Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 February 8

< 7 February	9 February >
Discussions scheduled to run until at least 13 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. kur ykh 03:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blagoje Jovović

On April 10, 1957 Ante Pavelić, the ex-dictator of the WWII Nazi puppet state the Independent State of Croatia, was shot twice by an unknown assailant while in hiding in Buenos Aires. The identity of this assailant has remained completely unknown. Now, it is likely he was shot as a result of an assassination operation by the Yugoslav secret police (the locally infamous UDBA), like other prominent ex-collaborationist individuals in hiding around the world (most notably Maks Luburić). However, it is important to emphasize that this is all speculation.
The problem we're facing here is that Serbian nationalist circles are propagating the "theory" that the man was actually shot by some ex-Chetnik guy called Blagoje Jovović. There isn't a shred of evidence that would indicate this, and the "theory" entertains the notion that the British secret service was essentially protecting Pavelić by keeping his ___location a secret. This article was created to support this wild nationalist conspiracy theory and promote the ex-Chetnik (Chetniks were Serbian radical nationalists during WWII) Blagoje Jovović as Pavelić's would-be "assassin". If we put aside the speculation, this person does not come anywhere near to meeting Wikipedia's notability requirements. (Don't get the wrong impression by the long intro, its required due to the matters obscurity, to me the whole matter appears pretty cut and dried :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per above. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above -Zeus-^u_c 04:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral for now~~ Weak delete the fact that there are conspiracy theories concerning this person as an assassin, and that these theories are published in reliable news sources actually increases the subject's notability. That said, I had a hard time finding sources to establish notability. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 05:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which reliable news sources would those be? The source in the article is Serbian, and Serbs generally view Pavelić as the most evil person that ever lived (in the Balkans). He killed hundreds of thousands in concentration camps, and it must be gratifying to entertain the "Jovović theory" because it supports the notion that nationalist Serbs "finally got their revenge". And even the authors of this (unsubstantiated) article presented as a "source" admit they're only speculating.

Surely we can't take this seriously without the evidence of support from at least one neutral historian? I mean, I'm sure you'll find lots of newspaper articles supporting the idea that JFK was killed by aliens from outer space... We must remember that the identity of the assailant remained completely unknown, the investigation turned out no important clues or suspects (which, in my opinion, only shows that the Yugoslav secret police was likely behind the whole thing). As things stand now, the "theory" has no evidence supporting it, and no historians backing it. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I did a very good job of explaining myself. What i meant was if reliable sources can be found concerning a conspiracy theory, even if said theory is far-fetched, then it would be notable. But I was unable to find sources. Due to the language barrier, I was hesitant to make a judgement, since I can't personally verify or discard sources in a language I don't speak. As for JFK, if there was an extremely popular fringe theory about UFOs, discussed in reliable sources, then an article on the topic wouldn't be a bad idea. Changed my recommendation to weak delete. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 16:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, of course... If such adequate (neutral!) professional support is found for the "theory" I'd change my vote as well. However, I doubt any non-Serbian historian would ever back the idea that one guy working alone located Pavelić, attacked him, and then managed to disappear without a trace. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probable delete. The article as it stands is based on one source, which is one person's account of the subject's reminiscences, and the subject rather conveniently died before it was published [1] so we have know way of knowing whether the subject himself considered it an accurate account. Searching for the subject's name in the Latin and Cyrillic alphabets the only other remotely plausible source I can find is this. I'm not very good at Serbian, but it doesn't look to me like a source that we can rely on to support the extraordinary claims made here. Could someone who understands the language better confirm that? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are many sources that retell the story - Amfilohije Radovic is a very prominent bishop in Serbian Ortodox Church, and the confession was arranged by him. There was a substantial media coverage; fact that Montenegrin patriot from Argentina was the assasin was known for years (many sources can be found for this), but his name was made public in 1999.

The topic made news even in Croatia - here is Vjesnik article about Blagoje Jovovic, complete with confirmation of the data and case with Amfilohije Radovic. http://www.vjesnik.com/pdf/2005%5C07%5C23%5C28A28.PDF The buzz is significant enough to meet notability criteria of wiki. Croatian article speculates on the truthfulness of Jovovic admission, but concluded that at the very least he was involved. Per wiki rules:

The person clearly existed, did appear and was admitted by the bishop Radovic
The event created buzz
Weather he was the attentator or not is not for wikipedia to determine. However, as the case is significant enough, the person should be left, with explenation that it is his self confession/claim that he is actual attentator.

Based on this, clearly article should be kept as the case is significant, archbishop Radovic meeting and coming out is confirmed by reliable sources; weather he is really an attentator is not the issue for deletion - it is properly dealt by reporting what is said in reliable sources - and there are sources about his testemony. 78.30.163.113 (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "buzz"? Two newspaper articles? The guy is completely unknown and obscure, painfully so. No evidence or serious historical sources supporting his role as "assassin" can be found. He existed? Well, I exist too... wanna make an article about me? :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Do not be fooled by Croatian proposal for article deletion. This man was a hero, as he killed one of the most vicious murderers in human history. Croatians are well known for their attempts to whitewash history, and to put all their dirt under the carpet. By siding with Ustashe apologists, you are in fact colaborating in dirty campagn of holocaust denial, that goes in Croatia for decades. Blagoje Jovovic is significant hero of the Serbian emigration, and Serbian nation in general. His exploits are well documented and in fact, books like "Ubij bliznjeg svog" deal in detail with how the most notorious Ustashe criminals were assasinated by Jovovic and other people, many hired by UDBA (Yugoslav/Serbian version of MOSAD). Moreover, an article about other agents, like Ilija Stanic would be welcome. Stanic is a well known figure whose exploits were documented in self testemonies, like the following nice piece that describes death of the Ustasha murderer Maks Luburic, one of the people who are celebrated in today Croatia, like Pavelic, by people who come here and propose deletion of pages devoted to these agents of justice on bogus reasons and "reasons". This is how Maks Luburic died, in Stanic own words:

"Vidim pocrnio kao zemlja. Dize se i povraca. Povedem ga u kujnu na cesmu. On povraca u sudoperu, ja mu pljuskam vodu po licu. U tren uzmem cekic i raspalim po celu: Tup! maks pade kao sveca. Mislio sam vise se dici nece. Kad on me pogleda kao zver. Zamahnem opet cekicem, a on dize ruke da se zastiti. Ja viknem: -Majku ti jebem ustasku. Ovako si ti manjem ubijao decu u Jasenovcu! Vidis sta te ceka! Pogodi ga cekic kroz prste u celo. Puce lobanja. Izvucem cekic iz glave i okrenem se. Odem do vrata da proverim da li su zakljucana. Kad se vratim u kujnu, Maks istao i dahce kao zivotinja. Sto kila u njemu. Uzmem onu stanglu pa ga raspalim po celu. Puce glava kao lubenica. Krv se rasu po kuhinji. Maks tresnu dole kao da je pao sa sto metara visine. Puknem ga jos jednom. On se umiri. Umotam ga u deku. Maks je otezao, jedva ga dovucem pod otoman. Fino sam ga spakovao da ga brzo ne nadju..."

This guresome execution was done by another Croat - Stanic was blackmailed into killing him, but no doubt that they deserved each other. Stanic was paid appropriately for this deed, got apartment in Sarajevo, and was somewhat of a local celebrity. Same goes for Blagoje Jovovic, who did a clean shot to the head of the "poglavnik", who unfortunately survived to pollute this world for a few more years. Croatian editors should abandon their petty denying of the existence of these people who did some justice to the numerous victims of the Ustashe genocide, that they deny, and always keep in mind that brave Serbian soldier of justice, Blagoje Jovovic, is not only an extraordinary hero, that will always be remembered for what he did, but also a role model for all Serbs that will never allow Croatian whitewashing of history, Holocaust denial. Deeds of Ustashe will always stand between us, and Serbs will never allow the crimes of Croatian genocidial maniacs to be deleted like this!!! Knjizevnica (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LoL --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fabricated history, zero verifiable sources. Don't be fooled by Knjizevnica's (looks like a clone of another banned user to me) attempt to put this into some "anti-Serb plot" scheme - this is about encyclopaedic relevance and verifiability of sources. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment would just like to point out that not all of us, at least, are croatian. -Zeus-^u_c 04:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - but change it a bit, so that it suggests that Blagoje might not be the assassin. Enough people in Serbia and Croatia know his name for there to be an article about him on Wikipedia, but whether it's 100% that he IS the assassin, that can be debated in the article itself. Pure logic. --JUSTICE 05:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See that's the POV: "Jovović might not be the assassin"? That's misleading, as Jovović might have been the assassin, but equally it might have been some bartender in Buenos Aires from a bar where Pavelić skipped out on his tab. :P It is more than likely that the assassin was not Jovović, to present the whole matter in a way that the article says "Jovović was the assassin, but there is a chance he might not have been" is completely misleading. In fact, without professional verifiable sources the idea should not be entertained at all on a serious encyclopedia. And no, the person is not well known in Croatia, I imagine he's a completely obscure figure outside Serbia, and even there only nationalist circles seriously entertain the notion that he was the assassin. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DIREKTOR is correct - 99.99% Croats (dunno about Serbs, but given the average Serb nationalist appetite for "theories" such as these, I suspect the percentage is much lower ^_^) doesn't have a clue who this "Blagoje Jovović" is. I surely didn't until I've came across this article the other day by inspecting certain user's contributions. Besides, how many people have heard of him or not is irrelevant as regards to encyclopaedic relevance, which are strictly regulated by the WP policy.

As DIREKTOR perceptively notices, the way this article is presented is as if it's describing a real historical event, which is false and highly misleading. Hence, the sole reason why this article should be deleted is because there are no real historians discussing in verifiable sources the validity of the theory - it's completely irrelevant to them. We cannot draw on another nationalist myth and present it as a fact, or moreover, consider the spread of the theory in some nationalist circles as an argument of relevance for WP when it's completely ignored by the profession itself.

As it turns out, the supporters for this article are all some kind of hardline Serb nationalists. I mean, look at the above quote by this 2-edit account Knjizevnica - "Maks Luburic, one of the people who are celebrated in today Croatia" - only a completely deranged person could say something like this (as a comparison, it would be equal to saying "Hitler, one of the people who are celebrated in today Austria.."). Please don't fall for the fallacious anti-Croat propaganda. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I ought to change my vote to "Strong" delete to cancel-out the "Strong" keep above? ;) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If "enough people in Serbia and Croatia know his name for there to be an article about him on Wikipedia" then presumably there are reliable sources that have discussed this person. It would help the argument much more if you could point us to these sources rather than just declare this as a fact. For the record, as we seem to be getting into nationalist arguments here, I have no connection with either Serbia or Croatia. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tried to imagine what this page would look like if it was entirely rewritten based only on reliable sources, and it didn't seem like the page would amount to much more than a stub, quoting vague innuendos but nothing solid. Chicken Wing (talk) 19:38, 11 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 03:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Peterson (pilot)

A clear case of WP:ONEEVENT. He was the pilot who crashed and killed Buddy Holly. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Clarityfiend (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to The Day the Music Died. Pburka (talk) 23:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A close read of WP:ONEEVENT illustrates that its application depends on what the "one event" was. Books about the the airplane crash have, for obvious reasons, inevitably mentioned the story of Peterson, and persons who want to know more about him consult Wikipedia for reliable information. Mandsford (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not the sort of event that WP:ONEEVENT is supposed to cover. There's a minimal amount of biographical information available to would be out of place in any merge target. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:05, 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 delete. — Aitias // discussion 19:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jake and the bur-tones

Regional band that fails to establish notability per WP:BAND, author(s) removed speedy notices twice, the requirements for reliable third-party sources were explained without success and I assume PROD will have the same effect (none) so AfD'ed this for consensus. §FreeRangeFrog 23:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching pulls up no reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as noted above, fails notability, article Jake and the Bur-Tones was also posted, and speedied twice yesterday, after being posted by promotional/COI type name User talk:Burtone1. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 01:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly fails WP:MUSIC. On second thought, speedy delete anyway, slamdunk A7 if you ask me. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. Hogvillian (talk) 02:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7. cmadler (talk) 14:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Declined Let's just let the AfD run its course. Protonk (talk) 16:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:MUSIC. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 13:07, 11 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. Mgm|^(talk) 10:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That Night (short film)

Non-notable short film that does not appear to meet WP:NF standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete copyvio of IMDB page for the film. JulesH (talk) 08:27, 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 03:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Winkler

Claimed politician whose only attempt at public office so far is as a candidate for the mayor of a town of 7,000 people. Other claims to fame include voted "most likely to succeed" at high school and has spent time on work experience for a congressman. Seconded prod removed Porturology (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he would fall short of the WP:BIO bar even if he were elected mayor of the town. Intern work contributes nothing toward notability unless his actions as intern merited coverage by reliable sources independent of the U.S. Senate. B.Wind (talk) 00:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even if sources existed would not be notable yet... Richard Hock (talk) 12:57, 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 03:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Kirk

Bio written up by someone with an obvious COI. Is he notable? (NB. Not a copyvio - permission has been given.) — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's an icky self-promotional CV, but... this character is indeed notable, per WP guidelines, I believe. There's significant coverage in major media outlets, including Forbes and The New York Times, going back forty-- yes, forty-- years. J L G 4 1 0 4 03:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The search linked by Jlg4104 clearly shows that there has been substantial coverage of the subject in reliable sources, even if many of them are not available online. I'm rather surprised that the nominator managed to miss that when going through the procedure at WP:BEFORE, which says, "when nominating an article for deletion due to sourcing concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources aren't likely to exist". Phil Bridger (talk) 22:34, 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 03:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daisy Rooks

non-notable junior sociologist, has just begun assistant prof position; two peer-reviewed articles, with very few citations, minimal news coverage. Declined prod; article creator is supporting it with references such as a link to the acknowledgements section of a book by Ruth Milkman and (puzzlingly) a 2002 article in the San Francisco Chronicle about an article by Rooks published only in 2003. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

google search on: allintitle: labor OR union author:"d rooks" Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. --Crusio (talk) 23:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:ACADEMIC because the person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity (see footnotes in article). Notability argument is on Talk page for the article. Nomoskedasticity's puzzlement over 2002 SF Chronicle article is because SF Chronicle piece references fact that she is working on the publication, not the publication itself. - Tim1965 (talk) 00:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The talk page is persuasive. Richard Myers (talk) 03:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The talk page is only persuasive in showing that certain arguments (about tenure, for example) need not apply, IF other circumstances are present. For example, Einstein was not tenured when he published his very influential theory and this made him notable despite not being tenured. In the present case, I don't see anything that makes this person notable. A few mentions in passing in some newspapers, a mention in the acknowledgements of a book, this does not really sum up to being influential or visible. If these are going to be the criteria, then each person working at a university, from postdoc on up, would be notable --Crusio (talk) 11:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The claims of notability in the article appear to be primarily for her "Cowboy Mentality" article but I found only two citations to it in Google scholar and one magazine article (from Monthly Review) in Google news archive. I don't see that as enough to demonstrate the impact needed to pass WP:PROF #1, and I don't see any other sign of passing WP:PROF. Yes, "has just begun as an assistant prof" is not a strong argument to delete, but it's even weaker as an argument to keep, so the talk page arguments fail to convince me. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO, as noted by David Eppstein and Crusio.--Eric Yurken (talk) 03:59, 12 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 03:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charm School Gives Back

Delete or Redirect: Article about a future television show with very few details and only source is a blog. Should be deleted or redirected to Charm School (TV series) until more details (and reliable sources) emerge. Plastikspork (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you already tried to redirect and someone reverted. Even so, you could have just discussed it on the article's talk page. No need to come to articles for deletion if you don't actually want deletion. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: True, and I have updated my vote to include deletion. I would like to get input from others. I don't think anyone (or at least very many people) other than the article's creator is (are) watching the page. Thanks for pointing out this option. Plastikspork (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Summer 2008=Memorial Day. No need to rush this article up without sources or an actual date. When VH1 announces it, we can put it up. And of course it's subject to the usual title change before actual airing. Nate • (chatter) 05:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "TBA" = WP:CRYSTAL. JamesBurns (talk) 08:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just realized the entire text of the article has been PLAGIARIZED from [the blog listed as a source http://blog.vh1.com/2009-02-05/ricki-lake-to-head-third-installment-of-charm-school/]! Should I request speedy delete? Plastikspork (talk) 20:46, 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 03:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Budget debate

A new format for academic debating competitions. Idea generated by Siddharth Mehta and written up here by user:Siddharth171287. (Edits on the same subject to be undone in debate and Template:University debating.) — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am revising my delete proposal to: Redirect to Budget Day. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It may be a new format for school debating societies, but it's a centuries old idea in parliamentary democracy. See Budget Day for what real Budget debates are all about. Ironically, the first source cited in this article, whilst not supporting this content in any way, would support the beginnings of an "In India" section in Budget Day, since it provides several verifiable facts about Budget Days in India. Uncle G (talk) 02:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotion by single purpose account of a ~~recent~~ idea that doesn't meet notability yet, and that "Institutes of National Importance" reference link seems fishy too although it doesn't even help to establish this article's notability anyway. OlEnglish (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point One -- Abt Budget Day - if you see a googlepages alfaaz link given , you will see that the Budet debate is like making a business plan / or more like a AOE game where teams are given funds to manage, After reading the scenario given in rule booklet you will realise that its way above the standard of School debate.

Secondly "Institute of National Importance" clause is mentioned in constitution of India. These few institutes are fully overnment funded and any practice adopted by these institutes is regarded as guidelines to rest all colleges of India. To check credibility of IIT's and status in India , I would suggest you all to just read about it once on wikipedia itself. Lastly is there a compulsion that things now practised in West wont get mention in Wikipedia , if Australian Debate can mention, debatin done in Australia, y is it wrong for Budget Debate I Hope you will change your mindset now and vote in favour —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siddharth171287 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Siddharth, for the benefit of us ignorant Europeans perhaps you could explain what an AOE game is. You say "googlepages alfaaz link given" but you have not given us the link! It is this PDF. It tells us that a budget debate is "being held for the first time anywhere as a full fledged event, on 21st – 22nd March 2009". That pretty well condemns your article on the grounds of original research / CRYSTAL. I fear the idea will not catch on, at least using your rules: they make Mornington Crescent seem simple! — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wasn't sure on reading the article whether this was what went on in the Parliament or a debating society. I assume from comments above it's debating society. It's not one we did at school (we had parliamentary elections and criminal trials, etc), but I would imagine it's been done already. Not a lot of indication of notability. Peridon (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like this should be deleted or merged with a parent topic. Chicken Wing (talk) 19:35, 11 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 03:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Macula (planetary geology)

This one-line dictionary definition survived a previous prod (June 07) on the grounds that it had the potential for expansion, however I really don't see that being the case, and in over a year there hasn't been any such expansion. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:52, 8 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Soft redirect to wiktionary. I'll go ahead and do that now.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - sorry; but I think that bold redirecting should await the result of the AfD. TerriersFan (talk) 02:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is just a dictionary definition (and one already in Wiktionary, at that) already provided in the few WP pages that link to it. It doesn't appear that there's anything additional to be said here, although I'm willing to be proved wrong, if anyone has further info they can add. Anaxial (talk) 22:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Planetary geology, a page that badly needs some content. A section on related terms would be a useful addition. TerriersFan (talk) 02:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - I do think that this has potential for expansion as our knowledge of planetary geology improves, so keeping the page as a redirect would serve a purpose. That said, as it stands the suggested merge seems the best option.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DuncanHill (talk • contribs) 08:07, 9 February 2009
Merge as above. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- A five minute search turned up the following sources: [2], [3], [4], [5], which are enough to write a small but respectable stub, and I'm sure there's more sources to be found. I will expand the article later, when I have time. Reyk _YO! 20:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- More sources: [6], [7] Reyk _YO! 21:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as TerriersFan. Jdrewitt (talk) 21:36, 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. MBisanz ^talk 16:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Park Seong-won

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Non-notable, little references, and there is a serious bit of Conflict of interest as well as the article is written by User:Park Seong-won. CyberGhostface (talk) 15:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, please. I agree with CyberGhostface about notability. To be a member of committeeis good, but many professor and priest/reverend beloning the committee. The committee is maybe notable, but not to member of the committee. If somebody famous, maybe they should wait until another editor decide to write the article. Nxo (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Keep. I change after I look at the google's search results given by Phil Bridger. We can see academic actvities and publication, religious activity of the Park Seong-won, in English and Korean. I change to keep and also perhaps the editor will dispense with the superfluous detail on the family of the Park Seong-won. Nxo (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This isn't just any old committee that the subject's a member of, it's the Central Committee of the World Council of Churches. 159 people belong to it. He seems to get a fair number of mentions in these news sources and these books, but I don't have time to go through them in detail at the moment. Conflict of interest is a reason for editing, not deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, that is a good point about the notability of the committee, Phil Bridger. However, are members of the committee notable simply through their membership? Also, I add the perspective by letting you know that their isno page for this *Park Seong-won in korean wikipedia [8] . Nxo (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No, members are not notable simply by virtue of their membership, which is why I haven't recommended keeping without looking through the potential sources that I found. However membership of the central committee of an organisation that represents over 500 million people is a good indication that substantial coverage in reliable sources will probably exist, so it's worth having a careful look for them before deciding what to do with this article. Have you tried looking for Korean sources? I'm afraid my ability to search is limited to the Latin alphabet (or Cyrillic at a stretch). Phil Bridger (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, in the search link you provided I can see a few results in Korean. I will look them further, and add as the source if relevant.Nxo (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 17:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A websearch on the Korean for Park Seong-won (박성원) did not yielding good result. But I addition of "WCC" and I received many results on Naver [9]. In Korean result, their is the report of the mainstream Korean newspaper such as Kukmin Ilbo, etc. So maybe they could class the "reliable sources". And Phil Bridger resarch show that Park Seong-won is author of book chapter on church history in volume published by mainstream publsiher [10].Nxo (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO. I understand the points made above, but the bottom line is that independent news coverage in English of him is practically nonexistent, and this is the English Wikipedia.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The "English" in "English Wikipedia" simply refers to the language in which it is written. It isn't a restriction on what sources can be used. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the importance of the body is sufficiently great that each individual person is notable. Just like any top level international body for a major profession. He's there as the representative of World Alliance of Reformed Churches, also a major international body. The professorship is probably notable also, though I cannot judge adequately for lack of sources I can read. DGG (talk) 03:49, 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 redirect to List of characters from EastEnders. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 04:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theo Kelly (EastEnders)

No real-world notability, not established per WP:MOSFICT or WP:N. Character has only a few appearances in a long running show. The only reference provided is just the common press releases when a new character enters a show. The reference can be used in a list if characters or somewhere else. Magioladitis (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notability does not automatically warrant deletion. In this case, a redirect to List_of_characters_in_EastEnders seems appropriate. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, & then consider whether to Merge or Redirect into a suitable article or list of minor characters. Such should be the default way to deal with these, and it does not take AfD. DGG (talk) 03:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In Prison Break characters merge procedure, in which I participate, we decided to keep characters that have a minimum amount of appearances. And it's a weekly program we are talking about. I can't understand why we should have a redirect for every single character that appears in a soap, even if it has appeared less than 10 times! (and this is nothing for a daily soap played for years). Are we creating redirects for every single player that played in a soccer division in some country? -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given that this is a new, regular character Stephenb (Talk) 19:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:RECENTISM please. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the list of characters until there's more to say about him. Stifle (talk) 10:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Stifle. This can always be undone when there is more to say about him or additional sources are found. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - To List of characters from EastEnders — neuro^(talk) 08:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there will be commentary in tabloids and newstand womens' mags in the UK. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then WP:PROVEIT please. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Stifle. The article can be rewritten once there is enough written about the character in reliable sources independent of the program. An arbitrary minimum number of appearances for inclusion would not be appropriate as this is governed (as it should be) by media coverage. B.Wind (talk) 04:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as a ranting attack page. Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Racism and the panarabism ideology

