp://www.ning.com/?view=search&term=Mastermind

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]