Clearly WP:OR or a term paper or something similar, POV pushing etc. Unencyclopedic. Has to go. ukexpat (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete (it will be covered by that - not sure what number). As per nom. I made an overcautious edit, so look in the history, but its sources are largely unreliable, or there are none, loads of POV. One sided... blah blah. In short, racist bilge. Ddawkins73 (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's a lame attempt at a content fork from Pan-Arabism with nothing in it that could be considered for merging. As for "racism," well, some pan-arabists are racists, some are not, it's not inherently one thing or the other, and if this is an important subset of pan-arabism that is supported by reliable sources, that are verifiable and notable, then it could/can be dealt with at Pan-Arabism.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:02, 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 delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 03:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Grimshaw

contested prod. non-notable estate agent. none of the sources in external links is about the subject, only about his clients. Horsesforcorses (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- DARTH PANDA^{duel • work} 21:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- DARTH PANDA^{duel • work} 21:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject's main claim to fame seems to be the link to Roman Abramovich, but searching in the Google news archive for their names together finds nothing. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - attack bio of non-notable living person; see the rules. Bearian (talk) 15:25, 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. None of the deletion arguments appear to me to have merit. Compiling a list from multiple sources is not original research. Reliable sources are available and several have been added during this discussion. I don't have access to the Lederer source, but this doesn't appear to be a wholesale copyright violation of it, and over-quotation from a single source should be dealt with by editing and addition of alternative sources, not deletion. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of self-contradicting words in English

This article is entirely original research. These entries require someone to interpret the definition, and conclude that it has contradicting meanings. This is the definition of original research: an editor making a conclusion, rather than a source. seresin ( ¡? ) 21:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- DARTH PANDA^{duel • work} 21:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- DARTH PANDA^{duel • work} 21:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Yeah, I read Crazy English as well, and Richard Lederer had a whole list like this. To his/her credit, the author acknowledges Lederer as a source, and not all of these are on that list, but Lederer presented this so much better, using examples. Even Lederer's list was faulty, implying that "bound for" and "bound to", or "clipped from" and "clipped to" are the same thing. If you want to make your own article rather than something that looks like it's copied heavily from another man's work, then refer to dictionary definitions. Mandsford (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. original research, somewhat arbitrary, and confusing too. I'm Jack^(Lumber) and I approve this message. 01:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:OR claim is very weak since this can be sourced to Lederer and most likely several other books. As far as being arbitrary and confusing, can you explain yourself a bit more? Thanks! LinguistAtLarge • Msg 15:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never been fond of the "needs improvement, so delete" line of thinking. AFD shouldn't be used where e.g. a {{cleanup}} tag is more appropriate. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 16:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above. Hogvillian (talk) 02:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Since some of the reasons given above are invalid, would you be so kind as to list your reasons for deletion? Thank you. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 15:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I'm just not seeing how this is original research. This is a list of words that have contradictory definitions. Each one of those definitions is easily sourced and requires no interpretation on the part of the editor. If you consider sourcing the definitions, but stating (in this article) that they are contradictory as original research, then each of these contradictory words can be sourced to books or articles that state they are self-contradictory words or auto-antonyms. The article is sloppy and lacks sources, but it is not original research nor is it arbitrary. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 06:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We need sources that say they have contradicting definitions. All else is our own synthesis. seresin ( ¡? ) 07:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source would be the Lederer book, at pages 224-226. What I have a problem with is that this is very unoriginal research, practically a copy of Lederer. It's an example of the self-contradictory word "took"-- 1. To have removed something ("They took this straight out of someone else's book"); 2. To have placed something ("They took a crap on Wikipedia"). Mandsford (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't see the problem with using Lederer (and other books) as sources. Why exactly do you think this article is akin to "taking a crap on Wikipedia"? Is it a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, or do you truly think it's unencyclopedic? LinguistAtLarge • Msg 15:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can appreciate that you want to save the article, and that you're even adding sources to it, but it's never been encyclopedic. For the encyclopedic treatment, see Auto-antonym. This is the fun-but-inaccurate version, a bulletin board for people to stop by and add their own contributions about what they think is a word that's like the one on Lederer's list. Even the original list, part of which can be seen here [11] was debatable. The form of the add-ons has been unencyclopedic-- instead of citing two dictonary definitions, the form has been a Noah Webster wannabe saying "well, the word 'cool' can mean this and it can mean that". If it looks like this article will "go" (whether forward or away), I think that you should edit the hell out of it, dispense with whatever entries strike you as inaccurate, and put some more meat in the definitions that are used for proof. Bear in mind that if this article goes away, you can incorporate a list to Auto-antonym. Mandsford (talk) 14:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A list of this size shouldn't be subsumed into a topical article. It would dominate the content of Auto-antonym. The next move would then be to spin it off as a standalone list. I think we should avoid that unnecessary thrashing. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 16:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons given above. Rubisco (talk) 12:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Since some of the reasons "given above" are invalid, would you be so kind as to list your reasons for deletion? Thank you. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 15:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this can be rescued in the next couple of days. Merge with Auto-antonym, the best place to save the useful content, and redirect. Bearian (talk) 23:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:Lists as a glossary is a type of list used on Wikipedia. All it takes is someone to work on it for an hour or so to make sure all the definitions are referenced, which is not a matter for AfD. Tavix (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The reasons "given above" are not invalid. For example:

Certain can refer either to an indeterminate quality ("she has a certain air about her") as well as to an established fact (a certainty).
Continue The verb continue means "to keep doing"; however the noun form continuation, in legal usage, means "to pick up later", particularly in the form continuance.

And the list goes on and on. Who says that these are "self-contradicting words"? An editor? If so, that would be an editor making a conclusion and therefore original research. Is it a source? What kind of source? Is it reliable? Is it relevant? For example, the reference provided at the entry for comprise is simply a dictionary definition. Does this reference say that comprise is a self-contradicting word? No, it doesn't. The reference is irrelevant and therefore invalid, which makes the inclusion of comprise arbitrary. Last but not least, is the subject matter notable? Just because it was featured in Richard Lederer's Crazy English? I'm Jack^(Lumber) and I approve this message. 03:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does this reference say that comprise is a self-contradicting word? It sure does. #2 and #3 are opposite definitions. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 16:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no. That's according to your personal interpretation of the definition, as well as your own definition of "self-contradictory." To me, a polysemous word is not necessarily "self-contradictory." What we need is a source to explicitly state that that word is self-contradictory. Without that, it's up to the reader to "interpret the definition, and conclude that it has contradicting meanings" as per nom. I'm Jack^(Lumber) and I approve this message. 19:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that a well-thought out list would be noticeably shorter, and small enough to be included in the article about contronyms (I hate the word "auto-antonym", and especially hate the phrase "self-contradicting word"). There are a lot of words on this list that, standing alone, don't really have two opposite meanings. I don't see how "expressive of awe" is the opposite of "inspiring awe", or going against a wall is somehow different than going against the wind. I disagree that there should be as strict a definition of original reearch as proposed here -- one doesn't have to find a source to prove that a red, white and blue flag has three colors, nor do I think most of the words would have been on here had they not been in a book where the author said, "this is a list of ______ words". To me, sourcing cures OR, and there are conclusions where the word "duh" applies. Mandsford (talk) 21:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the fact that sources are being added by Linguist. The list definitely needs improvements, but I conclude that there are enough capable people (Linguist, Tyler, Tavix) who want to see that as well. Mandsford (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are far more reliable sources than Lederer that can be used for this article. This is a subject of scholarly research (See "On Contronymy") so examples can easily be found from reliable sources. Trim out the original research by ensuring there is a reliable source describing each word as a "self-contradictory" or an "auto-antonym", "contronym", "contranym", "antagonym", "enantiodrome", "Janus word", "antilogy", "amphibolous word", "fence-sitter", "opposonym", "pseudo-opposite", or "self-antonym" (all of these words are found in the "On Contronymy" paper). Here is a source calling the phenomenon "antonymous polysemy" and gives examples such as "peruse", "weather", and "handicap". If what is left after removing the OR is small enough, this list could be merged into Auto-antonym, but I suspect a good number of these words could be sourced. DHowell (talk) 05:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that I have cited 11 words to two reliable sources describing these words as auto-antonyms; much more referencing is possible. DHowell (talk) 05:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Insufficient reason to delete, content is interesting if not useful - not unencyclopedic. --Carbon Rodney 05:18, 12 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 03:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon lark

Vanity page, minimal notability. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Fails WP:ENTERTAINER at best. §FreeRangeFrog 20:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep - Reversing, much different article now. §FreeRangeFrog 21:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- DARTH PANDA^{duel • work} 21:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep "I'd Rather fix the damn pipe rather than complain about having wet feet." --User:MichaelQSchmidt. I did what the above editors were unwilling to do, I found several more references, establishing this editors notability. Including two articles in Fangoria, the San Francisco Chronicle, and Fearnet. Ikip (talk) 11:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as improved. Stifle (talk) 10:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of multiple reliable sources. Ikip: Fangoria and Fearnet, being self-published, violate our policy on reliable sources. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot San Francisco Chronicle? Self published?

Fangoria is THE largest horror magazine: "Fangoria is an internationally-distributed US film fan magazine specializing in the genres of horror, slasher, splatter and exploitation films, in regular publication since 1979." it is NOT self published.

Fearnet is, "FEARnet is a multi-platform horror network created by Lionsgate, Comcast, and Sony Pictures Entertainment. " has contracts with comcast, showing all of the horror movies on Comcast's ondemand, it is NOT self published. A two minute search of these sources would reveal this.

If editors focused on finding resources more than they did memorizing acronyms to support deletion, wikipedia would be that much better. Ikip (talk) 12:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STRONGEST Keep and tag for cleanup to address pov and expansion to make encyclopddic. SPS is misquoted here, as they are NOT published by Shannon Lark, and are pubications from experts in the field qualified to voice their opinion. Further, Ikip simply shared the tip of a very LARGE iceberg. You won't find Shannon lark on the front page of Wall Street Journal, but then you won't find Barrack Obama being written up on Fangora. Sources must be considered in context to what is being sourced. And, since other sources are available, wikipedia would be improved by the article being improved. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update I just spent a very few minutes doing a cursory search and cannot see how the nom could have missed the dozens upon dozens upon dozens of sources. I did a bit of copyedit to the article. It needs more help, but its a definite keeper. Sheesh. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}`
Keep IMDB entry, SF Chronicle interview, notability established for me The Steve 21:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And no one is saying that the IMDB entry confers notability.... only that it WP:Verifies the other many sources as part of the overall encylopedic aspect of the article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep The SF Chronicle article establishes notability, I have pipelinked some of the films in the article, the directed to the wrong place (the wound up being redlinks). Nice work on the improvement.--kelapstick (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article meets WP:RS standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:47, 13 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 01:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moytoy I

An editor, User:Natty4bumpo, has expressed the concern that the article is on a non-existent individual, but has not been able to list an AFD. I've now done so for him. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of a "Moytoy I" is part of the broader myth of the "House of Moytoy", a fantasy dreamed up by genealogist with an active imagination, one that has its basis in an affair between a representative of the Province of Carolina named Alexander Cumming who attempted to gain control over the Cherokee by proclaiming the headman of one of the Overhill Cherokee towns, Great Tellico, as "Emperor of the Cherokee". As part of this effort, he sent seven delegates from the Cherokee, who at that time were organized by towns rather than as a "nation", to England to meet the King of Great Britain, George II. Once there, they complained of their treatment by Cumming, which resulted in his dismissal.

That Moytoy, Moytoy of Tellico, is the first recorded person to be known by that corruption of that name ("Amatoya" in Cherokee), and neither he, nor his father (whose name is, in fact, unknown) used designating numbers such as were used by the dynasties of Europe. "Moytoy I" is, in fact, an invention by imaginative geneaolgists to provide a lineage for the fictitious "House of Moytoy", a concept based on European ideas of patrilineal family structure, patriarchal society, and hereditary rulers imposed on the fabric of the matrilineal, quasi-matriarchal Cherokee who have never at any time in their history had hereditary rulers. No source from the time, nor any credible recent history, of the Cherokee ever mentions a "Moytoy I". Moytoy of Tellico, designated "Moytoy II" in the "House of Moytoy" myth, would not have been considered related to his own father since at the time Cherokee belonged to the clan of their mother.

A further part of this myth, echoed in the referenced Shawnee Heritage I, is that the members of the "House of Moytoy" used that appellation as a family surname. Surnames were not used among the Cherokee until the late 18th century after the end of the wars of that period when Cherokee society began to change and become more accultured, which weakens the credibility of the afore-mentioned "source".

The further fiction of the "House of Moytoy" being descended from "Thomas Carpenter" of the Anglo-Irish baronial family of Carpenter is based on the fact that a later leader of the Cherokee from Chota named Attakullakulla, whom the English and the colonists called "Little Carpenter". According to this aspect of the myth, he was so-called because of his descent from the afore-mentioned Anglo-Irish family. In fact, Attakullakulla was so-called because his Cherokee name translates as "Leaning wood", for the "Carpenter", while the "Little" was a reference to his diminuitive physical stature, much the same way as the whites called Ca-Nun-Tah-Cla-Kee ("He who walks on the ridge") by the name "The Ridge" and Tsiyugunsini ("He is dragging his canoe") by the name "Dragging Canoe".

That part of the myth has Thomas Carpenter leading his family from danger of attacks by the Iroquois to the area of the Five Lower Towns (Running Water, Lookout Mountain, Nickajack, Crow, and Long Island, the latter of which the myth's proponents for some reason replace with Chota, which was over a hundred miles to the northeast) in 1675, a time when that area, even by Cherokee legend, was well within the territory of the Muskogee. In fact, the so-called Five Lower Towns were established by Dragging Canoe in 1782 when he led his followers further west from their then current home in the Chickamauga (now Chattanooga, Tennessee) region to give them greater distance from the Anglo-American colonists and the protection provided by the mountains and the various navigation hazards of the Tennessee River Gorge.

Given these facts, the reference from Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom, Extant, Extinct or Dormant provides no support for the article's contentions.

Regarding the "information" from the "Cherokee Documentation Center", it is based on the same pop history as the "House of Moytoy" myth and its Carpenter corollary, not on actual research. The purpose of the Cherokee Documentation Center, as stated on their website, is to assist persons wishing to document their right to join a "Cherokee tribe" of their choice, even if they do not have the credentials to join the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, or the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians. These three are the only federally-recognized and only legitimate tribes of Cherokee. The Center, on the other hand, considers such state-recognized groups of highly questionable validity as the "Georgia Band of Eastern Cherokee", which its website specifically names, as legitimate "tribes" of Cherokee. The three actually legitimate tribes, meanwhile, have never recognized such groups, and two of them, the CNO and the Eastern Band, have joined together in pursuit of legal action against the "Cherokee Documentation Center", the "Georgia Band of Eastern Cherokee", and other such groups. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 02:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TLDR: This person, supposedly so central to Cherokee history, appears only in online amateur genealogy sources. His existence is not mentioned in any reliable source we've been able to find, including those specifically dealing with Cherokee leadership and political structure at the time. WillOakland (talk) 23:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talking about WP:TLDR, the above rationale is about three times longer than the article itself. MuZemike 06:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable source for this person's existence and plenty of reason to doubt it. The only published work, Shawnee Heritage I, is self-published through lulu.com. WillOakland (talk) 12:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no reliable 3rd party sources. JamesBurns (talk) 07:52, 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. MBisanz ^talk 16:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

House of Moytoy

Subject is non-existent Binary TSO ^??? 11:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted. It needs to be edited instead. It is the only article returned by a search for the term "Moytoy" which is a significant name in Cherokee history and genealogy. In addition, the term "House of Moytoy" refers to the Cherokee family of English and Shawnee origin. They are male-line descendants of an English trader, Thomas Pasmere Carpenter, whose family was related to Baron Carpenter of Killaghy and the Earl of Tyrconnell. Ref: G.E. Cokayne; with Vicary Gibbs, H.A. Doubleday, Geoffrey H. White, Duncan Warrand and Lord Howard de Walden, editors, The Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom, Extant, Extinct or Dormant, new ed., 13 volumes in 14 (1910-1959; reprint in 6 volumes, Gloucester, U.K.: Alan Sutton Publishing, 2000), volume III, page 54. Hereinafter cited as The Complete Peerage.

This article holds significance in Native American culture. I have requested arbitration. The article should not have been swiped clean without discussion. Odestiny (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is based on Victorian fantasy derived from the exploits of a Scottish con artist from England, Alexander Cumming, who attempted to gain control over the Cherokee by naming one of the leaders of one of the smaller and more remote towns as "emperor" of the Cherokee, whose name he corrupted to Moytoy. That is all there was to it. There is no "House of Moytoy" and never was, they have no relation to any family of "Carpenters", Cherokee did not have any surnames until the very late 18th century, their families were matrilineal rather than patrilineal, they did not have "royal dynasties", and the individual Cumming named Moytoy had no European genes. The reference cited above is meaningless because there is no relation. And I repeat, there never was a "House of Moytoy".

There are already articles on Moytoy I and Moytoy II (neither of which, by the way, cite any sources at all, much less credible sources), which Mr. Sneed would have learned had he bothered to search. They themselves in fact need editing because the article on Moytoy I, at least, echoes many of the fictions Odestiny tried to pass off as fact above, in addition to being full of geneaological fantasies that have grown up in recent years, and widely discredited by reputable, credible geneaologists.

Wikipedia had been making an attempt to provide credible, factual information to the American public and the world at large. Allowing this article to stand would be reversing that course. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice pedigree above, but the idea of a Cherokee "royal house" (in itself a historically erroneous concept) being related the Anglo-Irish Carpenter family originated in the fantsy that Attakullakulla, whom the whites called Little Carpenter, was a member of that family. In fact, he was called Little Carpenter because Attakullakulla means "Leaning wood", which whites turned into Little Carpenter, the "Little" because of his physical stature. Attakullakulla, according to his son Turtle-at-Home, wasn't even Cherokee originally; he was from a branch of the Algonquin Nippising up north captured as an infant and adopted by a minor chief. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 06:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Cherokee "royal house". That is not the point. The article is called "House of Moytoy, not "Royal House of Moytoy". Well known facts about Attakullakulla are being turned to suit the purpose of removing the article. There are no names or statements from "reputable, credible geneaologists" provided to support his claims. In fact, a simple search of the web will deliver an abundance of material that supports the claims of the article. Hamilton is choosing to spend his time rewriting Native American history. The wild, unsupported and egotistical statements he has made in the discussion are unwarranted. It should be simple enough to edit these articles by siting his own sources without making deletions based simply on his word. He does not appear to have the credentials to back it up. I have asked him why he chose to edit Cherokee related articles and on what he based his information, and did not receive an answer. It appears unreasonable for a Non-Cherokee to concentrate on the Moytoy line with such fervor without motive. There are many other articles in greater need of attention.Odestiny (talk) 07:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was no "House of Moytoy", and you're wanting there to have been isn't going to change that. A patrilineal European-style "House" in a matrilineal society is laughable on its face. The "source" you referenced on the Moytoy I article is so riddled with errors if it were handed in as a paper in a college class (or even a high school class), it would receive a failing grade, because it is all invented, not reality. The standard for Wikipedia is credible sources, not just any sources. And the "history" isn't "Native American", it's American, as in white American, and a fantasy. What's more, your source considers the "Georgia Tribe of Eastern Cherokee" to be an actual tribe of actual Cherokee, which if you had bothered to do even a modicum of research you would have learned. As for your bigoted reference to my race, I'm interested in historical accuracy. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 07:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I drop my argument with apologies to Mr. Hamilton. I will not challenge the deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Odestiny (talk • contribs) 08:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of reliable sources and substantial doubts. There were two Chiefs Moytoy, and they did have influential relatives, but the leap from that to a "House of Moytoy" depends on Eurocentric assumptions. WillOakland (talk) 13:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since Monday I have gone through over a dozen books that are available on Google, and there is just no support for the existence of a Cherokee "royal family" at this time. Historians agree that the Cherokee were very fragmented before 1794. Best I can tell, "Moytoy" was nothing more than a title for the rainmaker of a particular town, without any implication of a blood relationship. WillOakland (talk) 02:42, 13 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. Valid topic, article needs expert attention. Potential merges with other articles should be discussed on the relevant talk pages. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Design knowledge

Prod was removed by creator. Page is rife with WP:OR. DARTH PANDA^{duel • work} 20:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- DARTH PANDA^{duel • work} 21:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Reads like a cross between an essay and a garbled sales pitch, and neither seem particularly notable Richard Hock (talk) 12:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, complete bollocks:

For the off-line knowledge, there are two representation approaches. One is to highly abstract and categorize existing knowledge including experiences into a series of design principles, rationales and constraints. TRIZ is a good instance of this approach. The other is to represent a collection of design knowledge into a certain case for description. Case-based design is an example of this approach. The key issue is on the computerization of the design knowledge representation.

MEGO. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect. No-one has made a case that design knowledge does not exist: this material has been taught to engineering undergrads for decades. This article is not well written (though not bad for a newbie) but if there is nothing worth saving, could we redirect it to Design methods (that has its own problems) or Design? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or redirect. This topic does exist and seems notable enough for Wikipedia. It should be kept if it can be written better. Otherwise, it should be redirected as Hrothulf mentioned above. TheDude2006 (talk) 01:00, 11 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. Bad faith nomination created by an indefinitely blocked user (non-admin closure) Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma Delta

First of all, it is not at Dartmouth College. Second, I'm not sure if it deserves an article just yet unless it can be completely revised. It is actually at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. --AfDproXX (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as a bad-faith nomination. The nom, AfDproXX (talk · contribs), has been indef blocked as disruption and blatant vandalism for nominating this and other articles for deletion. I also strongly sense skull-sockery. MuZemike 20:41, 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 shown a red card and given an early bath. Bencherlite ^Talk 23:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of unattached footballers

I deleted this as an uncontested {{prod}} a few months ago; however an editor has now come to my talkpage to complain – hence, have restored this and listed it here to get a consensus. I wholeheartedly agree with the prod rationale of Unnecessary, unmaintainable list. Thousands of footballers are released from clubs - what level does it stop? There's loads of players on there that are retired as well. Similar Category previously deleted. and think that there is no way this list can ever be complete, accurate or maintainable, but am perfectly willing to be convinced. – iridescent 20:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I don't like list articles that change a lot and which easily get out of date. If the list is incomplete, and possibly also not very reliable in the people it does list, then it isn't going to be much use to anybody. A category is more maintainable so, if we are to have anything at all, I think we should have a category instead. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This list was a result of a CFD. I don't think it's maintainable as a list or a category, personally, but I have no opinion as to its deletion. --Kbdank71 20:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. No evidence the list isn't OR. Being realistic: not maintainable. Certainly a select list, so essentially synthesis. But OR covers it. Ddawkins73 (talk) 05:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unmaintainable, and Wikipedia is not a listing service for footballer's managers to try to get football clubs to notice them. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 07:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely impractical - "unattached" is just a euphemism for "unemployed", and when one considers semi-pro players as well the scope basically extends to every able-bodied man between 16 and 45 who's ever played for a club. As a category this would be bad enough but it's totally unworkable as a list. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Chris Cunningham's reasoning above, the impracticality of maintenance, and general uselessness of the list - are many people really going to come to WP thinking "gosh, I really need to know which footballers are out of work!"....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Chris and Chris have already summed it up - this is listcruft, pure and simple (specifically items 3, 6, 8 and 11). Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 11:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Chris & Chris. Giant Snowman 12:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Govvy (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unattached: UNmarried? NOT in a chain gang? Oh I see, it's a euphemism for UNemployed or just haven't realized that their retired; lots of them about these days; however, it's not encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete User Page stuff. It helps to update the article but unencyclopedic. Matthew_hk t c 22:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How could you possibly know every single unattached footballer? Even if you did, if the one user that does suddenly decides that Wikipedia is just too stressful and quits, it will become out of date because no-one else will edit it. A clear delete. DeMoN2009 17:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it would be definitely impossible to maintain such a list --Angelo (talk) 18:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, how does anyone know if a player is just between clubs or has actually ended his career? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:14, 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 04:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Leydon

...a local film critic not notable to the rest of the world. "Claim" to fame is occasionally interviewing notables. A Leydon article is along the same line as articles for local news anchors and radio hosts (which are deleted on a regular basis) – 95% of them are un-established relative to the rest of the world, thus not notable. It should also be noted that primary contributor to the article (User:JoeLeydon) is presumably the subject himself. Bat ears (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the WP:COI is regrettable, it is not a reason for deletion. Mr. Leydon appears to be a prominent U.S. film critic and a Google search confirms this. What the article really needs is a good rewrite. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, he was a local critic when he worked for the Houston Post, but now he works for Variety which is anything but local. Being a regular critic and correspondent for such a major magazine means he's notable. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems reasonably notable. Stifle (talk) 10:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although it needs reliable sources to be put in. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:48, 12 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 04:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Buecher

No claim of notability, no coverage in reliable sources. Fails both WP:BIO and WP:PORNBIO. Valrith (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability to mett guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 04:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of passing WP:PORNBIO or WP:N. Flarkins (talk) 16:03, 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 04:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Fat Tail: The Power of Political Knowledge for Strategic Investing

Advert for not yet published book. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Notability (books), which states unpublished book articles are strongly discourged unless they meet other notability guidelines, which this one doesn't. It also lacks multiple, independent references. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 19:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Notability (books), Cyclonenim couldn't have said it better. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. Hogvillian (talk) 02:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not sure if these sources are quite enough yet, but they do indicate that the noise around this book is strong enough for it to get enough reviews for notability once it is published, so I'd like to put it on the record here that, if this AfD ends in deletion, a WP:CSD#G4 speedy deletion wouldn't be appropriate if this gets recreated after publication. Maybe this should be userfied for now, but I'm not volunteering to look after it. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:58, 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. After discounting WP:SPA opinions (including one by the subject and author of the article), consensus is that the coverage of the subject is not extensive enough to make him pass WP:BIO. Sandstein 08:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Gatena

After two low-vote "no consensus" AfDs, this is the third nomination for a non-notable college football player. The subject is a walk-on (non-scholarship) college football player at a major college program in the United States. While this article is well written, the bottom line is the subject is not notable under WP:Athlete.

In the time between the last AfD and this one, another article by the same group of editors, James Edward Miller (a scholarship athlete), was successfully deleted without nearly as much vociferous debate as the previous AfDs.

While I am firmly on the side that WP:ATHLETE should include notable American college football players (not all), this individual has --as of yet-- not done enough to distinguish himself. As of right now, he is a walk-on, non-scholarship player (see here); his only highlight is a scout team award given at the school's awards banquet (along with such awards as "most inspirational player", etc...). He has never started a game for the program, been anywhere meaningful on the depth chart, had any significant play-time this season, or had a notable-enough college career at any of his previous stops. The article is long and well-written, but does not at any point describe anything that crosses the threshold of notability for Wikipedia.

None of the sources cited in the article are significant: the have either minor mentions in local papers (which local high school kids got scholarships, who got accepted to a military academy, etc) or are written in student newspapers and are not "independent of the subject" as defined in WP:GNG. The sources are hardly "independent of the subject" and are "unlikely to be strong evidence of interest by the world at large" per WP:N.

Putting this article into the greater context: If Wikipedia were to permit all Division I-FBS (top level) scholarship athletes, we'd have approximately [120 (teams) x 85 (NCAA-allowed scholarship players)] 10,200 new articles (at least). If you include walk-ons, that 10,200 number increases with very little room for any opinion on notability. A line must be drawn, and I think this line can be agreed upon. This article is basically a well-crafted vanity page; this article appears to be the work of either the subject, friend/relative, or PR firm. If it were allowed, any player who successfully walks onto any team would have a free ticket into Wikipedia. I could see an overrun of hopeful punters and kickers with the ability to create a "pretty" but ultimately non-notable page. College football is not a black/white "include all/delete all" situation, and this player falls onto the non-notable side.

Because it came up earlier, I should note that the subject's level of education also isn't significant: the same USC roster includes a former high school Gatorade National Player of the Year and strong NFL prospect Jeff Byers, who is an MBA student. His article lists high school awards, but they are not significant like a national Player of the Year, or even a prestigious regional award.

Again: he has never started for USC or seen any significant playing time, which is a major blow to any notability questions. Because I support the inclusion of notable college football athletes in WP:ATHLETE, I feel this article harms the criteria for notable college football athlete. His USC bio shows nothing notable (in fact, unlike key players with articles here, there is no detailed information). As a side note: I previously created the WP:FA, 2007 USC Trojans football team and have a pretty good understanding of the USC Trojans and college football.

I should note that this article has a handful of strong defenders who have solely worked on this article, likely family and friends.

If the subject actually builds a successful, notable career at USC --starting in games, gaining significant playing time (and hopefully getting NFL, CFL or even Arena attention), then we have an existing article that can be quickly restored. The precedent has certainly been set: Clay Matthews III rose from a little-known walk-on to being a scholarship starting LB/DE this season and a solid NFL Draft prospect. Until Gatena reaches that point, Delete. Bobak (talk) 17:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. --Bobak (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. --Bobak (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Bobak (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Likely passes WP:Athlete... If he has indeed played for USC, which is a Division I team "the highest amateur level" for American football. Some have argued college players don't meet WP:ATH if there is a professional level for the same sport. That is nonsense, and reading into WP:ATH what isn't there. WP:Athlete says: "People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships." As for the number of players who meet this criterion: Who cares? Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and there almost 3 million articles right now. Even if there were 100,000 college sports player articles, that would only be about three percent of all current articles. This nomination is about this player only, not any number of other players. It isn't about successfully walking on or not, either. The line of inclusion is game action. Has he, or has he not, seen action in an NCAA Division I game? Strikehold (talk) 19:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under your logic, should all of these "notable" Terrapins be included? If so, why haven't they been added yet? Do you want to do the honors if this passes? --Bobak (talk) 19:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I do not see the point you're trying to make. I assume it is in good faith, but what bearing do my contributions have on the discussion at hand? And more importantly: following your logic, if an individual's lack of an article implied a lack of notability, there would be no need for any further articles. Strikehold (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that if a walk-on, a player who is brought onto a team to help fill the program and provide depth, warrants an article by virtue of being on a D-IA team, then all the players from every D-IA school --from ACC's Terps to the Sun Belt's Western Kentucky Hilltoppers-- would warrant their own articles for making the team. Are you willing to make the same vote for all of those inevitable AfDs? --Bobak (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who is saying that this player was brought onto the team to help fill the program and provide depth? It seems to me that one year ago USC's offensive line was the only group in question for the 2008 season and to my knowledge USC hasn't had a problem with filling their program or providing depth... But what do these situations have to do with this Wikipedia article? Both are irrelevant in determining deletion.99Legend (talk) 03:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You misinterpret what I said slightly; I never said by simply "being on a D-IA team". If a player (walk-on or otherwise) sees action in a season game then they are notable under WP:ATH as it is currently written. Strikehold (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strikehold: WP:ATHLETE is part of WP:BIO. WP:ATHLETE consists of additional criteria to the basic criteria of WP:BIO, which states "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]". This article does not meet this basic criteria - see my rationale as well as Mosmof's below. BlueAg09 (Talk) 22:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I read it, the additional criteria of WP:BIO (of which WP:ATH is one) and its basic criteria (cited above) can be mutually exclusive. Strikehold (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, but it all comes down to the sources per the WP:V policy. The article does not have "reliable, third-party" sources as defined by WP:SOURCES. Again, see the points covered by Mosmof and myself below. BlueAg09 (Talk) 00:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. See my rebuttal below. Strikehold (talk) 02:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -The fact that one other teammate has also achieved the notable status of graduate student does not trump this subjects achievements. Does the fact that there are many other Wikipedia administrators who trump the fact that you Bobak have also earned that status? No, and does the fact that there are many more administrators who have contributed to many more articles than you downgrade your importance to the Wikipedia community? Definitely not. Only comparing this subject to other subjects who have achieved more than him is not the way to go about determining whether or not this article should stand. Moreover, downplaying his achievements, is merely attacking this subject and those who have awarded him on a personal level. This is a very petty defense. The awards are what they are, thats all. Additionally, the service team award Gatena had received was given to him over many other players on the 2008 USC Trojans football team that have Wikipedia articles. These players, who's profiles Wikipedia user Bobak has either contributed to or created, could be considered less notable than the subject in dispute; however, Bobak has taken no action against these articles. On the contrary, he has supported and contributed to them. Does the fact that Gatena was awarded this service team award over those players mean that they are beneath him or that they should not be on Wikipedia, absolutely not. Because I believe those articles should be listed on Wikipedia along with Gatena's and because this discussion is not about those articles I will not name the articles. Although, I do believe the intense scrutiny of this article after repeated submissions for deletion by Bobak show his extreme negative bias towards this player.

- As a side note Bobak, the Most Inspirational Player award is a very important award, I'm not sure if you have any competitive athletic experience on a top amateur level such as the subject in question, but if you did than you would understand the importance of Most Inspirational Player. In fact Ray Lewis a very notable football player has been given this award many times. The Most Inspirational Player plays a key role in team morale and has a direct effect on achieving victories.

Back to my keep argument, this article is on Wikipedia because this subject is unique and meets Wikipedia's requirements. It is well written, it follows the guidelines of Wikipedia, and it is a neutral article that contains verifiable information in credible third-party sources. In no way does the ruling on article attempt to act as common law for "all Division I-FBS (top level) 'scholarship athletes'"(Bobak) and in no way is it an attempt to legitimize articles for over 10,000 college athletes. Again, comparing this subject to others has no bearing on this subjects notability. This subject is very unique, interesting, and notable and this is why this article is here. User Bobak can continue to compare Gatena to other players with more publicity and more awards and not compare him to the thousands of players with less awards and less publicity but it will not negate the fact that this subject is notable and verifiable. This article should be voted upon based of this subject alone and done so in accordance with Wikipedia's rules and policies. This article is not subject to a voting war or opinionated ruling but deserves a non-biased and impartial look. The culmination of achievements and unique accomplishments of this subject are in fact why this article exists. Whether or not two people vote keep or two thousand people vote keep the bearing of deletion should be based on factual evidence. Wikipedia is a tool for all users to positively contribute information. The creator's and editor's of this article or any other articles whether family, teachers, coaches or friends is irrelevant. Wikipedia articles are not based on a popularity and number of keep votes, they are based on the rules and regulations set forth by the organization of Wikipedia and its members. This article clearly meets those policies.

- And might I remind you, the subject who's article you are attempting to delete is outstanding member of his community, team, and school and shines a positive light upon all NCAA athletes. This citizen is not a criminal or poor student, as a USC Alum, why would you Bobak have a bias against this subjects article on Wikipedia? Sounds strange to me So for the third time, I vote keep. 99Legend (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC) — 99Legend (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

question I'm not a fan of college football, but I interpret participating at the highest amateur level as participating significantly in the actual competitive games, not being in the reserve or having few minutes on the field. I believe that for professional football or baseball, or for the Olympics, we count any appearance on the field as sufficient, but i am not convinced we should do so here, especially as playing in college football unless there is some special distinction is apparently considered a borderline case in general. DGG (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response - Gatena was a member of the "service team". If the service team is anything like scout teams at other colleges, it means he played on a team that provided opposition to the first team in practices. Scout team members would generally only see token playing time at end of games where the result is no longer in question. --Mosmof (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response Gatena also started his first full healthy season of college football for the Division 1 UC Davis Football team. Additionally, he has played in games with the USC Trojans Football team. 99Legend (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I question whether Great West could reasonably be considered the "highest amateur level" of football. Considering that there are 120 (?) FBS schools and the huge gulf between the dozen or two schools that realistically compete for the national title and the rest of the field, I would say not. Anyway, as long as we're going with a strict (and selective) reading of WP:ATHLETE, I should point out that it doesn'te xplicitly define Div-1A ball as the highest level. Mosmof (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I would not consider I FCS/I-AA as the "highest amateur level" of American football because although the teams do play I FBC/I-A teams, they do not compete for the same title, and FBS teams are only allowed to count one game against an FCS team toward bowl eligibility. (2) It is not a "selective" reading of WP:ATH, it is a literal reading of it. I'm sorry that you don't like the comma and the word "usually" that follows it, but that does not make the first clause any less authoritative. Strikehold (talk) 22:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed my point (or I wasn't very clear). I'll happily concede that the second WP:ATH could include Div IA college football players. What I'm pointing out is, that WP:ATH does not explicitly define Div-1A as the "highest amateur level" of the sport, so the argument that WP:ATH qualifies all Div 1A football players as notable is subjective. It's not an unreasonable opinion, but an opinion nonetheless. --Mosmof (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize then, I did misunderstand you. Still, I don't see a reasonable argument against Division I FBS being considered the "highest amateur level" of American football. If not, then what? Strikehold (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My quibble with qualifying all players at all FBS schools is twofold. 1) Most FBS schools do not realistically compete for the national title. Sure, they might play against each other, but SMU and Texas couldn't be considered the same "level" except by classification. Try soccer for comparison - most nations in the world compete in the World Cup at the qualifying level, but only 32 make the quadrennial finals. United States, which has played the last four World Cup finals, and Barbados are technically in the same federation and at the same level, but only one is at the highest level of the sport by reasonable standards. Likewise, I could reasonably argue that only BCS conference schools, Notre Dame, and at-large schools that have made BCS Bowls to be at "the highest level". (2) There is no indication that Gatena has played meaningful snaps for USC. In fact, he received a service team (scout team) player award, meaning he was not an important player by any stretch of the imagination. As a third-string center, I'd be surprised if he received anything other than garbage time snaps. Mosmof (talk) 23:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, no, that is not a reasonable argument because you are applying a completely arbitrary dichotomy to a sports league with an existing hierarchy. The meaning of "level" is quite clear from the usage. In English rugby, the Guiness Premiership is one "level"; in college football, Division I FBS is one "level"; in Italian association football, Serie A is one "level". In association football, they actually call it "levels" (See: American soccer pyramid). By your logic, the 1989 Georgia Tech football team wasn't notable, because they weren't Notre Dame or Nebraska... but they won the national title in 1990 with the same coach and, presumably, most of the same players. And the U.S. has been in the last four World Cup finals??? Are you talking about assoc. football? The U.S. hasn't even advanced to the second round in the last four World Cups... Strikehold (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Tech is in the ACC, a BCS conference. I don't see your point. I was throwing out the BCS example as a possible, narrower, interpretation of "highest amateur level", and it would be foolish to think notable schools outside the major conferences wouldn't be considered.
I meant World Cup Finals as in the tournament (as opposed to World Cup qualifiers), but I see where you are confused. FWIW, USA reached the second round (Round of 16) in 1994 and the quarterfinal in 2002. My point stands though - USA and Barbados are in the same confederation and essentially the same level. One is a team that competes at a world class level, the other is eligible to compete at a world class level, but doesn't.
You are comparing leagues with no more than 20 teams to an entire classification of schools with 120 members, most of which have not the resources, ability, or willingness to compete with the elite teams.
Gatena may have played for a team at the highest amateur level, but there's no indication that he did anything other than help run out the clock. Again, I don't see how a scout team could be considered the "highest level". Mosmof (talk) 00:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent for readability) I think the way I am reading WP:ATH is the most clear-cut, objective interpretation. "Compete" means play in a regular season or postseason game; "highest amateur level" means Division I FBS for American football. To say this or that about how he was also a scout team player or only played throw-away time is to begin applying somewhat arbitrary, subjective, and impossible to measure criteria. It is also reading way more into WP:ATH than is actually there.

Utah is a non-BCS team and they were declared 2008 national champions by a few non-consensus selectors (and they easily could have been named AP or other consensus selector champions had OU blown out UF). My point being, every game of the season has a wide-reaching ripple effect, and it is hard for me to justify saying the Texas Tech starting line-up is notable, but the Rice starting line-up is not notable.

What does number of teams in a league have to do with anything? There are hundreds of national leagues in dozens of sports in the world. Sheer vastness does not in itself negate notability. Again, Wikipedia isn't a paper encyclopedia, and probably many times more bytes are wasted on AFDs like this than by the articles they address...

I fully support a reassessment of WP:ATH with the purpose of adding a specific American college sports clause. However, this is not the place to argue the interpretation of WP:ATH. I think the article's subject meets the criteria there, and pending change of WP:ATH, I think it should be retained.

Tottenham Hotspur hasn't been competitive for the Premiership title any time recently, and, hell, the Cincinnati Bengals haven't ever been to a Super Bowl, so... Just trying to prove a point about the fallacy of making arbitrary assumptions based on performance.

(Sidenote: I meant the U.S. did not advance to the second round in each of the last four World Cups, sorry). Strikehold (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed the Utah exceptions (wait, when I wrote "BCS conference schools, Notre Dame, and at-large schools", what I meant here was "at-large BCS invitees" - oops). And while this may come off as self-serving, WP:ATH isn't all that helpful as a black-or-white AFD decider, since there is little agreement on its intent and I believe there is enough critical mass to get some sort of change. I don't like the idea of relying on an essentially lame duck criterion. I'd rather defer to WP:GNG, and the vast majority of college athletes will never receive non-trivial, independent coverage, and that's more true the further we get away from BCS conferences and the occasional outliers. Fair enough point on Spurs and Bengals, but at least almost all those players are subject of in-depth coverage from independent sources. A scout team offensive lineman who gets an occasional snap is not. Mosmof (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And therein lies part of the problem: offensive linemen in particular are the victims of statistical bias, but there is no doubting how essential their contributions are to successful teams. Centers and guards don't record receptions, sacks, TFLs, etc etc etc. Even defensive players lack stats pages on ESPN.com. Three of the "Seven Blocks of Granite" (arguably the most famous offensive line in history) don't even have wikipedia articles. That is part of the reason I favor my interpretation of WP:ATH. I would like to see the withdrawal of this nomination pending a change to WP:ATH for reasons extensively debated here. Strikehold (talk) 02:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of that is relevant when the article doesn't even pass the WP:V policy - most of the sources are not "reliable and independent" of the subject as defined by WP:SOURCES. Wikipedia should not have articles that are supported by sources that have been questioned throughout this debate, as well as the previous ones. BlueAg09 (Talk) 02:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that he is a USC player is verified by the official USC website ("Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them") and an independent source in the Los Angeles Times. The article needs clean-up to remove other non-reliable sources (and the information cited from them), but it at the least has enough reliable sources to satisfy WP:V. Strikehold (talk) 02:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources, in your opinion, fit the definition of "reliable" and "independent" as defined in WP:N? The Los Angeles Times source is actually a blog entry posted by a USC alum who seems to follow the football team very closely, and reports to the LA Times. This source isn't completely independent. Most of the other sources cited in the article are not reliable or independent of the subject. Taking out those sources as well as the information they cite would remove most of the information in the article. How much of the article would still exist if this massive deletion were to happen? Probably not much. Why even bother to have the article in that case? BlueAg09 (Talk) 03:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most major newspapers have "blogs" where staff writers covers their area of concentration, including The Washington Post and The New York Times. These aren't really blogs in the traditional sense of the word, as they are written by the newspapers' staff and published officially through it. Even if it would be reduced to a stub, so what? That is a "surmountable problem", as per WP:NOEFFORT. Strikehold (talk) 03:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N - I've outlined the reasons in Talk:Steve Gatena, but to summarize, the Steve Gatena has not been a subject of significant coverage in multiple, third party sources.
- A brief profile in an LA Times blog post about the USC's walk-on players that season is not significant coverage.
- A campus paper article about a member of the school's football team is not a source independent of the subject.
- A local paper article about a member of its own community (essentially a "local boy does good/about to do good") is not a source independent of its subject.
- A scout.com profile, which is basically a shell page with basic attributes that are made for all high school football players who receive attention from colleges, is not significant coverage.
- Team awards and a brief mention by a head coach do not constitute notability.
- A mention in the list of the season's team award winners is neither significant nor third party coverage.
- If you have to say It is important to note that Gatena's transfer case is very unique without source or attribution for the claim, then it's probably not that important.
- I find it intellectually dishonest to read the first part of the amateur athlete criterion in WP:ATHLETE and say, "Yay! All Div 1 NCAA football players are in!" and ignore the second part, where the intent of the criterion is clarified.
- Even if we did agree that playing at the highest level of college football did fulfill the requirement for WP:ATHLETE, we should note that Gatena won the USC Service Team Offensive Player of the Year, which indicates he was not a first team regular, so the claim that he played at the sport's highest amateur level becomes debatable. --Mosmof (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - FWIW - I initiated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Edward Miller for another Southern Cal football of similar notability. I don't see how Gatena is any more notable than Miller, except for the (unsupported and unattributed) claim that his attending three schools during his football career makes him notable. Mosmof (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that Gatena has started for a Division 1 team and has played in almost two dozen Divison one college football games in both the Great West and Pac-10 college football conferences does make him notable. Also other feature stories in sources such as the Daily News and Rivals.com are independent third party sources. How many sources are needed and what is the purpose of a source? All facts in this article are clearly cited by reputable sources. In any academic setting they would serve as sufficient verifiable sources to confirm the facts listed are true. The argument that this article should be deleted, based off of the fact that the sources included in this article which serve to confirm the facts stated, may or may not be significant enough to you is completely bogus. Each source is legitimate. There are other legitimate sources out there not cited in this article and any academic level media search will reveal dozens of legitimate results on this subject.99Legend (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, but there are no "featured" stories of Gatena cited in the article. A feature story is a "piece of journalistic writing that covers a selected issue in-depth". NONE of those articles sourced cover Gatena in depth. THESE articles are examples of feature stories: [12], [13], and [14]. BlueAg09 (Talk) 21:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I understand what a feature story is, again a search of media databases will reveal feature stories written on this subject [15]. After a search, you will find such articles in sources like The Daily News, Los Angeles Times, California Aggie, Rivals.com, etc.. 99Legend (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Really? I did a Google searches with steve gatena with site:latimes.com and site:rivals.com, and I came up with passing mentions in the former and profiles/brief recruiting updates in the latter. Could you point me to a feature article on those sites? The Daily News articles I see in the article are of "local boy does really good" variety, and like the California Aggie articles, couldn't reasonably considered independent of the subject. Mosmof (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - 99Legend: Again, those are not feature stories. The coverage of Gatena on those articles is trivial - they are probably only 1-3 sentences that mention Gatena. If you really think there are articles that cover Gatena to a great extent (like those Mark Sanchez and Rey Maualuga articles I linked above), please provide them. BlueAg09 (Talk) 21:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        It is not my responsibility to provide you the articles, if you would have read this full article ^[1] which is cited in the Wikipedia article you would find one full 700+ word feature article on the subject. Regardless of who is in the LA Times post ^[2] there is a short bio about Gatena. Another feature ^[3] also mentions Gatena in great depth. Again all sources are verifiable. Rivals.com contains 7 articles on Gatena ^[4] ^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10] none of which are even used as citation in his article. There are more sources out there however Wikipedia is not a linkdump and it is not necessary to include every article ever printed or published on this individual. 99Legend (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        If you really want the article to be kept, then you must provide the appropriate sources. It's not my responsibility to go look for them either. You have to present the links to the articles here, as you just did. You can't just say "there are more articles out there" without backing the statement up. Let's go over the articles you provided: the first one you cite is a local newspaper article. The majority of the article is about the 2003 Westlake High offensive line. All of the coverage about Gatena is trivial: that he is the "runt" of the offensive line, how he compares in size to the other o-linemen, a one-sentence quote, and his estimation on the bill in a team visit to a local restaurant. That is hardly "in-depth" coverage. The latimes blog entry includes information on all of the new walk-on players, and the post was written by a USC alum who covers the school's sports for the newspaper. Thus, this source is hardly independent of the subject. The Rivals articles, all dated in 2003, all cover his college recruiting -- his recruiting is trivial at best. Thousands of high school players receive this kind of coverage by recruiting services, and that by itself should not necessarily define the notability of a player. See Matt Barkley and Garrett Gilbert for examples of high school players who have met the notability standards of Wikipedia. IMHO, Gatena can definitely have his own article once the media proves he is a prospective NFL player, as Mark Sanchez, Rey Maualuga, Taylor Mays, Brian Cushing, and Fili Moala, among others, have. Right now, he hasn't yet. BlueAg09 (Talk) 02:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ndenison ^talk 21:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:GNG is more clear--"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." Not all of the sources are "independent" of the subject as Mosmof clearly pointed out. This article fails WP:GNG and should thus be deleted. BlueAg09 (Talk) 21:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- the requirement is significant coverage in reliable independent sources, not that all sources listed must be independent.99Legend (talk) 03:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Right, but the subject hasn't received any significant coverage from multiple reliable independent sources. --Mosmof (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Multiple reliable independent" sources are not required. Strikehold (talk) 02:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are not enough of them (the reliable, independent ones) to establish the subject's notability per WP:GNG. BlueAg09 (Talk) 03:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Google searches on this athlete show that many different media outlets have written about him. I dont know much about football, but thats notable enough for me — 99.129.215.193 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 21:27, February 8, 2009 (UTC)..

Keep –according to the logic presented by wikipedia user Strikehold I believe this individual article meets the WP:Athlete standards and requirements. In my opinion the sources listed are more than credible and this article goes above and beyond most Wikipedia articles in citing sources. This article is really well done, it is well written, well cited, and non-bias. It includes a lot of positive information on the subject but after searching for other information none could be found. I actually think this article could be a model Wikipedia bio article.71.119.123.46 (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC) — 71.119.123.46 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep –This attempt to delete this entry seems to me to be a personal vendetta of some sort by another at the subject's university. This is the third time it has been tried, with no more merit than heretofore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sternlight (talk • contribs) 23:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC) — Sternlight (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- I can assure you that it is not a vendetta of any sort, and please assume good faith. --Mosmof (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I smell feet. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As do I. Ndenison ^talk 23:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I base my comment on 3 tries by others to delete this entry. Let's at least agree that if it fails to be deleted this time, though this is football and not baseball, three strikes and you're out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sternlight (talk • contribs) 23:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No feet here; I've filled in my user page.Sternlight (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does that have to do with it? The fact is that there are a suspiciously high number of single purpose accounts in all three of these AfD's, and there is nothing stopping anyone from nominating this again in the future. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, now I see what you mean. If you really were Dr. Sternlight, I should think you'd be able to do better than cut-and pasting you're free GoDaddy page to Wikipedia.[16] Beeblebrox (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a rehash of what's gone before - and what's gone before very recently. Stop beating a dead horse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.217.164.27 (talk) 00:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC) — 75.217.164.27 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Look at all of his accomplishments, those all together make him notable.--Giants27 TC 00:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? What accomplishments? Playing Division 1-AA football? Being on the USC scout team? Being an all-around upstanding citizen? --Mosmof (talk) 00:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His bio includes these
*2009 Rose Bowl Champion
*2008 PAC 10 Conference Champion
*2008 USC Service Team Offensive Player of the Year
*2008 USC Trojans Scholar Athlete
*2005 Great West Conference Champion
*2003 Wendy's High School Heisman (Nominee)
*National Football Foundation and College Hall of Fame High School Scholar Athlete (High school)
*2002 & 2003 Super Prep All-Farwest (High school)
*2003 All-CIF Division IV First Team (High school)
*All-CIF Academic First Team (High school)
*Los Angeles Times All-Ventura/North Coast First Team (High school)
*Los Angeles Daily News All-Area First Team (High school)
*All-Ventura County First Team (High school)
*Ventura County All-Academic Team (High school)
*All-Marmonte League First Team (High school)
*4 time consecutive Westlake High Scholar Athlete Award (High school)99Legend (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm pretty sure he didn't win the Pac 10, Rose Bowl or the Great West all by himself. The other awards are addressed at the top of the page. Mosmof (talk) 01:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Obviously, in no part does this athlete take any team win of any sort as a sole achievement. Teams are comprised of many individuals that work together to achieve greatness. This athlete has been a part of some great and notable teams. Thus contributing to the reasons for which this athlete is notable. 99Legend (talk) 03:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am questioning the validity of this discussion. 3 4 anonymous IPs that haven't done much of anything else (if anything at on) on Wikipedia have !voted to keep the article. These very well could be socks of 99Legend or Sternlight, assuming that those two aren't the same person anyway. Ndenison ^talk 01:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree there's like a hundred IP comments here which either means this discussion is at the top of google for Steve Gatena (I'm not sure if it is), or there's a lot of socking going on.--Giants27 T C 01:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked at WP:ANI for some admin help sorting out this mess. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If an admin can in fact see where and when posts were made they would see that I only post from the same IP address. If any of my post are not signed by me and are in fact signed by my IP it is only because I may have been signed out when i re-opened my browser. I have gone back through my posts with my IP and signed them with this name. Note, I have not changed any of the content of my posts. Additionally, I cannot be held responsible nor do i take any responsibility for any posts other than my own. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia and can be edited by anyone. 99Legend (talk) 03:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete To contribute to the achievement of a notable team you have to take a significant part in its games. The listing of the awards is an attempt to imply notability to an individual who did not in any normal sense contribute in a major way to it, and is outright POV editing. To praise someone for what that person did not do is also a BLP violation; most people would be rightly be offended at it. DGG (talk) 03:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Steve Gatena definitely qualifies as a notable athlete. While he is on the Service Team, he was voted the most outstanding player, on a team that includes both Aaron Corp and Marc Tyler. These individuals both qualify as Notable athletes, and Gatena was recognized above them. It was said before, but it should be said again: offensive line is not a glamour position that would allow Gatena to pick up stats like these other two players. Yet, he still meets the standards of a notable player. Lastly, I agree with the above sentiments that this looks like a personal vendetta against Gatena. CDUB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.77.251 (talk) 04:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC) — 76.170.77.251 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete per DGG and nom. let's not let these SPAs sway reality: this person is not notable per wikipedia's standards. Theserialcomma (talk) 09:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and just about every other aspect of notability i can think of. I recently participated in an AfD for a mexican soccer player who was on the junior national side and a full pro, but had not made an appearance as a senior pro. The WP:ATHLETE guidleine made it a clear delete. Now we have an amateur athlete who isn't good enough to get on the field in a competitive match for an amateur team? Another clear delete.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG's excellent analysis. Stifle (talk) 15:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is seriously getting kind of ridiculous and IMHOP we are beating a dead horse here. Can we just get a qualified unbiased administrator to make the decision on this. This page was created as school project in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines and was not meant to cause any kind of problems or commotion. This article has been both beneficial to me and my academic/athletic programs andI don't want to bring a negative light to either myself or those around me by causing a stir. I would appreciate if a qualified administrator could review this article in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and make some kind of final decision. I don't need to be subjected to a court of opinion by individuals who do not know me, my character, or my accomplishments. Regardless of the significance my achievements my have to other individuals they are important to me. When I created the article i saw other individuals on my team with articles who are lesser known than me so I decided if I have to make several articles why not create one on myself. I'm sorry for all the hassle I caused and I apologize for wasting your time, although, I do believe this article meets wikipedia's requirements and should stand. Otherwise I wouldn't have wasted my time in creating a long well written article on this topic in the first place.Gosugatena (talk) 15:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)— Gosugatena (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
cmt People who write articles about themselves should be careful when calling for "unbiased" administrators. The meat of it? You're just not notable, like millions of us. That doesn't make you bad, or worthless, or mean that your achievements should be less significant to you. I hope you celebrate and enjoy them. But in the cold, hard light of day (and this comes from a former college athlete), your just a second-rate football player. I hope that when your non-notable football career is over you go on to do something useful and notable that will lead to the creation of an article about you. For the moment, those potential notable accomplishments lie in your future.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- also I should add, as others have pointed out, that the article is well written, especially for an article written mostly by the subject himself and apparently those close to him. The work put into this article should be recognized But, at the end of the day, this doesn't meet Wikipedia's standard for significant, independent coverage. And to reiterate what Bali ultimate wrote above, a deletion isn't meant to be a judgment on character or to belittle one's accomplishment. There are many, many people who are pillars of community and important to those around them, but do not have Wikipedia article, because no matter how admirable they are or how hard they've worked, they're not notable. Conversely, there are despicable lowlives who contribute nothing of value to society with Wikipedia articles because their notoriety received widespread coverage. As the fine print at the bottom of the edit screen says, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it", which is another way of saying "Don't take anything on Wikipedia personally". Mosmof (talk) 16:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: On the subject of school projects, please see WP:SUP. – ukexpat (talk) 17:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, per DGG's execellent analysis ukexpat (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably the most neutral autobiography I've ever seen on Wikipedia, but just below the bar of WP:ATHLETE. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If we were talking about any sport other than the parochial North American sports there wouldn't be any doubt about this. I must comment here on the role of Wikipedia:WikiProject College football. This seems to exist more as an advocacy group to argue for the inclusion of unnotable players than as a a project for the improvement of the encyclopedia. They even maintain a page telling people what arguments to use against deletion nominations for players who wouldn't get near being considered notable in other sports. It's interesting to contrast this with the football (as most of the world understands the word) and cricket projects, where project members can usually be relied on to be the strongest proponents of deletion at AfDs for amateur players, or even professional players at professional clubs that happen to play in leagues that include some semi-professional players. If achievement in college sport conferred automatic notability then I could write an article about my son, who came in the top twenty in UK-wide student competion in three sports, but it would be ridiculous to claim that this made him an appropriate subject for an encyclopedia article. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is the general perception some of WP:CFB are concerned about. Please keep in mind that the nominator (me) and several of those strong advocates for its deletion are active members of WP:CFB who are actually trying to prevent the WP from being used as such an excuse for dubious notability. --Bobak (talk) 00:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for tarring you all with the same brush - I'm pleased to see that not all participants in this project have the mindset that I described. Phil Bridger (talk) 01:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phil, and I don't intend to paint you with an equally generalized brush, but as a European (as I presume you are from your comment) I do not think you realize the appeal and influence that college football and, to a lesser extent, men's basketball have in the United States. They are, essentially, on par with professional sports with the only real exception being that the players don't get paid (legally). I would be wiling to wager, that by any metric, American college football surpasses professional ice hockey, soccer, lacrosse, or any number of other sports in revenue, exposure, and fan support. In 2006, ten college football programs had "at least $45 million in revenue" (according to Forbes magazine). So, why is it that a player who has one snap in the NFL or one cap in international football is automatically notable, while an American college football player is subject to much more stringent criteria?

Just the same, if there is a consensus that these players do not meet notability standards, then there first needs to be a change at WP:ATH to exclude them based on whatever criterion deemed necessary, and not efforts to do so in an arbitrary manner based on individual preference and perception. Strikehold (talk) 03:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about association football, but players make it to the NFL because they have the "best of the best" skills. It takes a lot to make an NFL team — players who get selected are generally those who receive all-conference honors (see the profiles the 2008 NFL Draftees). A large amount of players don't even make the league. It is much easier to make a college football team (especially as a walk-on) than an NFL team. BlueAg09 (Talk) 03:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although BlueAg is correct on some points, they are irrelevant to the debate. Skill or quality of play (both subjective, anyway) aren't relevant to a debate on notability, whereas things like fanbase size, followership, "brand" recognition, and marketing potential are relevant as objective indicators. As an aside: Of course it is easier to make a college team: there are 120 FBS teams, plus ~120 FCS and ~150 Division II schools (some consider FCS and Div II quality to be about equivalent to FBS, just with smaller lineman). So that means the 32 NFL teams have a pool of almost 400 schools to select the best players. Strikehold (talk) 05:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant points? I answered your question regarding why NFL players are automatically notable, whereas college players are not. I don't think it matters as to how glorified or well-followed the NFL or college football are - the only thing that should count is the player's national perception, and it doesn't matter whether it is positive or negative, it has to be significant. This significance can be measured by the amount of reliable/independent media attention they get. In this case, Gatena has not received enough (yet), and thus, the article fails WP:GNG. There are simply not enough appropriate sources to establish his notability, as I stated previously. BlueAg09 (Talk) 07:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In looking back, I actually don't think any of this comment thread is really all that relevant to the article at hand, because it doesn't address it specifically (including Phil's original comment, most of which is merely directed at WP:CFB). It was actually more an explanation of college football's notability in general which isn't necessarily pertinent, so I apologize for the digression. I felt a defense necessary in the face of Mr. Bridger's opinion. As for WP:GNG, I've already addressed your views with my own. I think Gatena's met the criteria with the LA Times and USC sources (although barely), and that is enough to buttress notability in conjunction with the additional criteria of WP:ATH. Strikehold (talk) 08:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BlueAg, to put it another way, I don't think skill level or quality of play is a justifiable indicator of notability (nor is it objective). In association football, is the Danish Superliga (a UEFA coefficient of 20.450) less notable than the English Premiership (75.749) or German Bundesliga (48.722)? Does that make these guys (Jesper Olesen, Michael Stryger, Jesper Kristoffersen) non-notable since they haven't had caps outside the Superliga? Strikehold (talk) 08:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your point about the LA Times/USC sources: one, the USC source (the player roster/bios) is not independent of the subject. Second, his brief bio available on the LA Times source appears verbatim on two other sources I just found: [17] and [18]. All three of these articles were compiled by different authors, and the authors all indicate they retrieved the bios from USC Sports Information. Thus, his biographical information was not even written by a third-party source. That leaves ZERO sources that are completely reliable and independent. The article undoubtedly fails WP:GNG. BlueAg09 (Talk) 18:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a misunderstanding of the term "independent of the subject": "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc. Gatena himself has no influence over what the USC athletic dept. publishes, so it is independent of him. Strikehold (talk) 18:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is still the affiliation: he is one of their players. Footnote #5 in WP:GNG states: "Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of interest by the world at large". The bio is very brief too, and I doubt it qualifies as "Significant coverage". His USC profile does not even include the detailed information that most of the other players have (see [19], [[20], and [21]) . BlueAg09 (Talk) 23:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bio doesn't contain information because I transferred in one week before the season started (a mere technicality). I came so late that they did not have time to prepare one for me. When the bio's are updated for spring football or for next season you can expect to see a long and lengthy bio.Gosugatena (talk) 01:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing to consider that college football teams, even at the highest level, are often not that discriminate. In fact, Washington Huskies football has a no-cut policy - as long as you're enrolled at the university and willing to take the physical punishment, you are a member of the team. Plus, recruiting of high school players is a very inexact science; players with four or five-star rating often end up doing very little at the college level. So you can see how mere membership on the team or appearances give no indication about a player's actual abilities. --Mosmof (talk) 04:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one, as far as I am aware, has argued in favor of simple membership on a team. I have voiced support for game action, as that is how WP:ATH is written. And, I'm willing to bet, being on the Washington team doesn't guarantee you are going to take a snap in a real game; you could easily spend your college career on a scout team or practice squad. Strikehold (talk) 05:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did he really compare USC Trojans football to Washington Huskies football... my life has sunk to a new low. Bobak, you've gotta back me up on this one. LoLGosugatena (talk) 21:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see enough legitimate newspapers mentioning him, so he is notable. Dream Focus (talk) 00:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Bobak's thorough nomination and DGG's analysis. FWIW, User:Gosugatena has asked for a qualified, unbiased administrator to make a decision on this article. I see four admins who have participated in this discussion: Bobak (the initiator), DGG, Stifle, and me. All four of us have agreed that this subject does not meet the notability requirements for Wikipedia, and I don't see any indication that any of us are biased; even discounting Bobak (as the initiator), there are three admins advocating deletion. Horologium (talk) 01:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete echoing the arguments above. Eusebeus (talk) 12:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
HEY Could we start adding new comments at the bottom please. You guys have made it really difficult to tell who said what when by adding new comments above or in the middle of old ones. Alternately, you could let it go as you've all stated your case about ten times already. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wow, what a facinating discussion to stumble upon. I agree that the subject of this article does not meet notablility standards. But if he does, I'ma have to start writing articles about every scout team practice fodder player for the Gators. as the national champions deserve it. (Just a joke, btw....) Zeng8r (talk) 01:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - membership in a college football team is not sufficient to meet WP:N or WP:ATHLETE; whether he walked on or got there by scholarship is irrelevant; unless he is responsible for changing the way high school football is played, his activities and awards for the high school gridiron are also irrelevant; there seems nothing award-wise to set him apart on the individual level (and, no, team awards don't count either). Was he named All-American? No. Did he win an individual award given by the Pacific 10 Conference or the NCAA? No. There is nothing - yet- that separates him from the thousands of college football players from Davidson to Texas, from Mount Union to William and Mary to Utah. So deletion is the only option here. B.Wind (talk) 04:21, 14 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 04:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States congressional lists

unencyclopedic and self-referencing article. This list is a WP:MOS violation as Wikipedia articles should not reference Wikipedia. See WP:SELF. Tavix (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fills an apparent need, and the claim of "self-referencing" des not appear to be key to me. Many articles primarily refer to material on WP, what would be improper is using the list as a RS for some sort of claim, but no such claims appear to be made. Collect (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I made this list and it's been rarely improved. Yes, it's self-referential in violation of WP policy and that's why I agree to delete it. However, it does fill a need and I wish there was a better way to implement it. If it's deleted, can someone suggest a better use?—Markles 21:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the reasons why categories exist. Tavix (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I couldn't find anything about lists on WP:MOS. List does not reference Wikipedia, it references the US Government. I assume the WP:MOS guideline has been invented by the nominator. Please cite WP:MOS. --Mr Accountable (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I would like to advise you to assume good faith. Just because you couldn't find the MOS violation, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Secondly, read Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. You should find it there. Tavix (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not there. Perhaps this would be a good place to start: Wikipedia:Lists. Here's a quote from the top of the page: "Lists and categories are synergistic." --Mr Accountable (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think your confused. Think of it this way: This list exists solely because there are other Wikipedia lists that are about the United States congress. It doesn't discuss/list anything else expect those Wikipedia links. That is a self-reference. You can also maybe think about it as original research because the only research available/possible for this list is the fact that there are other lists on Wikipedia. If it wasn't for those lists, the list in question would have no content, and therefore wouldn't exist. Tavix (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then why should it be discussed for deletion? --Mr Accountable (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the entire article is a self-reference to Wikipedia, if we remove the self-reference, we will have nothing left (besides maybe a template). So deleting the article seems to be the only other option. Tavix (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The pertinent self-reference guidelines seem to guide editors to avoid being too philosophical and self-limited, or cutesy and inner-directed, when editing the Wikipedia. The Wikipedia is not intellectually dorky, in other words; nor is it an area for intellectual cliques and in-jokes. It's just the general trend and purpose of the self-reference guidelines that I am trying to talk about here. It doesn't have much to do with a list like this, of which there are of course very many in the Wikipedia. ...And if there could be produced and copied a relevant guideline for the purposes of this discussion, it would be appreciated. --Mr Accountable (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does being a self-reference have anything do with Wikipedia "being too philosophical"? This is getting too off topic from the issue at hand. 23:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It certainly is. Nomination has no rationale as per WP:MOS, list isn't really deletable per WP:LIST, there isn't much to discuss here. --Mr Accountable (talk) 01:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taken from WP:SAL, first paragraph: Stand-alone lists are Wikipedia articles; thus, they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view." Stop trying to pass off lists as something that doesn't have to pass guidelines and can still be included. Tavix (talk) 23:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. One thing about categories is that they cannot be presented in tabular format; see List of African stock exchanges. Information such as date of founding, number of listed companies, city of ___location, and an external link are included in this table, which originated as a list. List of government ministries of Cambodia will be another example, including the government link, date of founding, the Senior Minister, important agencies devolved from the Ministry, etc. --Mr Accountable (talk) 02:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to a category - This ought to be converted into a category so it will update itself and be more easily findable. Grandmartin11 (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This list should definitely not be converted to a category. From WP:Lists#Purposes of lists "Redundancy between lists and categories is beneficial because they are synergistic, and is covered in the guideline Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates." The tone of the WP guidelines in regard to lists and categories is overwhelmingly positive in regard to both. Why should one be thinking to choose between the two? --Mr Accountable (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, this is obviously, clearly, plainly, a useful list per WP:LIST. Lists are not subject to WP:MOS, unless they have controversial content. A category would be worse than useless here. I'm not sure what the nominator means. Can you please explain more clearly? The burden is on you. Bearian (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC) P.S. I see how, arguably, since this list has no references, it thus violates the Manual of Style guidelines. I do not see that as a big problem, but I tagged it for rescue anyway. Bearian (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This list was made for the sole purpose of listing other Wikipedia articles. This is a self-reference because the only thing that can reference it is Wikipedia articles, which is evident from the list. If you want to get really complex, it also cannot be verified by reliable secondary sources, as the only thing it lists are other Wikipedia articles. Tavix (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep usefull list, purely organizational and helpful Lego K^ontribs T^alkM 05:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but suggest that people who would work on this try to bring similar lists relating to other countries to the same standard, per WP:CSB. Stifle (talk) 10:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - perfectly useful list. It does a job not dome by a category of flagging up those lists that need to be created. TerriersFan (talk) 00:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A "list of lists" such as this one is a "neutral self-reference" which is specifically allowed by guidelines, see Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Lists of lists and WP:SELF#Neutral self-references are acceptable. DHowell (talk) 05:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent citation. --Mr Accountable (talk) 06:22, 12 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 04:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark J. Taylor

Not a notable professor. ERK^{talk • contribs} 16:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The problem is not possible notability, the problem is lack of independent sources and lack of depth. Neither Get Cited nor University of Sheffield are independent. Get Cited is essential worthless because of little information, and it is member-controlled. One colleague tells me that all law professors and bishops are inherently notable, but I believe that they still need to meet the basics: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. --Bejnar (talk) 16:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. All professors have to publish ("or perish" as they like to say), so the publication list isn't of note. --Bobak (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The notability in the profession depends on how much they publish, and how much it gets cited. It's the ones who publish a noteworthy amount who get promoted and, very often, become notable. In this case, there is not really a very large amount of truly peer-reviewed publication, but I have not yet checked for citations. And, we always regard the official university web site as sufficient for establishing routine facts; the requirement for third party material is met by the publications & the peer-review. DGG (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of New Genetics and Society these do not appear to be peer-reviewed publications, and despite DGG's suggestion it isn't about publication, its about standing in the field which generally merits not just citation, but comment, e.g. "John X's organization of foo has provided the basis for ..." or "The court relied in its decision on the arguments presented in ...". --Bejnar (talk) 05:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 04:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 04:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When I originally created this article, my first one I think, I was under the impression that anybody could be included in Wikipedia. Dr Taylor is has been quoted in a number of articles that I have read but these have been articles written by present or former colleagues at Sheffield. So, delete, unfortunately. (Quentin X (talk) 23:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Delete. Could not find enough to establish notability under WP:PROF. Does not seem to pass WP:BIO either. Maybe in the future, but not yet.--Eric Yurken (talk) 03:51, 12 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 04:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MisterMN

Non-notable artist. The only reference in the entire article is the subject's personal website. Despite the article's claim that its subject is "internationally known", a Google search for "MisterMN" only turns up about 280 results, none of which seem to be from reliable, published sources. Searches using Google News, Google Books, and Google Scholar turn up no relevant results whatsoever. As such, there is no evidence that this article meets the notability guideline. Unscented (talk) 16:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn. I assume it survived a prod, otherwise it could've been speedied. --Bobak (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as having no significant coverage in the press, or other reliable sources, and therefore failing WP:N. – Toon ^(talk) 22:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely nothing to suggest notability and no reliable sources. ERK^{talk • contribs} 00:01, 11 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. Sufficient sources for valid settlement. A merge to List of Austin neighborhoods can be discussed on the relevant talk pages. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dove Springs, Austin, Texas

Non-notable subdivision in Austin Nv8200p talk 15:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, so I'm just going to mention this. By this logic, this should be either deleted with the article, as there are thousands or more articles like it (who wants to go through them?) or kept. I'm not advocating either one, but I'm just saying that dozens of other such articles exist. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 15:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't agree with the assessment of the nominator that the place is non-notable. We don't have enough information in the article to make a reliable assessment about that. The other neighboorhoods in the category Nuclear mentions have actual content (the ones I checked). I vote to delete because this article has no significant content that cannot be gleaned from a map (which is also a common reason used to delete road articles) - Mgm|^(talk) 17:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep WP:OUTCOMES suggests that neighborhoods may receive a (rebuttable) presumption of notability if the neighborhood's name is widely known / in widespread usage. Based on this page from Austin parks and rec, and real estate listings that recognize the Dove Springs ___location as an identifying marker, I'm inclined to say that presumption should stand here; Dove Springs strikes me as a viable search term that a random Wikipedia user might search for to find objective information about the place. Townlake (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Although being used in real estate ads has normally not been sufficient--such ads use almost any possible neighborhood term available--the wording on the City page linked to just above "to provide citizens of the Dove Springs community... " might be sufficient. DGG (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The neighborhood itself does not appear to be notable [22] even within Austin, Texas, much less outside of it. As noted, neighborhoods and subdivisions are not inherently notable, nor are individual parks or large high-rise apartment buildings. Almost anything can be an identifying marker; more often, it's a street name. While there is no bar to referring to them in the context of other articles, individual neighborhoods do not entitled to their own separate page on Wikipedia. Mandsford (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - per above. Hogvillian (talk) 02:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete USGS doesn't list the existence of this neighborhood, although it does appear to have a Methodist church here, which seems to have been found by the USGS in the yellow pages under "churches". Not enough. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The neighborhood tends to get more negative mentions than positive ones, as this page demonstrates. I've got some healthy skepticism toward this page because it doesn't cite a source for many of the stats, but Dove Springs certainly seems to have some distinctive characteristics. Townlake (talk) 21:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep place appears to be notable enough, a search of Google Books and Google News finds some results that could be useful for expanding the article. If there is not much that can be written about it, this and other stubs in the category could be merged into List of Austin neighborhoods, to make the list useful as it currently has no more information than the category. —Snigbrook 23:14, 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 merge to Grand Theft Auto: Chinatown Wars#Minigames. MBisanz ^talk 16:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of mini-games in Grand Theft Auto: Chinatown Wars

List of non-notable minigames for an unreleased game, written in a game guide format. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable and unencyclopaedic article. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact the game isn't released yet has no bearing on the notability of the minigames. The game itself is widely discussed and is worth an article. A logical follow-up conclusion would be that the minigames list is a valid use of Wikipedia:Summary style. Not all entries are pure game guide writing and the ones that are can be fixed through editing rather than deletion. Any sort of rewrite that consisely discusses the minigames could save this. (If the outcome is delete despite my comment, I'd like to urge the deleting admin, to leave a note (or "userfy") to the WikiProject for video games which is highly active and is likely interested in making the neccesary edits. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appropriate article to help clarify this material. separate articles on such things have been occasionally tried, and this way is much better. Combination articles are usually the way to go for fiction elements. DGG (talk) 17:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as they are completely non-notable and non-encyclopedic, it's written like a game guide and they could be explained within a couple of sentences in a gameplay section of the main article. --.:Alex :. 17:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Alex. Ddawkins73 (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've transwikied this page over to StrategyWiki:Grand Theft Auto: Chinatown Wars/Minigames. -- Prod (Talk) 19:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Grand Theft Auto: Chinatown Wars#Minigames this is a clean-cut spin-out which is advised against by WP:VGSCOPE with good reason, it's an inexperienced editor acting in good faith and writing the easier way - breaking something down into component parts. There is nothing here which cannot be covered in the Chinatown Wars gameplay sections, that's what it's for, all this does is generate excess baggage in the form of section headings and do away with the notion of giving this part of gameplay appropriate weight within the game's article. Merge it in its entirity and let someone remove the baggage, end of problem. Spinning out articles is fine if it is shown that they're supported by sources and can stand on their own two feet, but in this case it's an unfinished article and the minigames don't need spinning out any more than the reception or development sections. Someone another 19:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all verifiable content to Grand Theft Auto: Chinatown Wars#Minigames. I don't see why at this time it cannot be included in that section. MuZemike 20:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Listcruft at its worst. I'm Jack^(Lumber) and I approve this message. 01:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems useful. Hogvillian (talk) 02:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not useful. Game guide content. --SkyWalker (talk) 05:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not only is it guide content, but it's guide content for a secondary feature of the game. We don't have a list of mini-games for any one of the entries in the most popular party video game series ever created, but we need this? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge significant content details (sample minigames, etc.) to GTA:CW, but Delete the list (unlikely search term). List of minigames in a game is not appropriate as it is gameguide content, even if it is sourced by a reliable third-party. Should (after release) one or more of the minigames gain additional reputation, they can be described more in the GTA:CW article. --MASEM 16:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge only merge if we can get more citations for it. Pro66 (talk) 19:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Summarize and merge: See WP:NOTDIR. We don't mention every detail of a game. But a summary of some of the key minigames would be appropriate in the main article. Randomran (talk) 05:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Excellent list article. An editor of this list article really should read WP:NOT#DIR, list passes with flying colors. --Mr Accountable (talk) 06:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it clearly violates that section by being a list of non-notable minigames. You're not being sarcastic, are you? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 12:10, 12 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 19:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WWE title history since Draft (2008)

No sources at all. Basic listcruft. It appears to have only one editor. Delete or merge to World Wrestling Entertainment. Simon^KSK 14:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD tag is on the article now. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm missing the point, but lists of title holders in WWE can grow to the point of being unmaintainable because there are so many title fights. Wouldn't it be better to find a source and link it in the main article instead of trying to merge it and bloat the article? (Side note: I don't see why we should use the 2008 draft as an arbitrary cut-off. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing special about last years draft (WWE holds one every year) and no particular reason to have the title history since it. All the titles have their own history pages (which include mentions of when they change brands) and the WWE page already has the current champions and who they defeated to win it. TJ Spyke 20:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 20:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I say ~~Keep~~ because most championships changed brand with the draft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedRooster96 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is just redundant. Each title has its own history article, which contains all this information. Nothing was special about this draft, there have been drafts since the brand extension, and this does not warrant its own article. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 20:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nici & TJ. HAZardousMATT^toxic 20:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So as to not be the odd one out. R R 96 21:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Echo remarks by TJ and Nici. KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant and because the 2008 draft was nothing special to warrant an article such as this one. Nikki♥311 23:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - irrelevant and non-notable history since 2008, notable history is in the WWE main article already.--TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 21:21, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wounds of Tskhinvali

Apart from being completely unsourced, the article is about a non-notable movie with no known importance in the propaganda war accompanying the Russian-Georgian conflict. A Google search (-wikipedia) yields 422 hits, mostly video-sharing websites. Not a single credible third-party source mentions this movie. Many similar films have been produced by all sides involved in the conflict (such as this) and they can be mentioned in the Information war during the 2008 South Ossetian war article, but they don't deserve to have their own Wikipedia entries. Kober^Talk 14:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - notability of the film seams to be below our standards Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:Notability, lack of coverage in reliable sources. Only sources I could turn up were questionably reliable advocacy sites, and appeared to be mostly trivial mentions linking to YouTube. Potentially interesting, potentially true, but not notable, and Wikipedia is not an advertisement venue for making it notable. Jo7hs2 (talk) 15:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It is more home video as evrybody can make at home. It not appears in IMDB. The movie is Propaganda movie and the article is from political reasons not encyclopedic reasons. Geagea (talk) 09:20, 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 04:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RAM Limit

A non-notable thech-thing; ram problems with 32-bit systems are commonly documented and not worth an independent article. Ironholds (talk) 14:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think a useful article on memory limitations of operating systems could be written, but this isn't it. This isn't even part of it. This is a Windows-centric user guide, and it isn't even accurate. JulesH (talk) 15:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Inaccuracy is a cleanup issue. If you know better than what the article states, and have the sources to back your content up, then edit the article. Sitting on the sidelines in an AFD discussion and opining delete just because another editor has written poorly does not achieve the goal of writing the encyclopaedia. AFD is not cleanup. Uncle G (talk) 03:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although the information here is accurate (if somewhat confusing) this title is not widely used to describe it. Perhaps some of this could be salvaged and put in the NTLDR or Windows articles. Pburka (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? These limits are neither NTLDR-specific nor even Windows-specific. Several of them are fundamental aspects of the relevant processor architecture. And title problems are not deletion issues. You have, as an editor with an account, a rename button. Use it! Uncle G (talk) 03:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - They are, in fact, Windows specific, at least as described in this article. The IA32 architecture is not responsible for these limitations -- it's a historic design issue of Windows. NTLDR is responsible for configuring the address space at boot time, so it seemed like a reasonable place for some of the content. My concern about the title is that I'm not sure that this is a stand-alone topic at all. It seems like collection of minor details of the Windows operating system. Pburka (talk) 04:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - There are two limits that the article could discuss. The title suggests that it's going to be about why 32-bit systems cannot use a full 4GB RAM, a problem which is entirely due to the architecture and which no OS can bypass (without using Physical Address Extension, which uses 36-bit addressing) because 2³² bits = 4GB and devices other than the RAM must be mapped to this same memory space. However, it's mostly talking about the Windows-specific limit on process virtual memory in 32-bit systems (not the same as RAM). Each process can have a maximum of 3GB of virtual memory in 32-bit Windows, if the process is large address space aware (otherwise 2GB), but this is per-process not per system. I think the author must have confused these two issues. If we want an article talking about the virtual memory limit, the article really should be renamed. -- Mithent (talk) 08:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please point to the part of Wikipedia:Deletion policy that states that we delete articles on "commonly documented" subjects. And please point to the part of Wikipedia:Notability that states that "commonly documented" things that garner the sort of in-depth coverage that is exemplified by sources #1, #2, and #3 cited in this very article at the time that it was nominated are not notable. You'll find that you cannot. Neither say any such thing.
This is a very poor show on your part, Ironholds, not the least of which is your repeated biting of a new user on xyr very first article, when that new user even attempted to do things properly from the get-go, citing sources that are not only on-point and in-depth but also in fact support all of the content. Your nominating this article for deletion 92 seconds after its creation, was extreme biting, and your speedy deletion nomination of Windows 32bit RAM Limit after you had befuddled a new user with multiple repeated deletion nominations into blanking the article, was not particularly helpful to a new user. Do not bite the newcomers!
And try to remember that you're here to write. You're not here to template other people into submission with repeated deletion nominations. If you see an incomplete article on a "commonly documented" subject, pull out some of that documentation, and improve the article! It's what you're supposed to be doing. Read the Wikipedia:Editing policy. Also read Wikipedia:Stub and User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage. Uncle G (talk) 03:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can see inside the heads of new users now? I assume that is one of the many mystical powers they give to experienced users. The 'blanking of the page' was not (I think, you obviously seem to know better) in response to the deletion templates. The article RAM Limit has exactly the same content as Windows RAM Limit; either he is creating multiple copies of the same page or (more likely) it was an attempted move, either to change the title or to avoid the deletion tag. The speedy deletion was perfectly valid; he had blanked it for the aforementioned move/copy. Ironholds (talk) 06:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rewrite and rename to Computer address space limits. There have been several notable limits on address space in the history of computing, like the 64kB limit, 640kB limit, 1MB limit, 16MB limit, 4GB limit. Some are imposed by architecture - CPU or otherwise, some by BIOS, some by OS. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 07:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rewrite Maybe a good future article. --Mr Accountable (talk) 06:28, 12 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 04:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of top Telugu-language films

Since the phrase "critically acclaimed" is so incredibly vague and often used as a means of promotion, I believe this article fails the WP:NPOV policy even if it was referenced. Also, we already have the list Telugu films of 2008, and similar ones for every year since 2000 and every decade before that. Since all the listed films are in that list too and since they've got articles, it's a duplicate too. Mgm|^(talk) 14:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commment Looks like it's trying to mirror these articles. Lugnuts (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This strikes me as a legitimate topic, and the author has a record of contributions to Bollywood topics, so I think that this will develop into a good article. I would point out to the previous posts that a list of Telugu-language films is most certainly not a mirror of a list of Tamil-language films. Telugu and Tamil, like English and German, are separate languages even though there are some commonalities. Neither do I believe that the fact that we have a list of Telugu films in 2008 means that a person cannot make a list of award-winning or highest-grossing films in the Telugu language; certainly, we wouldn't apply that rationale to our lists of Hollywood films. Finally, let's be clear that "Bollywood" is the term for films made in India, but there is no such language as "Indian", and the movies are made in a variety of languages for a variety of people. Though most people haven't heard of it, the Telugu language is understood by 75,000,000 people. Mandsford (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to address the other part of the nomination, which is whether the author's use of the phrase "critically acclaimed" is a violation of NPOV. If it is, it is a semantics problem easily fixed by editing. My preference would be "award winning" or "nominated for award", which reflects critical acclaim without interjecting one's personal opinion. Generally, there are two different measures of success for a movie-- it is popular with the general public, which is measured monetarily; or it is popular with the critics, which is measured by an award process. Ultimately, I think that what is sauce for the Hollywood goose is sauce for the Bollywood gander. Mandsford (talk) 14:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of Mandford's argument. I don't usually like to just say "per", but there's nothing more that needs to be said. DGG (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this were a "list of highest grossing Telugu films" or even a "list of award-winning Telegu films" then I wouldn't have a problem with it, but it's not. What, pray tell, is supposed to be the definition of a "top film"? Even if it were given an appropriate rename, this is just a short, unreferenced list of "critically acclaimed" films, where just about any film could claim to be critically acclaimed by someone or other. No objections to a proper list with defining inclusion criteria, but this is not it. PC78 (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per PC78. While a similar list with defined inclusion criteria could exist, this one does not follow the applicable guidlines. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Should be very easy to find Telugu-language scholarship to support this list. --Mr Accountable (talk) 06:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - amorphous, unencyclopedic, unverifiable, and POV. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 14:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no criteria to define "top": quality? gross? googlehits? mentions in the press? critical acclaim? --Orange Mike | Talk 23:47, 13 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 13:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Choi Jun Rin

Non-notable and possible hoax. Apparently a former back up singer, she has yet to release anything as a solo artist and I am unable to verify the acting credit. In fact none of the seven references support anything in the article. A google search for Choi Jun Rin brings up just two hits outside Wikipedia, neither of them relevant. PC78 (talk) 13:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. I couldn't find her on IMDB, either. Ray (talk) 23:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. -- Ray (talk) 23:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ray (talk) 23:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Ray (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Look closely at the creator's name: "Who-am-I-do-you-know-me". And that this is there only article -which they curiously blanked at one stage. --Merbabu (talk) 07:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Merbabu's comments above Satu Suro 08:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' bit of ajoke, isn't it.Kipof (talk) 14:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as a wholly unsourced highly contentious and potentially libellous biographical article under the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy.

I first looked for sources myself, to reduce the article to a well-sourced stub, but like the nominator I could find nothing at all under either the name given in the article title or in the purported "real" name given in the article body. (There's another person with a highly similar name, in a different profession, but that's simply ancillary grounds for getting rid of this pronto, lest that other person find people erroneously branding him as a porn star based upon a bad Wikipedia article.)

Speedy deletion does not preclude a new article being created, but per the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons it must have supporting sources for any content such as this. I encourage JulesH to learn from Wikipedia history, in addition to putting xyrself in the subject's shoes. Mandsford already addresses the "What if it's not true?" situation, encouraging the doubters to step into the subject's shoes. This content, if this person is not what the article states, is a canonical example of what the BLP policy was created in order to prevent.

But even on the presumption that this is a porn star, history and experience teaches us that we don't do this. We've had several articles that "outed" porn stars in this very way that have caused problems. Jordan Capri was most distressed at being outed by Wikipedia, and came to complain in person at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Capri (noticeboard incident report). Other problematic "outings" that we've had to deal with include Tiffany Teen (AfD discussion), Tawnee Stone (noticeboard incident report), and Brandy Alexandre (who also came to complain in person). See also Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Ongoing BLP concerns#Porn actors' birth names.

Leaving the discussion of sourced real names and personal information aside, it is wholly unacceptable to write unsourced content of this nature in Wikipedia. A proper, reliably sourced, article is not excluded, but this article is not that, and there's no reason to retain this information in an edit history pending sourcing, and every reason not to, given the problems that we've had in the past. Once again: speedy deletion does not preclude the proper creation of a biography that adheres to our policies. But this is not it, nor the foundation for it. Uncle G (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas Blaze

Appears to be a WP:HOAX. (I have courtesy blanked the page to protect some real names, but the article can be seen in the history). A well-known porn star without any internet pages? Not a chance! Not associated with Mary Carey as claimed. Not a Dodger draftee as claimed. This could probably by G10 speedied as an attack page. — CactusWriter | ^needles 13:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — — CactusWriter | ^needles 13:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. — — CactusWriter | ^needles 13:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - it's either a hoax, an attack, or wishful thinking. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see nothing speediable here. It's an article about a person with a claim to notability. It appears that that claim is untrue, but being inaccurate is not in WP:CSD. I don't really understand how this could be considered an "attack" page, as it says nothing negative about anybody. JulesH (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Think about it for a moment. If someone were to use your name in an article, and, with no proof whatsoever, to describe you as an actor in pornographic films, wouldn't you consider that to be negative? The author of this article has made no other contributions, yet he or she has made apparently false statements about another person, giving his "real name", the names of his parents and siblings, his date and place of birth, etc. This is the type of practical joke that would lead to a lawsuit. Mandsford (talk) 17:00, 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. Sandstein 08:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Merz

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Contested prod. No indication of notability--most refs are to sites that have a conflict of interest with the subject, and entire article appears to have conflict of interest and promotional issues. No non-trivial mentions in third-party sources. Note that bio at imbd was supplied by the subject, and that a listing in imdb alone does not show notability--for this subject, imdb listings are for minor, mostly uncredited roles. Katr67 (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 04:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are multiple claims for notability. Even if playing only bit parts, the stage acting or film acting would be enough imo. The directing of notable plays is extra. Needs better sourcing, not deleting. WP:COI is not a deletion reason.Yobmod (talk) 10:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. A messy article that needs thoroughly cleaning up, but despite that fact that the acting parts and productions seem to be mainly smaller local roles, the sheer number is enough weight to make him adequately notable for me. Not that I've ever heard of him before.... DWaterson (talk) 01:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Frankly, if this 'Jesse Merz' is notable enough for Wikipedia, so am I -- anyone can come up with myriad important and notable events, occurances or people with whom they are associated with in minor or trivial ways -- voluminous useless information is still useless information. Furthermore, after reviewing the history of edits to this article, I have come to the conclusion this article was originally penned by Merz, and may have been editted by a variety of sock-puppet accounts of his. It comes off, to me at least, as a huge ego-trip, which I find insulting to the goals of Wikipedia. I am a vehement proponent of erring on the side of including too much information, but I think a line needs to be drawn -- right before this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameslightell (talk • contribs) 21:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Jesse Merz is a notable theatre professional and professor. His film work is less impressive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.17.210 (talk) 23:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC) — 75.119.17.210 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject has recieved significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject:

Columbia gorge school of theatre have publiched a whole biography of the subject.
filmreference.com] have a list of his works. This is trivial coverrage but it all adds up.
IMDb.com have a similar list, which is also fairly trivial but adds up.
PDF file about him and his work.

Patton^t/c 13:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That last PDF is clearly not an independent source. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is the artistic director of the theatre school, the imdb bio was submitted by the subject, and filmreference.com doesn't look like a reliable source. This fellow has promoted himself all over the Internet. What is needed here are several non-trivial reference in reliable and independent sources. Katr67 (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Someone's doing a good job of putting their resume online, but I don't see any much notability. --Bobak (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources are not independent, for example, he was staff at Columbia Gorge School of Theatre. His directing has been at student theater, summer stock and local theaters. There are no reviews, or even listings, of his work in major newspapers. Directing a notable play, say Macbeth, does not produce notability. And in that vein, ... He is but a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. --Bejnar (talk) 05:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To be fair, his credits aren't just "local". There are sources from Playbill and Broadway World documenting his work in New York City. He's worked at some nice theatres (Manhattan Theatre Club, Atlantic Theater, Nada, Promenade, Musical Theatre Works, etc). Neither his acting, nor his directing, nor his book writing, nor his running of theatres, nor him being a professor alone make him notable, but the sum total of all of these aspects of his work make him at least marginally notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dramaqueen25 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC) — Dramaqueen25 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Weak delete. He has some non-trivial news coverage, but that’s about it. Seems to be far from passing WP:PROF.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per theatre notability. Nom shouldhave noted that IMDB might be used to WP:Verify something, but does not itself confer notability. THAT is found elsewhere. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:00, 12 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 13:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matt jones professional speaker

Article was tagged for speedy deletion, but given that there are some reliable sources I am bringing the article here instead. Personally I am not convinced that the sources are sufficient to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 11:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject has not recieved significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject:

The first two references in the article itself are books written by him, and thus not secondary sources independent of the subject.
The other three are trivial coverage.
Google web search brings up nothing.
Google news search brings up nothing

Patton^t/c 12:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not sure why you'd expect those searches to turn up stuff, as articles about the guy are unlikely to call him a "professional speaker" because that's not what makes him interesting. I mean, seriously: you're not going to hire somebody to speak for you who doesn't have something interesting to say, right? So why would an article be about his speaking and not the interesting stuff he talks about. There are plenty of independent sources about this guy and his books. [23] [24] [25]. Obviously the article should be renamed. Matt Jones (inspirational writer) would seem appropriate. JulesH (talk) 13:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"inspirational" is about as biased as you can get, you cannot include tat in an article name.--Patton^t/c 13:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep based solely on notability analysis. I did a quick GS on for Matt Jones and Cancer, and found enough sources that I'm convinced the individual passes WP:BIO. The sources are pretty slim, so my support for keeping the article is pretty weak. The article does not need to be renamed, however the article name should be tweeked so that "Jones" is capitalized, and "Professional Speaker" is in parenthesis. I would support a change in name to "Motivational Speaker", however "Inspirational Speaker" seems a clear NPOV failure. Jo7hs2 (talk) 16:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inspirational story, but Delete. Local newspaper articles about a regional inspiration speaker do not establish notability. --Bobak (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The title has been changed to Matt Jones (author) but if there is anything he is not notable at, it is being an author --the first book is in 1 worldcat library outside his home town (possible in more than that total, but hard to tell). His 2nd book is in none at all. They both appear to be self-published. WP is not a tabloid. Very close to G11 promotional. DGG (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: DGG's WorldCat analysis has shifted me from Weak Keep to Weak Delete. I see some source chatter than makes my support for delete weak, but overall the sources out there are pretty darn weak, and what I see doesn't support inclusion. Jo7hs2 (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a place to become notable; it is a tertiary source of people, places, things and ideas that are already notable. Bearian (talk) 16:56, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calcon

Annual gaming convention with an attendance of about 200. No third-party sources. Can't find any news hits or significant web mentions. Graymornings_(talk) 11:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject has not recieved significant coverage in reliable third party sources independent of the subject:

Google web search finds no independent secondary sources.
Google news search finds nothing.--Patton^t/c 13:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notably game conference. However, if this does manage to be kept, maybe I should list a regional video game gathering I go to... I never realized it was notable. --Bobak (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any significant coverage anywhere. Normally, such conventions would have quite a bit of coverage in the gaming media, companies and individuals would announce their participation and activities there, but this doesn't seem to be the case for this one. -- Sabre (talk) 18:33, 11 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 13:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Edmestone Barnes

Flunks WP:ACADEMIC. According to the WP:OR in the article: Ben Barnes had only a few papers published in the Bulletin of the CNP, but his scientific thoughts, his high capacity as a teacher and his enthusiasm for polemic matters on the frontier of science, influenced many generations of his students, particularly in the subjects of structural geology, geophysics, petroleum geology and mineral deposits. Most of his students, after graduation, worked for PETROBRÁS and for many mining companies or universities in Brazil. Many of them became also influential to later generations of students thus creating a chain of progressive knowledge in the country on the cited fields of the geological sciences. Article had notability tag since September 2007, but no material improvement, other than today's removal of the PROD and notability tag. 115 Ghits, virtually all Wikipedia related; 2 Google books hits in Portugese, which appear not to be significant. Only Wikipedia article that links to this is List of Brazilians. THF (talk) 11:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sounds like a great guy and teacher, but I don't see notability. --Bobak (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete He might be notable as a teacher, but there is unfortunately no way to tell. We need some actual evidence that he is in fact regarded as influential in establish geology as field of teaching in Brazil. The article claims that, & if it could be shown he'd be notable. DGG (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 04:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unfortunately does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO. A Google Scholar search returns zero citations. I agreed with Bobak - certainly seems like a dedicated professor, and a good person.--Eric Yurken (talk) 03:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent reliable sources. No WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Descíclope (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tried googling him using Benjamin vs. Ben, including the middle name vs. removing it, but I can't find ghits to support notability requirements for WP:ACADEMIC. I did find others with the unique "Edmestone Barnes" name including an Isaac Edmestone Barnes and a Dr. J. Edmestone Barnes, just not Ben Edmestone Barnes. A search at worldcat didn't bring up records for him. The 1949 report listed as a Reference appears to be his only published work, but it is not "highly cited". Rosiestep (talk) 23:38, 12 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 13:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gradimir Trifunovic

Non-notable musician. No sources cited for any of the info in the article, nor can I find any. Graymornings_(talk) 11:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn musician. --Bobak (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no reliable 3rd party sources WP:MUSICBIO. JamesBurns (talk) 08:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is completely fictional, no such person had existed and played in this band.Svenaj (talk) 19:47, 12 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 13:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gerrard berman day school

None of the references are reliable 3rd party references which makes it balance on WP:CSD#G11 (spam). Mgm|^(talk) 11:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability per guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I find a half a reference via Google News; while there are some results, they don't amount to significant third-party coverage, and the article has no third-party references anyway. `Drmies (talk) 20:34, 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. MBisanz ^talk 13:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Major League Softball Association

Delete. This is a blatant advertisement. Orrelly Man (talk) 10:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a copy vio of this press release or speedy delete as spam G11 --DFS454 (talk) 11:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I can see this as a viable notable topic, this isn't it. Delete per wp:advert — Ched (talk) 12:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even the original author gave up on this one after starting the article in April 2008, hence the lack of currency (as it turns out, a "lack of currency" is the reason that there have been no investors listed in this venture). Spring training is not going to be starting two weeks from now; the website still exists, but is now referring to a 2010 season and a wishlist of teams across the nation. There is still nothing notable here, and while Wikipedia does have articles about leagues that never played a game, they at least have to have signed contracts with players, stadiums, etc., and made at least some news. Mandsford (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Recreate it later if the league actually happens and gets some traction. --Bobak (talk) 19:10, 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. Having read the arguments below and looked at the sources myself, I would agree that the sources currently given in the article don't do much to demonstrate why she is notable. However, DGG and others do make a good point that the position she holds, and the wording of some of the sources, do imply that she could be considered a leading member of her field. Also considering that she holds a high position within an international organization relating to her field, there ought to be some sources out there somewhere to improve this article. Arguing about it here doesn't seem to be getting us anywhere, so hopefully some concentrated work on the article will be enough to keep it around. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maurita Murphy Mead

No material secondary sources on the subject of this article. News hits are limited to the most local variety of coverage. Full professors are often, but not automatically, notable. Notable professors would have considerably more coverage.

If there are reliable, independent sources that provide significant coverage of the subject, please provide. Note that this Wikipedia article as been tagged for lacking sources for nearly four months. Bongo matic 10:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All I could come up with to verify notability from the one valid assertion in the article were news releases from the university where she teaches and Wikipedia mirrors. No prejudice against recreation should she later gain some notoriety outside academia. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Needs third party sources establishing notability. A lot of professors at major universities like Iowa have had solid careers, but not necessarily notable ones. --Bobak (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability to meet inclusion guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Iowa is a major music school, and when they make someone a full professor on the basis of their teaching of performance, I defer to their judgement. On what basis do people here think they can tell better? Why would a newspaper or magazine article or two saying so prove it any the more? Their decision is an independent source for notability.DGG (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The University of Iowa judged Prof. Mead's quality as a clarinetist and a teacher of clarinet. By contrast, Wikipedia editors are supposed to judge the quality of the encyclopedia article that can potentially be written about Prof. Mead. The latter judgment can only be made by finding and evaluating independent sources about her. The university's decision to hire or promote her is not a source at all, nor is it an "independent source for notability." It's evidence of well-accomplishment. But well-accomplishment is not notability.
  The University of Iowa hires the best music faculty it can find. Wikipedia editors write neutral encyclopedia articles. Let's keep the two functions separate. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 22:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly wrong. The quality of articles is not the issue here at AfD. Quality is dealt with by editing. Notability is the issue here,which is a peculiar Wikipedia concept, perhaps best defined as "importance within the field", and therefore with a career suitable for an encyclopedia article. There are many reasons for notability, and accomplishment is the most usual and the most important of them. DGG (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Importance" is by most people's definition a relative concept. There is no indication that this individual has risen to a level of importance in the field, given a reasonable definition of "the field" (obviously, if you include anyone who tooted a claranet in a band, she has risen to a lofty level indeed). Perhaps DGG's view is that every partner at a top tier law firm or accountancy, or managing director at an investment bank, or brand manager at a consumer products company is notable, but I don't think there's anything like a consensus on that proposition. Bongomatic 05:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Could you please explain how an assessment of notability is any less subjective than an assessment of "importance within the field"?
      - Can I ask whether you did any research on Mead, prior to concluding she was not notable? Geo Swan (talk) 13:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - "The quality of articles is not the issue here at AfD. Quality is dealt with by editing."--But without independent sources, it will not be possible to write a quality (i.e. verifiable and neutral) Wikipedia article. Whether such an article is possible to write is precisely the issue at AFD.
      The idea of "notability" serves only as a proxy for this fundamental question, hence Wikipedia's definition of notability as the existence of significant, independent coverage. Your conception of notability as "importance within the field" is interesting but foreign to Wikipedia's actual deletion policy and to Wikipedia:Notability. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 12:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously, I'm going to go this way as I wrote the article and have studied with her. She's previously served as the secretary of the International Clarinet Association, the principal clarinetist of the Des Moines Symphony, performed widely as a chamber musician, lectured at major symposiums and universities, and has been reviewed in notable music magazines. She is also one of the leading Americans in her main style of music, the choro. What else would notability require. I'll get you the sources if you need them. Clarinet Hawk (talk) 00:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "If there are reliable, independent sources that provide significant coverage of the subject, please provide."--Bongomatic
  "Needs third party sources establishing notability."--Bobak
  "The judgment can only be made by finding and evaluating independent sources about her."--Me
  Yes, sources would be helpful. :)
  (Right now, the article seems to be sourced only to her university webpage, which presents problems of neutrality.) 160.39.213.152 (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 04:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question -- Our nominator asks: "If there are reliable, independent sources that provide significant coverage of the subject, please provide." -- excuse me, but doesn't the nominator have a responsibility to do a web search, prior to making a nomination? The last time I looked our opinions here are supposed to be based on the merits of covering the topic. If the topic merits coverage I believe we are supposed to discount correctable weaknesses in the current article. It seems to me that a responsible nominator, who respects the time of other discussions participants, has to do their own search on the topic so they can independently arrive at a meaningful opinion as to whether the topic merits coverage. I have never heard of Professor Mead, or of choro music, prior to reading this nomination. My web searches did turn up references. I added a few to the article. I am not placing a keep right away, because I am not familiar with the specific notability criteria for musicians. Since Professor Mead has multiple CDs, and has high-profile performances, wouldn't that make her notable solely as a musician? The other artists participating in the Daniel Pearl World Musid Days included Alison Krause and Robert Plant, who won a Grammy two days ago. Their notability doesn't rub off on Mead. But, if the organizers are going to get some famous artists would they really also add an obscure Professor of music? Isn't it more likely that any Professor of music they chose would be picked from among the most notable Professors of Music? Geo Swan (talk) 12:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I did do a news and web search to attempt to establish notability per the general notability guideline. I found no significant coverage other than in very local sources (the Cedar Rapids-Iowa City Gazette), whose editorial selection of local events and personalities cannot be (and by consensus, generally are not) considered to be "independent" of the subject. By referencing "importance in the field", as possibly demonstrated by awards, deanships, etc., I was suggesting indicia that despite the inability to find sources containing significant coverage would demonstrate the likelihood of there being such sources now or in the future. I.e., the "importance in the field" criterion would lead to a more not less inclusive standard.

The notability guidelines for musicians and recordings are listed at WP:MUSIC. I was unable to find coverage of Mead's performances or recordings that satisfy those guidelines, either. Bongo matic 14:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of those criteria states: "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability." Coverage of Mead concur that she is one of the leading representatives of the choro style in the USA.
Were you planning to address my question as to why you think "importance in the field" is too subjective, but you do not regard "notability" as too subjective?

I don't think of the notability guidelines as too subjective. While there may be cases on the margin, "significant coverage" isn't too subjective to generate wide consensus. Bongo matic 22:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am unaware of any consensus that coverage in local papers was not considered independent of the subject. If this consensus is well established you should have no problem finding a place where this consensus was established. Would you mind directing our attention to where that consensus was established? Geo Swan (talk) 17:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen numerous recitals of this view in AfD discussions. It is also implied in footnote 5 of WP:N. Look a the editorial selection process in a local paper versus a national one.. Bongo matic 22:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree about the existence or relevance of such a consensus. The consensus is more to use common sense and do things on a case by case basis. Of course coverage in national media is more "substantial" or "significant" - but saying local media coverage is not independent is IMHO neither anywhere near a consensus nor at all reasonable. Footnote 5 is about COI and "Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them." Mead does not run the local papers.John Z (talk) 00:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Response to Geo Swan regarding the nominator's responsibility to do a web search: No, that's not the nominator's responsibility. That's mainly the article creator's responsibility. The nominator can only do so much. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sources provided by Geo Swan do not constitute significant, independent coverage. The interview Prof. Mead gave about someone else to a student writing a thesis is trivial coverage about Prof. Mead, and not independent. The concert notice is trivial. The press release from her employer is not independent. And the resume-like "biography" of dubious provenance on the World Music Days website is unreliable. These sources allow the construction of a makeshift resume for Prof. Mead, but that's what her university homepage is for, not Wikipedia. And, no, it is not true that "Coverage of Mead concur that she is one of the leading representatives of the choro style in the USA." After searches by Bongo, Geo, me, and others, there seems to be no independent coverage of Mead--let alone verification that she is a "leading representative." 160.39.213.152 (talk) 11:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mob Wars

This article has three sources, one of which is a website which talks about facebook related things, so I do believe it is not independent from the subject.

Besides that, I do not see why this particular game is notable outside of all others that do exactly the same thing, players and profits do not make something notable, significant coverage in reliable sources does, and as far as I can see, it has two. Two is not significant. — Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 09:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep being one of the most lucrative (and ergo popular) of the tens of thousands of apps on Facebook would seem to be a credible assertion of notability. The sourcing is not great but it does appear to support the claims. Nancy ^talk 10:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~::Last time I checked, the amount of players a game had doesn't assert notability, nor does the fact that it makes money.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 10:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)~~ [reply]

~~See WP:BIGNUMBER.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 10:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

I don't think WP:BIGNUMBER is relevant here. My argument is not that it's "big" but that it is "biggest". There is a huge difference. Nancy ^talk 12:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Not really, the fact of the matter is is that you're still using amount of players in order to establish notability, and the fact is, is that that could be said for any number of things on the internet, but that doesn't make them notable. I've seen web content before that has tried to say it's notable because it has this many players. Well the cold hard truth is that notability is not established by player base or profits.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 23:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NO, show me where I have written that "it is notable because it has many players". Lucrative means profitable and as the most profitable FB app it is notable. If you are going to contest my !vote please at least be accurate with your argument. Nancy ^talk 06:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I struck through my arguments because I read your original argument wrong.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 07:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It does not have two sources, it has three (actually four now) unaffiliated sources listed in the article. What's more, those articles are solely on the game; not one-line mentions half-way through the article. Anyone familiar with me knows that I tend to be fairly conservative on what "notability" means; IMHO this makes the cut, which is why I sourced the article when it was first created and tagged. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it still actually only has three, and three is not significant. One source is used twice, that does not make it have four.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 23:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So how many is "significant" in your eyes? A gsearch for '"mob wars" facebook' returns coverage from Gawker, an NBC affiliate in Los Angeles, The Industry Standard, etc. If you are going to make the case that "X is not significant" then you should point to where "X" is clearly defined and specified in the notability standards. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 23:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - At least more than four, right there you only have two. The NBC link is a trivial mention, which doesn't count.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 08:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Make that one. I suggest you read this, it's the disclaimer for Gawker, which basically reads that the site cannot be used as a reliable source, eg, it posts rumors and gossip. Read through it, please.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 08:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, currently the wikipedia article has three sources, counting the one you listed above(re: the other two sources do not meet WP:SOURCE.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 09:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Because it says "become the most lucrative application on Facebook and the first to net $1m per month in revenue." That is notable. Dream Focus (talk) 01:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.213.1 (talk) 10:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't votes for deletion. It's a discussion, please explain your reasoning.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 10:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs categories, an external links section, probably an info box -- you know, general clean up. However, it does appear to be notable. It has a lot of players, significant revenue, featured coverage in secondary sources, and even mentioned briefly in a couple of news items regarding the addictive nature of Facebook, and and what Facebook should do going forward. Chicken Wing (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Please read WP:BIGNUMBER, the amount of players a game has has nothing to do with notability, also read WP:N, please, as a trivial mention is not grounds to establishing a particular source, as a source. In order for the source to count, the mention must be non-trivial.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 20:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No substantive response, as per my policy with this user. Chicken Wing (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not votes for deletion, refusal to discuss your resoning isn't helping, so instead of being a dick about it, please, treat this AfD how every other AfD is treated, and discuss your reasoning. Refusing to discuss your reasoning with me just because you don't like me is absurd.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 22:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an AfD, Daedalus969, not a platform for you to attack an editor. Try reading WP:CIVIL and WP:GOODFAITH. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't attacking an editor, try visiting the link I posted. This editor is being rude to me because we have differing opinions regarding the blocking policy. In short, he has made it apparent he thinks I'm stupid because I disagree with him. So when he refuses to discuss his reasoning just because he thinks he can't answer without insulting me, it really does show his true colors. Now back off until you can take the time to review all the material, instead of taking a side with hardly any information on the subject.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 06:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I found this sentence in WP:DICK: Telling someone "Don't be a dick" is something of a dick-move in itself... But I fail to see how any prior drama matters here. Please drop it and let's talk about - I dunno - whether this article should be deleted or not, or something wacky like that. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prior drama matters, because he is using that as a scape goat in order to evade my question, or evade having to answer my question, simply because we disagree on a topic.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 06:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable online game. Article could use quite a bit of cleanup. Dreadstar † 05:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw - Withdrawn.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 09:41, 12 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, per WP:SNOW. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mateship Sunday

A made up day. No sources provided. No evidence of existance Mattinbgn\^talk 09:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 09:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- per nom. No sources to indicate this is nothing more than something somebody made up. -- Longhair\^talk 09:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Appears to be made up. Jonesy (talk) 09:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP. Ironholds (talk) 09:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think this could probably have been speedied as random-made-up-thing. --Delirium (talk) 09:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
..Which isn't a speedy category. Ironholds (talk) 09:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I usually use db-nonsense for those, but maybe that's not kosher? Most "hey we thought this up in school" things do seem to get speedied one way or another. --Delirium (talk) 09:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense doesn't cover it, but there are certain administrators that use IAR in such situations. Personally I prefer to follow procedure. Ironholds (talk) 09:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I did not speedy it, despite the fact the article deserves speedying. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it wasn't a criticism of you. Ironholds (talk) 10:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No doubt written by a well-meaning editor, but still WP:MADEUP. WWGB (talk) 12:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP, / nom — Ched (talk) 12:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:SNOW.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 02:08, 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. MBisanz ^talk 13:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Knightsmith

Neologism, MADEUP, no references. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This one was tricky. "Knightsmith" appears to be a fairly common name in parts of the UK, and a Google search will return truckloads of poolside pictures of people with that name. But Coventry (the area where the shot allegedly originated) does not have people named "Knightsmith", and the article gives no third-party sources attesting to usage of this shot. This search returns the Wikipedia article and two false positives. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When an article is deliberately written in vague terms about the present day, for which one can be obviously fairly exact as to dates, then warning bells sound that the writer is trying to make a subject appear more encyclopaedic than it really is. This article's discussion of "the early parts of the 21st century" is a strong telltale that this article isn't coverage of an encyclopaedic subject.
What it clearly is, is two persons' (Mmccurrie's and Sevenballer's) writeup, for whatever reason, of the one-time actions or habits of one of their friends. It's almost certainly named after the surname of the friend, and had it been more personally identifying it would have strayed across the line into attack article territory. Further corroboration that this is people abusing Wikipedia to make up hoax articles directed at their friends is the fact that the IP address that removed the AFD notice, 86.20.30.86 (talk · contribs), also traces back to the same city, Coventry, as mentioned in the article.
This is not even an attempt at a real encyclopaedia article, and it is close to the borderline of being speedily deletable as a combination of attack article and hoax vandalism. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 13:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. Speaking as a resident of Coventry and a regular pool player, I've never heard of this. No ghits at all. The content of the article is clearly untrue. JulesH (talk) 19:57, 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 13:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea Romero

non-notable pornographic actress. No awards or nominations, no mainstream appearances, no unique contributions to porn. See WP:PORNBIO. No non-trivial coverage by reliable secondary sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Bobak (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How come this isn't on the WikiProject:Pornography list of deletions?SPNic (talk) 00:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 04:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:N. Flarkins (talk) 15:54, 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. MBisanz ^talk 13:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zugball

Unreferenced. Few search results suggest subject fails WP:Notability. Possibly WP:OR. Orrelly Man (talk) 08:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Hoax --DFS454 (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Needs some credible 3rd party articles for notability and to avoid the possibility of a hoax. --Bobak (talk) 19:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of references and notability. This is very possibly factual, but in the author's own words, the game is "rarely played, and mostly unknown." A Google search turns up quite a few references, but none that are related to this article's subject. One zugball is a ball in the sense of a dance. Several other references refer to something relating to billiards. Most references are in German because zug is a German word meaning pull, stretch, or tension in this sense. Zug is also a train. There is no article in the German Wikipedia for zugball, but the search retrieves two items, one of which appears in the article in Billiards ([26]), and other which appears in the article Effet ([27]), which means a twist on a ball, such as "english" applied to a billiard ball. •••Life of Riley (talk) 00:22, 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. MBisanz ^talk 13:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disco Live

This seems to be part of a walled garden see:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Channel 3 Network and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julian's as well as User talk:Fatcatjulian. It is difficult to know what this article is about but there I can find no independent evidence of Disco Live and the Channel 3 network referred to is a Myspace page.Porturology (talk) 07:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Note that an attempt to remove the AFD notice has been reverted. MuffledThud (talk) 08:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(comment): note also that an attempt to remove the nomination from this page has also been reverted. MuffledThud (talk) 08:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: vanity article. No reliable 3rd party sources. JamesBurns (talk) 08:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note The AFD was removed from the log by the article's authorPorturology (talk) 15:15, 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 speedy delete as blatant advertising. Canley (talk) 11:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Medical marijuana grow guide

Advertising article about non-notable DVD set. OlEnglish (talk) 05:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the nom pretty much sums it up. It's advertising for a non-notable product. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 05:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spam. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and close - This is clearly CSD-G11.--Cerejota (talk) 09:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy. Blatant advertising. Serves no purpose but to promote a non-notable product. Graymornings_(talk) 10:12, 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 redirect to Pibb Xtra. MBisanz ^talk 04:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Pibb in popular culture

Prodded; prod removed when I attempted to merge it into Pibb Xtra; merge reverted. This is an unsourced collection of indiscriminate trivia related to the soda brand owned by the Coca Cola Company. This clearly cannot stand alone as an article. B.Wind (talk) 04:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge, fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE -- OlEnglish (talk) 04:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any of the items that can be sourced with Pibb Xtra, then delete this as an unnecessary redirect. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 05:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, but not possible under the GFDL. Graymornings_(talk) 15:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since most of the artice is trivial (and unsourced) anyway, I'll just go with delete. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 16:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of it as original research, no indication that anyone has written about this subject in reliable sources. WillOakland (talk) 09:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no merge. Even if these can be sourced, all of them are trivial - mentions in stand-up jokes, offhand references in The Simpsons, etc. Absolutely useless. Graymornings_(talk) 11:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I nuked a similarly unreferenced and utterly trivial section from the Pibb Xtra article in November 2007, and when I removed it from my watchlist, the cancer returned, metastasized and migrated. This is a mind-numbingly long list of indiscriminate and trivial mentions, totally unreferenced (and likely unreferenceable), pointless, and utterly unencyclopedic. Burn it with fire and be done with it. Horologium (talk) 12:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. The mention that this brand was a sponsor for a NASCAR driver is not trivial and should be merged somewhere in the main article even if several of the others are trivial. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Indiscriminate list. No merge. KnightLago (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any part of this not-very-interesting trivia, about TV sightings of an item, can be mentioned somewhere in the Mr. Pibb article. The drink is now called Pibb Xtra. Because of its "sounds a lot like" name, Mr. Pibb had been considered to be a generic version of Dr. Pepper, even though it was introduced by the Coca-Cola company. Mandsford (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Merge and delete. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not. I've noticed that quite a few of the admins around here have this bizarre "black or white" attitude, where if you breathe the word "merge", they have one of these reactions: (a) "How dare you say merge!! AfD is not the place for a merge!!" or (b) "When you said merge, you meant that you wanted to keep this article, or else you would have said delete." or (c) "When you said merge, you meant that you want this article quickly deleted without a redirect, or else you would have transferred the information over yourself." For some reason, I see a lot of this lately, and the practical effect is to make people reluctant to even suggest a middle ground. Why can't they just simply say, "The result was _____"? There's no point in telling me how to !vote. Mandsford (talk) 14:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think he just meant that it's impossible to merge info to the main article and then delete this one. (See where I mentioned the GFDL above). Graymornings_(talk) 17:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I don't think he meant that. Merges like that happen all the time... the admin usually gives time for some of the information to climb into the lifeboats and climb onto the Californian before the Titanic sinks to the bottom of the ocean. Mandsford (talk) 02:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect. Mr Pibb? Really? Deletion is also a possibility, but probably a tad harsh. --Bobak (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all in popular culture articles as inherently non-notable. Stifle (talk) 10:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With entries like "The drink is mentioned in the song 'An idea for a movie' on The Vandals Album..." this is an indiscriminate list of trivial "mentions" and other "appearances". --Craw-daddy | T | 11:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Every instance where Mr. Pibb has been mentioned on television. Garbage like this is impossible to remove from Wikipedia, even though it should be deleted. Oh boy, it's been flagged for {{Rescue}}; that means a high-quality article is on the way. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CIVIL, please. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cut and paste into Pibb Xtra since the GDFL does not allow a merge with histories. Then set a redirect. Then delete the list. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge back to "Pibb Xtra" (though I feel there should be a separate article on Mr. Pibb—it is just not the same drink as Pibb Xtra). I've referenced some of the items, so this should not be deleted. Trim the unsourced stuff out, if you feel it's too much. Though everything could be sourced to primary sources, perhaps limiting it to those references mentioned in secondary reliable sources would be a way to keep it from bloating. Though I'm quite sure there must be a secondary reference somewhere for the American Dad episode besides TV.com and blog postings, I just haven't find it online. DHowell (talk) 00:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Into Pibb Xtra, as suggested by the previous two editors. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

25 home run club

I assume this means all baseball players who have ever hit 25 home runs? Such a list is both unnotable and nearly totally indiscriminate. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - the 25 home run club can be mentioned in 50 home run club. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 05:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I was going to suggest userfication but after seeing the creator's talk page there's a long history of xx-home run club articles that have been speedily deleted. OlEnglish (talk) 05:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pointless list, would include hundreds of players. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the nominator points out, the article doesn't make it clear what the list of names is about. The article "50 home run club" is about twenty-five major league baseball players who have hit 50 home runs in a season. Twenty-five home runs is a pretty good achievement, but as Nawlin points out, there would hundreds of people on that list. For a frame of reference, last season alone there were 47 players who had hit 25 or more home runs. Mandsford (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Easy delete. 1)Lou Gehrig is spelled wrong 2) hundreds of players have hit 25 home runs, not just 20 players who almost all happened to play in this century. --Giants27 T C 00:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, completely unmaintainable and un-notable list. For future reference, however, something being spelled wrong is not in any way a rationale for deletion. It may show a unfamiliarity with or flippant attitude to a subject, but these aren't reasons to delete an article either. SMSpivey (talk) 02:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That was meant to be a joke, but the second point is real.--Giants27 T C 03:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My bad then! I suppose I assume non-sarcasm at AfD, usually. SMSpivey (talk) 06:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete indiscrimate list; why 25? not 26? or 24? - there seems to be no rationale for the choice, so seems to be WP:SYNTH as well. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not mention if this is 25 HR in a career, season, month, postseason, etc. Unless original author can quantify this, I say delete. And even if the original author could quantify it, article is still unsourced and could easily be incorporated into another HR record article (I believe 50 home run club has been mentioned). KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:28, 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hearing and Service Dogs of Minnesota

Contested prod, but no real reason for contesting given. No claims to notability, despite being tagged for notability for over a year. A private organisation, with no third party references, no referenced news coverage of note. Canterbury Tail talk 03:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per this Google News Archive search. This article (from the Star Tribune), this article (from Coon Rapids Herald), this article (from Read the Bridge), as well as plenty more, are enough to establish notability per WP:ORG. Cunard (talk) 04:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per independent coverage found by Cunard.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm also a little regionally biased since I see their dogs being trained here in downtown Minneapolis. --Bobak (talk) 19:23, 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 redirect to Danga Interactive. MBisanz ^talk 03:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MogileFS

Non-notable subject which has been tagged as such for over a year, yet still spammed e.g. in cloud computing. WikiScrubber (talk) 03:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Danga Interactive if no sources can be found. Cunard (talk) 04:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Danga Interactive. I am not sure if anything other than the name is worth saving, but one could try. --Bejnar (talk) 07:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Danga Interactive, but also make a paragraph there detailing MogileFS. --Carbon Rodney 15:16, 11 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 close - no assertion of notability,the company launched last month, and there's very little independent coverage showing in Google News.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CTERA Networks

Wikivertisement for non-notable company that fails to even assert notability. WikiScrubber (talk) 03:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Probably should have been speedied. WikiScrubber (talk) 03:35, 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 03:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Idle RPG

failed prod with the reasoning "lack of sources is not a valid reason for deleting an article. This topic passes the google test with 639,000 results." Google hits is not reliable, especially since as mentioned almost all are fansites, unreliable sources or primary sources and thus does not pass notability and probably not verifiability. It is also made up almost entirely of original research.じんない 03:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reasons:

Passes WP:GOOG notability test with 639,000 Google results

Result #10: http://everything2.com/e2node/IdleRPG
Result #16: http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Idle-RPG
Result #20: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Idle%20RPG
Result #40: http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Idle:RPG.html
Result #41: http://visualwikipedia.com/en/Idle_RPG

Passes WP:GOOG notability test with 1,945 Search IRC results (This is used in thousands of channels, being used by many times that many users)
None of the remaining reasons mentioned in the proposal are valid Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion and can better be fixed by Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Editing

--BarkerJr (talk) 04:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 06:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — nothing I could find, nor the abovementioned sources provide any verifiability of the article. Also remember that WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a good indicator of notability; it's what is found among those hits that do. MuZemike 06:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

I contend that this article has inherent notability. Idle RPG software is used by 10s of thousands of users (if not more) who are spread out across all the major IRC networks. Both SearchIRC and IRSeeK clearly show just how popular this software is.
The average channel size for an 'Idle RPG' game channel seems to be around 50-100 users, so if you multiply that by even 1000 channels (let alone the 2000+ that these turn up) that's a heck of a lot of users.
You also have to keep in mind that the search results returned by SearchIRC and IRSeeK only account for a fraction of the total number of users due to the fact that these companies' monitoring bots are not present or even welcome in most IRC channels. [28]
IRC related topics are also notoriously difficult to "verify" via WP:GOOG anyway due to the fact that IRC topics are generally discussed on IRC and not on the web. [29]
As for the WP:GOOG results specifically, they turn up documentation for the software itself and in-game user stats that clearly show just how popular the software is. I honestly don't see how the AfD nominator could possible consider these to be fansites, unreliable sources, or primary sources as they clearly show the software is in use by thousands of users.
This article is also clearly marked as a stub. It still needs major improvement, but in my mind that fact alone certainly doesn't call for WP:DEMOLISH. It seems to me it would make much more sense to apply WP:ATD when it's clear an article still has a long way to go. I attempted to do just that this afternoon when I was made aware of the prod by adding inline citations. References and citations were not present when this article was initially tagged as a prod.

--Tothwolf (talk) 07:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Of the results linked to by BarkerJr, #16, #40 and #41 are copies of the Wikipedia article. The others - Urban Dictionary and Everything2.com - are user generated content and not usable as WP:Reliable sources. I'm looking through the google search hits, and I can't see anything that qualifies for our verifiability policy, let alone notability (inherent or not). "Discussed on IRC" is not a replacement for reliable, published sources. However, I am curious to see what coverage this subject has in Tim Power's book. Any chance of a quote or indication of significance? Marasmusine (talk) 14:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Google has a limited preview of Tim Jowers book on Google Books and it happens to include that page. The author included a screenshot of a game in progress showing the bot preforming the battles between players. Someone appears to have just done a major update on the article itself so I need to see what all they've cited now. It seems like it's a shame that it takes an AfD to get an article expanded/updated though. Tothwolf (talk) 03:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of those, except the one for the book, still fail reliable sources, and 1 source in a not notable enough for a separate article. At most you could mention Idle RPG's existence under IRC, but only what could be directly attributed to the book. Given it's 1 sentence (unless someone has the book and can cite other pages), it isn't really enough for a whole section either, but just mentioned under "Modern IRC" section.じんない 03:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This topic wouldn't fit into IRC at all. Idle RPG is an online game that just happens to use an IRC channel as its gameboard. If this subject is going to be covered on wikipedia it would either have to have its own article or somehow fit into an online-game/rpg topic. Considering how unique it is (IRC based, etc) the later would be probably quite difficult. Tothwolf (talk) 04:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly in the Online text-based role-playing game (though that article needs massive cleanup itself)? Most of it would either have to find better citations as it is original research or unveriable claims or just use the little bit from the book.じんない 04:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't really fit into online text-based role-playing game either. The OTBRPG article seems to be more of an overview of the various genres/mediums of OTBRPGs. Articles like Idle RPG should probably be wikilinked from a section about IRC based games in OTBRPG though, as it would make it more intuitive to navigate and get more information on IRC based games. Similarly, Idle RPG or better yet maybe OTBRPG should also be wikilinked from IRC subculture, but there doesn't yet seem to be a section in that article that covers online games that use IRC as their medium.

While working on cleaning up the IRC categories, I've actually found a number of articles about IRC based games, but after seeing this one get prodded and then AfD simply because it's a stub and currently lacking in Wikipedia-standard references, I'm hesitant to add templates to any of them and add them to the proper categories. If they'll just be deleted, what's the point in even trying to improve their visibility so they'll get seen and expanded by others?

The truth of it is, topics relating to IRC are just extremely difficult to source via Google and dead tree methods. Google didn't come about until sometime in 1998, and the Internet Archive in 1996. IRC on the other hand, has been around since 1988.

IRC has it's own distinct online subculture, and speaking as someone who has been involved in that subculture for better than 15 years, I can say with absolute certainty that a very large percentage of the people within that subculture don't write about the things discussed on IRC on websites that would traditionally be usable for Wikipedia article references. This makes it extremely difficult to provide traditional citations for topics of importance to the IRC subculture.

Based on what I've seen of the IRC related articles on Wikipedia, there are really only a handful of specific subjects that are mentioned in dead tree format. Of those, most of them are about IRC clients, likely because that software is the first (and sometimes the only) thing people see and think of when they interact with IRC. Things like the subculture and software and technology that make IRC work aren't covered nearly as well.

Specifically, things like the network protocols that IRC uses are documented to a limited degree in RFCs, but modern IRC networks have greatly expanded on the original standards. The best documentation you can usually find for those extensions is actually the source code for the IRCd itself.

Similarly, the software used for the servers isn't easy to reference for a Wikipedia article. Even though that software may have been used by millions of users, those users never saw that software directly because the client they used was the most visible component. Because of that, the only discussion you usually find about the server software is between server admins (often on IRC itself) and occasionally on a website about that specific server software.

Of course this doesn't mean topics relating to IRC aren't important or shouldn't have an article, but rather how important it is for those articles to exist. Without them, you end up with huge holes in the subject of IRC itself (and don't even realize those holes exist) and you have no where to begin looking for additional information.

Tothwolf (talk) 15:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is with this article, every single one of those sources, except the one citing the book, fail WP:V, which is a central policies and the more cites added just go to show how unnotable and unverifable this really is. Even that one source is questionable atm.じんない 20:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but we've already established that the subject of the article (the Idle RPG software/game itself) is very much in popular use and passes WP:N. Some of the references may not pass WP:V but that does not mean the article itself qualifies for deletion.

The references I added after you added a {{prod}} template cover the game's features and are perfectly valid as far as WP:V goes. They cite two developers of Idle RPG software and when it comes to software functionality, such sources are more than acceptable. When writing about software in terms of its features or functionality, it's always much better to cite the actual developers vs a 3rd party. It's when writing about the impact or popularity of something that other sources need to come into play.

In this case the references show notability and popularity (search and game stats sites showing the number of Idle RPG users, channels, and the users' stats) and also show that the features of the Idle RPG software that are mentioned in this article really do exist (developer sites).

As for Tim Jower's book, which I assume is what you were referring to when you added "Even that one source is questionable atm.", it is perfectly acceptable in the specific citation in which it is used. The cited page shows a screenshot of an Idle RPG game in progress which clearly shows the bot preforming battles between players. This has nothing to do with Tim Jower's abilities as an author, so I'm not sure why such a question was even posed. I think if the people who posed such a question had taken a moment to actually look at the page cited (Google Book search) that argument would have never even come up.

This article most definitely needs work and I agree with you 100% in that it needs additional references, which would of course generally be added while expanding/updating it. This certainly justifies including a {{Refimprove}} template but it does not call for wholesale deletion of the article itself. As you seem to have an interest in IRC and RPGs in general, if you are interested in helping expand and update this article, the help would be greatly appreciated.

Tothwolf (talk) 04:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well you're right that the developer's site can be used for verifying aspects of the code, but should be still only be used sparingly. Any site that relies to heavily on such raises flags. The other sources, beyond the book, do not pass reliable sources by any stretch. They are not the developer's blogs, website, etc. not academic publications or news sites with known journalistic standards or self-published-sources by experts in the field. Verifiability isn't enough and unfortunately you haven't shown that those "reliable sources" are out there. 1 source is not enough to be notable. If you could find a page this could me merged with (you've refused both alternatives I mentioned), that would be fine, but otherwise trivial mentions doesn't make a subject notable and vanity press releases, while they are better than nothing, still is trivial notability when it's the only reliable source for notability you have.じんない 22:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Now we are finally getting somewhere :)

The citations that I personally added [30] were links to the developers' websites. The link I used for references #1 and #2 [31] is one of the original developers. The link I used for #4 [32] is the website of the second most popular developer. Source code links for these sites are [33] and [34]. Hopefully that will finally clear up the WP:V and WP:RS debate.

Now, as I already asked Graymornings, please don't put words into my mouth. I never refused any alternatives you brought up, but rather I gave my opinion in that the Idle RPG topic would not fit well into IRC and would likely also not fit very well into online text-based role-playing game.

Tothwolf (talk) 02:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does copying Wikipedia articles really make it less notable? If people think the article worthy of copying, that should increase notability. I think many of the Delete thoughts here are confusing verifiability and notability. --BarkerJr (talk) 12:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only sources we have are self-published or unreliable. The Tim Jowers book, being published by Lulu, would only be an acceptable source if Jowers were "a well-known expert" on the subject area (per WP:V). There's nothing in his CV that would appear to qualify him as an expert in IRC culture. JulesH (talk) 16:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His CV clearly shows he has a background in Computer Networking, which being a general term, could easily include things relating to IRC. Heck, IRC isn't rocket science anyway. Tothwolf (talk) 03:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't buy the "inherent notability" of this subject. If it's got thousands of users, let's see a reliable source. As it is, the best source we can come up with is a vanity-press book. This is all verifiability stuff - we haven't even touched on notability. No third-party mentions in significant sources = no verifiability, no notability. Graymornings_(talk) 16:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Small press or not, it's a huge undertaking to put a book together and I doubt anyone would even attempt the process without first having the background in the subject they are writing about. In any case, the book includes a screenshot of a game in progress which happens to be a perfect example of the bot preforming a battle between players. Tothwolf (talk) 03:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about Jowers having a background on the subject. It's about the book not being a reliable source according to our guidelines. It's not a small-press book; it's a vanity-press book. Anyone can write a book and publish it through a company like Lulu. A book like this just doesn't confer verifiability or notability. Graymornings_(talk) 02:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at the page that was cited because doesn't sound like you have? I'll make it even easier for you and include a direct link. The page cited contains a screenshot taking up roughly half the page and shows an Idle RPG game in progress. The screenshot shows the bot preforming a battle between game players. The specific context in which this citation was used in the Idle RPG article is perfectly valid. Claiming that the book doesn't show what it clearly shows is unreasonable so I have to assume you've just not yet looked at it. Tothwolf (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that that book doesn't verify that particular fact. I'm saying that if this is the most reputable source in the article, it's not, on the whole, a verifiable article. Same with notability. Please read WP:SELFPUB. Graymornings_(talk) 06:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but I'm not Tim Jowers, so WP:SELFPUB is not even the issue here. I also didn't write the original Idle RPG article and I only stepped in when it was clear someone intended to take it to AfD.

I never claimed that the book backed up the whole article, and the book was only used to reinforce the facts mentioned in one particular sentence (although it appears it could also be used to help reinforce facts presented in one other sentence as well). We've already established WP:N with the searches that clearly show the Idle RPG software/game is popular and very much in use by thousands of players (yes, it's an odd game and might seem strange to folks outside the IRC community, but it really does exist).

The point is, the screenshot published is what was referenced. Any reasonable person could see that the screenshot shows an Idle RPG game in progress.

And again, it's not Mr. Jowers writing that was cited. The screenshot he included is a perfect example of the bot preforming a battle between game players. The screenshot was taken in a public IRC channel (the public IRC server and channel names are clearly visible) and the user battles being played by the bot don't even include the author's nick. His nick at the time the screenshot was made was 'flute' and can be seen in the title bar of the screenshot.

Tothwolf (talk) 14:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something else I feel I need to point out is Lulu is not strictly a vanity press as it appears a few are claiming. Wikipedia's own article for Lulu states: "Lulu is self described as a technology company. The company offers diverse publishing services for outside publishing companies, businesses, and for self-publishers." This very well could mean Mr. Jowers is working with a small press who uses Lulu to print books. Tothwolf (talk) 14:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SELFPUB is the issue here. "Self-published" in this context doesn't mean "published by the author/subject of the article." It means that it wasn't published by a reputable third-party source. And let's face it: it's most likely that Jowers published his own book.

But let's put verifiability aside for a moment - it's not nearly as much of an issue as notability. In order to establish notability, it must have received significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. This isn't my rule; it's policy. This Internet searches don't cut it. Jowers's book doesn't cut it. We can't have a separate notability criteria for IRC games. If no one's covered it, it's not notable. Graymornings_(talk) 18:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, WP:SELFPUB does not seem relevant here at all and I see no reason to keep repeating myself as far as the context in which the screenshot on one page of his book was noted. Any reasonable person will clearly see the screenshot and the sentence where it's referenced and understand what is being shown. I'm also not going to assume a book is self-published simply because Lulu offers a very diverse printing service, but it still wouldn't matter if the book was self-published or not.

I also think you are confusing guidelines with policy. I suggest you read WP:PG.

The infobox at the beginning of WP:N states: "This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception."

As previously mentioned above, this software/game has been proven to be popular and in use by thousands.

So please, don't pull that whole "but it's policy" bit here.

If you are still going to claim the "Idle RPG" topic isn't notable, either you are misinterpreting the spirit of the WP:N guideline, or the guideline itself is fundamentally flawed and needs to be corrected.

Tothwolf (talk) 00:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you can't rewrite the guidelines in order to include this specific article. It's generally accepted that you need reliable, independent sources for notability. This article does not have them. This is why the majority of those participating in this discussion agree with deletion. Graymornings_(talk) 01:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's not really the point. The point is that it needs to be corrected to realize that internet topics are notable by different methods. Most notable internet topics are not described in dead trees nor major publications. This is true of quite a few sub cultures offline as well. --BarkerJr (talk) 01:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is beyond the scope of this AfD. That is for WP:N and you'll have to argue your case there, which even if you manage it, will take several months to get anything altered.じんない 23:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then you are violating WP:UCS, because you are ignoring the intentions of WP:N. See WP:POINT. -BarkerJr (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT has to do with editing, not discussion, especially if one genuinely believes the policy is flawed. Read the policies and don't just quote them arbitrarily. WP:UCS is not a policy or guideline and if someone believes that a policy or guideline is flawed, that's a personal descion and rational discussion of why, in the appropriate place, is common sense.じんない 00:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey now, don't put words into my mouth. I never said anything about rewriting guidelines to include this specific artlcle. You also need to remember AfD is a discussion, not a vote. So far most of the people who've 'voted' haven't discussed very much of anything. It mainly seems to have been WP:JUSTAPOLICY and circular logic. Tothwolf (talk) 01:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If this got a feature in a major video/computer game related source, I would be inclined to vote keep. Right now I'm not seeing that. ---Bobak (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And you aren't going to find that for very many, if any IRC related topics. Topics about IRC just don't tend to make the web or major publications. That doesn't make them any less notable, it just means you have to look elsewhere to find coverage of IRC related topics. Tothwolf (talk) 03:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia coverage should match the coverage of reliable, published sources. If a major publisher hasn't written about a subject, then we look to see if there's a significant amount of minor publishers writing about it. One screenshot and one sentence in one minor publication is nowhere near enough coverage. Marasmusine (talk) 12:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, however policy doesn't override logic. This whole AfD began with a bunch of WP:PS and from there it has turned into WP:LAWYER. IMO this whole debate has been pushed well beyond the point of WP:COMMON.

I can understand wanting to keep the level of cruft down but if this particular article was really that bad it would have been speedy deleted years ago and we wouldn't even be having this debate 4.5 years after the article was first written. [35]

IRC related topics are notorious for being extremely difficult to source via dead tree and web sources. I have a perfect example too, actually 9 of them, see: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/DALnet

In the case of that AfD, common sense prevailed. Prior to that particular AfD, there were quite a few IRC related articles that were of historical importance to the IRC community that were deleted without much in the way of discussion. I hope things aren't headed back in that direction...

Tothwolf (talk) 04:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Tothwolf (talk) 05:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —Tothwolf (talk) 05:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Tothwolf (talk) 05:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tothwolf (talk) 05:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tothwolf (talk) 05:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now Given the apparent popularity I'd go keep with even one solid source. But there is no RS that anyone can find at this time. I suspect there will be soon. We can't have articles without some kind of RS... Hobit (talk) 16:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but wonder if anyone has even noticed that this article has been around for ~4.5 years? [36] I mean it's not like this is a brand new article or a new game concept someone just came up with. This genre of IRC based game has been around for at least 10 years that I'm aware of. WP:UCS... Tothwolf (talk) 18:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If its been around for so long, and it still hasn't encouraged more than even a slight amount of published coverage, then that's even less reason for us to keep it. Marasmusine (talk) 12:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N Examples: [37] [38] [39]

WP:V WP:RS Developer sites: [40] [41] Source code: [42] [43]

Tothwolf (talk) 04:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of the four sources you give there for WP:V and WP:RS apply to either of those because they are all Primary. Reliable sources have to be third party, so the developer's site cannot count towards that. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 09:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are mistaken. This would be the case if these sites were not the actual developers of this software. Please see this version [44] of the Idle RPG article so you can see the context in which the developers' websites were properly used to establish WP:V. They clearly establish that the facts presented in the Idle RPG article are indeed true and aren't something someone just made up. I don't know of very many software articles on Wikipedia (particularly open source software programs such as this) that don't cite the developer's sites when referring to features or functionality of that software. This article most certainly needs major formatting changes and could probably use an infobox to make it more clear that this is an open source software program (an IRC based game). Tothwolf (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as well-known IRC game. Stifle (talk) 10:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of coverage in reliable 3rd party sources. If even one major publication covered this I'd support it given the apparent popularity, but as with the others I can't find one. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 14:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SOASTA

wikivertisement for non notable product. fails to assert notability (except to claim that having notable founders makes it notable, which it doesn't and if the founders are so notable why are they redlinks?) WikiScrubber (talk) 02:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FWIW, article was A7'd previously and recreated: (2nd attempt at Wikipedia article for this topic. Prior version was "CFD A7" primarily due to lack of info corroborating notability. Added links to articles and background.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiScrubber (talk • contribs) 03:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Junkipedia. Non-notable. Jo7hs2 (talk) 16:04, 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 Stephen Hunt (author)#Sfcrowsnest. MBisanz ^talk 02:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sfcrowsnest

Has failed to prove notability for inclusion SpikeJones (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. appears nn. --Bobak (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Honestly, I suspect that any web site that has been around since 1994 is notable. The web was a different place back then to what it is now. There are reliable sources, for instance this one that I was reading only a couple of weeks ago. Was a scifi.com site of the week: [45]. Professional publishers quote reviews from this site on their back covers. This is clearly a notable web site. JulesH (talk) 19:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, apparently it is featured in Mann The Mammoth Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, ISBN 1841191779, although I can't find a copy to look at so cannot confirm how much depth is included. JulesH (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It was drawn to my attention after I saw a handful of edits by the user who created this article on other articles on my watch list. It has been my observation that link-spam edits like those, when combined with the page creation as here, are often WP:COI related. As for "websites around since 1994", I know of quite a number of long-established, well-regarded in their field, websites that do not appear in WP for various reasons. Time online is not a sign of notability.SpikeJones (talk) 20:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to new section, Stephen Hunt (author)#Sfcrowsnest, and change the existing article into a redirect. This makes sense as per the site's masthead, the full name is Stephen Hunt's SF Crowsnest.com. If it gets established that the site is "notable" it's easy enough to move the content back to its own article without the potential stigma of needing to recreate a previously deleted page. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:43, 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. Sandstein 06:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plug computer

the term 'plug computer' "plug+computer" does not exist outside of wikipedia - article appears an attempt to 'create' the concept and/or promote certain products. WikiScrubber (talk) 02:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - at this point, I'm not sure if I would endorse deletion or not. Given that the article does have a list of sources, it appears that this product does exist. If the product in question has achieved some level of notability, then I would support giving the article a major rewrite and finding valid sources that do not advertise the product; I would also support a rename to "Pogoplug". If it is proven to not be notable in any way, shape, or form, then I would say "strong delete". Currently looking into the article and its sources, this might take a little while. Master&Expert (Talk) 02:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appears the product hasn't even been released yet. That leaves me to support deletion, for now. Master&Expert (Talk) 02:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I see a lot of coverage for a product called "Pogoplug", which I'm assuming is the product in question. First of all, the article is deceptively named... I'll wait to see what sources turn up to make my decision, but I'm leaning delete. Jo7hs2 (talk) 16:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Eh, there is a lot of coverage from CES 2009 and whatnot... Still not sure. Jo7hs2 (talk) 16:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as Status Quo (but see below re: merge): I cannot ignore two pages of Gnews hits and numerous GS results for some of the products (namely pogoplug), the products clearly meet notability source requirements. My support for keeping is weak becuase the products are not yet released, and we are serving as advertisement and may get stuck with a vaporware article. Jo7hs2 (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect (if there's anything worth merging) with Computer appliance. This article attempts to coin a new term (plug computer) for this category of devices. The term is not used anywhere else, and a widely used term (appliance) already exists. Pburka (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would Support: I'm torn between keeping this article as-is and waiting to see if the category develops (due to the fairly extensive media coverage of PogoPlug) and merging it with Computer appliance or something similar. Due to the extent of the media coverage of some of these devices, I'm leaning towards keeping the article, however I would also support a merge in the alternative. Jo7hs2 (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Status Quo: I vote to keep the article, it is a notable new category of devices , a computer in a plug form factor, there are three products in this category which were all announced this year. In once source i've seen this category called "Plugtop comptuer" rather than "Plug computer", maybe it should be renamed. Marokwitz (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Can you provide any references that talk about this new category of device? For wikipedia to invent this category would be WP:OR, and I stand by my earlier claim that these are just network appliances. The Pogogplug is essentially the same as a Buffalo. Pburka (talk) 14:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For example here: http://www.axentra.com/en/press/pressreleases/2009_02.html and here: http://cloudcomputing.sys-con.com/node/799184 and here: http://www.ctera.com/home/technology/ctera-embedded.html and here: http://www.axentra.com/en/pdf/2009-AXTA-PR-PlugTopComputing.pdf Marokwitz (talk) 12:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first and fourth links are press releases from Axentra. The third link doesn't work. The second link reads like a press release, as well, but it's not as clear. To me, this seems like one or two companies are trying to push a new name for appliance computers. I stand by my vote to merge and redirect unless someone can provide compelling evidence that (a) this term is wide spread in the industry, and (b) that there's some appreciable difference between a plug top computer and a network appliance. Pburka (talk) 14:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A plug computer is a network appliance that is fully enclosed inside an AC power plug. That's the difference. Marokwitz (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding these devices, then. The image at http://www.pogoplug.com/ looks like it has a power cord to attach it to the wall outlet. Am I wrong? Or do you mean that it has a built-in AC adapter. If so, that would describe most desktop computers and network appliances (including the Buffalo I linked to above). Pburka (talk) 00:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the photo doesn't show that, all products in this category are fully enclosed in the plugs, and no cable is needed. For example see the photo here: http://blogs.chron.com/techblog/archives/2009/01/ces_get_your_files_anywhere_even_in_your_car.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marokwitz (talk • contribs) 08:24, 12 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, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Rivkin

Author claims notability but has not provided reliable tertiary sources to back it up. GSearch returns mostly references to the subject's plastic surgery business, which leads me to believe this is a case of promotion. §FreeRangeFrog 02:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of sources. It is possible that he might be an innovator in non surgical nose-jobs, but artificial collagen injection has been around for awhile, and Dr. Vladimir Grigoryants does have some claim in Los Angeles to non-surgical nose-job innovator status. Also, "assistant clinical instructor" doesn't give one a warm feeling with regard to notability as an academic. --Bejnar (talk) 08:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Virtually all professors at major universities like UCLA have had solid careers, but not necessarily notable ones. This person needs solid, quality third-party independent sources to warrant notability. --Bobak (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not particularly notable. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 06:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not delete: quite notable, actually -- This guy was the first one to do this nose procedure. Check out the dates of the appearances on his You Tube videos. The only other ones I see is a guy named Rokhsar and a guy named Simoni, and their appearances are later. I do not see any evidence of Grigoryants doing this procedure at all, much less innovating it. I put the citations in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparkzilla99 (talk • contribs) 07:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC) — Sparkzilla99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud (operating system)

unreferenced article about not notable vaporware that fails to assert notability and serves no purpose other than promotion WikiScrubber (talk) 02:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article may be unreferenced, but there are plenty of reliable sources available (e.g. [46] [47] [48]). "Fails to assert notability" is not grounds for deletion. The article simply provides information about this operating system; I fail to see how this is promotional. JulesH (talk) 08:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep only the future will tell how notably this software is, once it is released and people start using it. Note that even Microsoft itself (with "Azure") is on the cloud computing bandwagon, claiming its competition "not notable" is very non NPOV. Mahjongg (talk) 14:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another reference, the washington post [49] Mahjongg (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the references found by JulesH, though I'm not sure the last one is reliable. That said, browser-based, means it's webcontent, which technically could've met A7 criteria for lack of establishing its notability. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're misunderstanding the article. It's not browser-based in the same sense that, say, EyeOS is, but rather it's a standard operating system that only provides a single application: a web browser. It's intended to install on portable computers to give a quick power-on facility. JulesH (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sounds important and reads a little spammy. --Mr Accountable (talk) 06:34, 12 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. Icewedge (talk) 04:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moe path

Contested PROD. A non-notable neologism attributed to an apparently non-notable person and referenced to an alleged book with no Google hits at all (for either its alleged name or its alleged author) apart from this article itself. A hoax, and not a very good one. DanielRigal (talk) 02:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as prodder. No evidence that this term was ever used by anyone other than the creator of this article. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is insufficient information in the citation to identify the source being cited. I can find no sources discussing any such subject, and we already cover the subject of trails that animals, aeroplanes, and boats leave behind at, unsurprisingly, animal tracks, contrail, and wake. There's no need for a duplicate article at this title, and no need for either redirect or disambiguation for a name that isn't actually used for any of those, or even for anything at all, from what I can determine. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 02:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Neologisms must go. §FreeRangeFrog 02:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. Existing articles mentioned by Uncle G already cover these in more detail without making up words. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everyone. Edward321 (talk) 16:41, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Veterans for Arizona

Non-noatable political action committee that has no independent, reliable sources. The article is sourced only to the groups own website and nothing else shows up on Google News. The article should be deleted unless indepent, reliable sources can be found to properly source and improve it. Right now it is little better than an add and no neutral source is available to fix it. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I know of this group, but it's not notable enough outside of Arizona (Phoenix, actually). Fails WP:CORP anyway. §FreeRangeFrog 02:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree on WP:CORP unless there are some news articles from a notable source about it. Spinach Monster (talk) 04:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing on Lexis/Nexis news search. --Bejnar (talk) 08:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:22, 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 delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 19:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2011 IIHF World Championship

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL, nothing more to say about this than that it will take place. Stifle (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment we know more than just that it will take place, we know there was a bidding process and that it was won by a particular city. And that there are other further in the future articles for the same championship, where the bidding process is still underway. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 07:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL and delete 2012-2014 versions of this page.--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 19:54, 7 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 01:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. All that can really be said now is that it will take place. No need for an article for 2011 given that the 2009 and 2010 tournaments are yet to be played. Reso lute 06:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: As said above, it is too early for these articles. There isn't enough information available at the time to create a decent stub. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They shouldn't be covered until the previous edition (in this case the 2010 tournament) has been played. Any earlier and it's crystalballery. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:16, 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/Withdrawn. Stifle (talk) 12:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Land windsurfing

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced for over two and a half years; does not appear to be a notable sport. Stifle (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and seek references ... [50] appears to give a bunch of published references to the sport in "Boards" magazine. Collect (talk) 15:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, there's been a long time to seek references... Stifle (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, but he actually found what may be potential sources. That should be enough to have it userfied to an editor or WikiProject in order to have those sources added. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to boardsport, without prejudice of having own article (Someone please add this item there) SYSS Mouse (talk) 18:57, 3 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 01:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to boardsport.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable sport. I've seen TV programs about this (I can't cite them right now, because it was years ago and I can't remember exactly what they were, but I'm sure they contribute to notability). JulesH (talk) 09:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have seen this sport myself, more than 20 years ago at an abandoned airport in Tustin, California. I realize that my eyes do not qualify as a reliable source! Nevertheless it is a real sport, albeit perhaps only a niche sport. •••Life of Riley (talk) 01:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a real sport covered in reliable sources. (Article needs some trimming the ~~spam~~, I mean fat). - Mgm|^(talk) 10:13, 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 redirect to Diane Ravitch. Mgm|^(talk) 14:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Language Police

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced for nearly two and a half years; questionable notability. Stifle (talk) 15:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - Seems there are sources to be had to establish notability [51] LinguistAtLarge • Msg 04:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per Bejnar. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 05:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the unquestionable notability shown by [52][53][54][55] and loads more sources available from a few seconds with Google. Phil Bridger (talk) 01:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 01:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Diane Ravitch, where the book is already fully covered. The concept behind the book, that there is a serious problem with textbook publishers in the United States bowing to various pressure groups, is notable and that is likely why there were book review articles published in the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Christian Science Monitor (among others). However, while that does meet the notability of books threshold that does not mean that the book should have its own article. The guidelines go on to say, if the book is notable but the author has an article in Wikipedia, it may be better to feature material about the book in the author's article, rather than creating a separate article for that book. A simple redirect will suffice, since not much more can be said about the book than what is already in the Diane Ravitch article, except for the WP:OR of abstracting examples from the book that are particularly egregious. --Bejnar (talk) 01:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Bejnar. Not enough content for a stand-alone article when a parent is available. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not redirect author - if anything, it should redirect to the dab page, if redirected. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 05:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is your reasoning? --Bejnar (talk) 07:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Bejnar. The book may be notable, but the content describing it that already exists in the author's article is superior to the content in this article. If it is expanded in the author's article to the point where it becomes problematically large, it can then be rolled out into a separate article. It has not yet met that threshold. JulesH (talk) 12:56, 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 keep. Stifle (talk) 12:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zip 'n zoo

Non-notable short film. Does not meet WP:NFF standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This has nothing to do with future films, it has already screened. Since this film doesn't meet any of the regular criteria for film notability, I would apply WP:NF: "The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career. An article on the film should be created only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there." This film isn't a big part of their career, so mention on the bio pages for the relevant people should be enough. (Google news gives three hits, two of which are relevant) -- Mgm|^(talk) 11:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reviews: [56][57] (plus a brief mention in [58]) JulesH (talk) 09:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fixed inbound links from 2 cast members' pages - John Hannah and Simone Lahbib —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garve (talk • contribs) 15:07, 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, — Aitias // discussion 01:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Somehow I managed to overlook the importance for the people with the incoming links. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to ask the closing admin to move the page to the title with the second Z capitalized like the film poster (not before, because that would break AFD closure scripts) - Mgm|^(talk) 14:32, 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. Stifle (talk) 12:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Josip Mihaljević

There are no reliable sources, and according to his date of birth, that record stems from a youth competition. The only fact I could confirm is that he currently plays in the German 4th division. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 14:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 15:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. —Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 15:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. —Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 15:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 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 00:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not sure whether I consider this notable or not - but my mind would definitely be changed if this article was expanded with reliable third party sources. GoCuse44 (talk) 04:45, 29 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 02:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources to show he has garnered much attention, and AFAIK 4th division is not a proffesional league, therefore fails WP:ATHLETE.Yobmod (talk) 11:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Get me some quality third party sources about him, and you've got my keep. Otherwise, delete for now. Nothing prevents it from being recreated with legit sources. --Bobak (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hard to believe he scored 105 points in a game because if he did there'd be sources, delete.--Giants27 TC 00:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually delete as hoax, the first source says it's a hoax plus it happened in 1999 so he'd be 14 and he scored 105 points in a game, hoax article.--Giants27 T C 00:41, 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. Mgm|^(talk) 14:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Torrent episode downloader

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 15:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Having been featured on lifehacker ([59]) and being very popular amongst torrent users (More people use this than ABC_(Yet_Another_BitTorrent_Client) , this articles notability should be apparent despite the lack of talk about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.175.132.243 (talk) 03:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't show notability per WP:N. Schuym1 (talk) 05:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 07:50, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Here is another article on lifehacker about it. [60]ValerieAustin (talk) 02:27, 29 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 02:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Popularity != notability, and this article does not even give sources for claimed popularity. Sources given are trivial: This is just another torrent client, and is Non-notable.Yobmod (talk) 11:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete no evidence of notability regardless of how widely used it may be. JJL (talk) 01:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No claims of notability. No independent third party coverage or references. Something else exists is not a reason to keep. Canterbury Tail talk 03:49, 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 23:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Foster (music critic)

Non-notable music critic. The article does not meet WP:BIO and WP:V standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least for now. If he died in 2001, and the article doesn't mention when he was active, it may be that the contributions for which he was notable are beyond the reach of google. Most music critics strike me as a waste of space, but that's not a good enough reason to banish the entry. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 29 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 02:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. He is not listed in the Encyclopedia of Popular Music. Of the eight articles that mention "Mark Foster" in Music Index none are about the music critic, most are about the classical conductor Mark Foster. This Mark Foster was not found in Marquis Who's Who on the Web. --Bejnar (talk) 04:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete writing for a few notable publications doesn't make you notable - or every advertiser in the newspaper is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:25, 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. The article failed to provide sufficent sourcing to meet the notability guideline. If sources do exist to establish notability, then an editor is welcome to contact me with those sources to have this userfied (Although I just did a search myself and the results aren't exactly optimistic). Furthermore, as FreeRangeFrog pointed out, the article is highly promotional and largely reads like a manual or sales brochure. With only one person wishing to keep the article after two relistings, it seems that the consensus here is to delete. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simprocess

Computer simulation package. Written up at great length by someone who is clearly closely involved with it. Is it notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 03:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 29 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 02:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable software. Spam at best. §FreeRangeFrog 20:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speedy Keep Nomination utterly fails WP:BEFORE. Speculative questions should be asked on the article's talk page before being brought here. And, yes, the topic is notable as a cursory search immediately shows. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no one is disputing whether the problems solved by this software are notable, what is being disputed is that this software package is the recipient of significant coverage by independent reliable 3rd party sources. This has been here for 2 weeks and no one has shown it meets WP:N. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. The nominator asked whether it is notable - perhaps he was too busy to conduct a search himself. FreeRange Frog asserted that it was non-notable but provided no evidence. I conducted a search and found that there are hundreds of good sources. Since you have not commented on these, then presumably you are too busy to investigate the topic too. What we have here is a clear case of it being someone else's problem to do the work of adding more references. It is a disgrace that a substantial article should be put at risk in this way. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article does not cite substantial, reliable third party coverage of this software. Sandstein 07:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article and its talk page contain links and citations of numerous works which provide evidence of substantial, reliable third party coverage. This delete opinion is at variance with these facts. It is a continuing disgrace that a good faith article should be put at risk by such shoddy process which is so clearly contrary to our policies such as WP:PRESERVE and WP:BEFORE which emphatically state: "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD."

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

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

The result was merge to Game addiction. MBisanz ^talk 02:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Seung Seop

This person fails WP:1E as he is only notable for one event - his death. Tavix (talk) 03:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Game addiction. The article mentions him but isn't clear on the exact cause of death. Merging this would improve the coverage we already have. His death is noteworthy in context, but not enough for a separate biographical entry. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 17:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This person death should be documented and preserved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.21.119.71 (talk) 05:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Mgm, good solid reasoning. --Bejnar (talk) 07:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Defiantly notable, and not really the same as general game addiction.--77.99.150.12 (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I definitely think the guy is notable, his death was 15 minutes of fame around the video game community. With that said, he would probably stand as a good footnote in another article, so I'm leaning towards a merge. --Bobak (talk) 19:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge because Wikipedia is not WP:NEWS--Caspian blue 22:59, 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.

Holly Landers

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page..

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Katz

I don't see enough exposure for this author or her works to pass WP:CREATIVE. JaGa^talk 05:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable. Article reads like promotional material. All the external links and references are either promotionial websites for her books (by herself or by her publisher), or e-zines she publishes in. Similarly for her Google hits. Puffino (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
She does seem good at promotion. However, two of her books are published in the UK by David and Charles, which is a well known publisher and not a purveyor of junk http://www.davidandcharles.co.uk/results.asp?AUB=Christina%20Katz&TAG=&CID= On the whole, I'd go for a Keep conditional on a bit more outside referencing. Peridon (talk) 14:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Author of non-trivial books and article is relatively well-written and sourced. Article doesn't fail any of the inclusion criteria, IMO. §FreeRangeFrog 20:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails multiple reliable source test. Single source Writer's Digest. Also not listed in Biography & Genealogy Master Index, Contemporary Authors, Dictionary of Literary Biography, or Marquis Who's Who on the Web. Lexis/Nexis found no reviews of her books in major U.S. newspapers. She does an occasional piece for the Oregonian. Her books are non-trivial, true, they are seriously intended; however, that doesn't provide notability. This definitely seems like a well-written promotional piece. --Bejnar (talk) 08:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 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, — Aitias // discussion 00:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing to show that she has received significant coverage in reliable independent sources (see WP:BIO). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:31, 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Trouble with Trains 3

Contested prod. No evidence of coverage by reliable third party sources. See also the comments from the film's creator, User:TurboJ, here (some copyright violations are alleged, but they don't constitute the whole article and therefore G12 doesn't apply). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the discussion on the talk page, assuming it even passes notability, which is doubtful. §FreeRangeFrog 19:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article reads specifically as WP:ADVERT... it makes assertions that as stated make no sense... and the discussion on the talk page seems a strong indication of a copyvio. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:13, 11 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 23:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pressmart Media

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Probable COI article and all notability claims have been removed during cleanup for copyvio. Current stub is speedyable but the rigour of an AfD is preferable given the page history. Dweller (talk) 14:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 20:13, 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, — Aitias // discussion 00:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the achievements section may have been a copyvio, it made at least one clear claim to notability that can be included if rewritten. I don't think deletion is the correct way to solve this (though the copyvio edits need to be purged from the history). - Mgm|^(talk) 14:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Delete = I can't turn up anything reliable about this company. Everything online is a press release or a reprint of a press release off of a PR feed into a newspaper's blog. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 12:58, 12 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 19:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extentia Information Technology

Mostly procedural nomination - a similar article was deleted previously by PROD (borderline spam) then recreated. The recreated article was tagged for speedy under WP:G11, blatant advertising, and I was about to click the button when I noticed the deletion log. Bringing this to the community; my opinion is delete. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia Team, please cut out all information that you think are spam or advertising. The truth is, Extentia is well known for its social activities and the sakaar programm here in Pune. While writing this article I geared to this article InfoBeans . Please advice steps to make this article stable. Thanks, Pradeep80 (talk) 05:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What we need are independent and reliable sources that document this particular subject in depth. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 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, Mayalld (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 20:11, 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, — Aitias // discussion 00:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sorry, but there do not appear to be any reliable sources to prove thus is a notable company. Do you have any articles in trade and popular newspapers, other that those small notes in the "External links" section? Bearian (talk) 16:53, 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 delete/userfy. Need to come to a decision on this - the consensus of the discussion is that this fails the notability guideline for future films. There is a suggestion of a specific user to userfy this to, but I'll await a specific request for userfication and then restore it there with the accompanying history. Please notify the author. Fritzpoll (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asal

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Apparently fails WP:NFF; recent sources indicate that filming will not commence until March 2009 [61]. PC78 (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not filming yet, then it is too much forecasting for the Wikipedia. --Bejnar (talk) 07:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or userfy A director walking out on a project tends to be a not so common event and it gets quite some media coverage. If the creator or someone else who's interested can touch this up so it is better referenced, I believe it would not violate NFF and could be kept. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NFF requires a film to have started filming; that isn't the case here. PC78 (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." Why restrict covering notable productions to those that are already filming? The whole point is that the production itself is notable enough to cover. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the point is that the film may not happen. PC78 (talk) 11:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP What? Why? The film will start shooting soon and has been officially announced by the producers of the film. There is no forcasting being done here. There are sources provided. You can check them too. Please wait some time so we can add more information along with sources provide. Also the film has been announced that it will happen, no one has yet said it won't happen. When they do, then you can go ahead and tag the article for deletion. But for now the film is said to be official. Do not delete this page! --Eelam StyleZ (talk) 12:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course you are forecasting; the film has not yet begun shooting, and unless you can see into the future you don't know for certain that it will - all the sources you can come up with won't change that. Anything can happen in the next month; the film could be put on hold, for instance. PC78 (talk) 13:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The notability guideline for future films recommends that a stand-alone article for a film should not be created until a project enters production. This is for very practical reasons. Budget issues, scripting issues, and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. Indeed, Gautham Menon's departure from the project is just one example of how a film might be disrupted by events beyond the filmmakers' control. We see many projects fall by the wayside at the last minute, so application of the guideline is the only way in which we can ensure that this place doesn't get clogged with stubby articles about films which were never made and thus would ultimately fail the general notability guideline. It should also never be assumed that because a film is likely to be reasonably high-profile, with major stars attached, that it will be immune to the usual pitfalls which can affect these productions, especially in the current climate. Projects can be put on hold at the last minute while a director tackles another film (e.g. Spielberg's Lincoln), we had the potential actors' strike, and look at how many productions were postponed, even shelved indefinitely, because of the 2007-2008 Writers Guild of America strike. An example of just such a project might be the Justice League film, which was put on hold at the last minute, or Jurassic Park IV, which is still in development hell and which many would consider a no-brainer for a speedy greenlight (it was actually supposed to be released in 2005). In accordance with the guideline, the article can be recreated without prejudice if and when principal photography is finally confirmed to have begun. Until then, the relevant information can sit comfortably at a designated parent article, where it can be viewed in the correct context, or userfied. Steve ^{T • C} 13:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Gautham Menon's departure from the project happened before the film was officially announced. It was re-announced publicly after that incident by the producer Prabhu Ganesan that director Saran would direct the film starring actor Ajith Kumar would be in the lead role. The film may not have started filming but it is currently in its pre-production stage. This article is also not a stub. Like an event article, this article will be further expanded as more news is made. How about considering deletion about a month or so from today? It's way too early to consider this page be deleted.--Eelam StyleZ (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the final consensus is that the article should really be deleted, then let it be userfied instead.--Eelam StyleZ (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the notability guidelines for future films; the brief postponement of this project shows that films are never a guarantee. I have no problem with userfication or recreation on a later date if it is verified that filming has begun. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to author User:Universal Hero so he may have the whole thing right at hand when principal filming begins. No sense tossing out his work when it might be welcomed back in just a few weeks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:04, 11 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. MBisanz ^talk 23:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Kane

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Not notable as has not had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions as per Wikipedia:Notability (people) 89.242.25.0 (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC) Text copied from article talk page ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 18:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The soap opera appearences are notable enough, these are major programs in the UK, regularly topping the ratings, and he had multiple appearances as named characters, which is singnificant. And there is a picture of him in panto, which is likely notable. Needs sourcing, not deleting.Yobmod (talk) 10:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails multiple sources test. Soaps may be notable, but not every "named" actor in them. --Bejnar (talk) 07:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to imdb he appeared in only 4 episodes of Emmerdale and 3 of Coronation Street. Not a significant actor

--Gsleith (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Keep - One episode of Coro would be enough. It's history! Kipof (talk) 14:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Anonymous nom's opinion of significance does not reflect real world notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:02, 12 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 00:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haris Khan

Non-notable student technologist. No reliable sources. The only real claim of notability is the Microsoft MVP, which is enough I think to save it from the A7 speedy deletion that a previous version of this article suffered. But there are thousands of people given that award so I don't think it confers real notability. Google news turns up several stories but they all seem to be about other people with the same name. I also searched Google news for the name of the company he founded, Betamakers, and found nothing. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thousands of people have been given Olympic medals or Oscars as well and those ARE notable, so the number of people receiving the award is not relevant in determining its relevance or lack thereof. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thousands of people are Wikipedia admins, too, and yet we don't consider that as a sign of notability. As far as I can see here, the MVP award similarly gives recognition to prominent volunteers on the Microsoft technical forums. It's not really a sign of outside achievement. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - - That's my point. 1000s of people win Olympic medals, 1000s of people are WP admins. You can't determine which of the two is significant based only on the bare number. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Acheivement is not notability. Notability isn't fame, achievement, notoriety, importance, significance, size, or popularity. Uncle G (talk) 02:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Plus, it's not verifiable: searching the MVP award site for Haris Khan doesn't find anything. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's because Microsoft only lists current MVPs, not past ones. I received an MVP award some years ago. I'm not listed now. Indeed, it is impossible to verify that I ever received it without either (a) trusting autobiographical statements that I make or (b) seeing in person the certificates that Microsoft issued to me, neither of which are in accord with Wikipedia content policies and what we expect readers to do. The receipt of the award is, simply, not recorded as a part of the documented corpus of human knowledge. Not even the company making the award publishes records of it. Wikipedia cannot take my sole word for it that I received an MVP award, and (since xe is obviously the article's author) we cannot take Haris Khan's sole word for what xe says about xyrself, either. Wikipedia could only take the word of someone with a good reputation for fact checking and accuracy (who did the legwork of checking out our certificates) who is independent of us, and who documented us in depth in published works. That would be notability, not the receipt of an award. Uncle G (talk) 02:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is autobiography, plain and simple. The only source of information about M. Khan that exists is M. Khan xyrself, either writing here as User:Betamakers or writing on xyr own WWW site. No independent sources exist anywhere, as far as I can determine. And for the reasons exemplified by Zaphod Beeblebrox on Wikipedia:Autobiography, we do not trust autobiographies. The PNC is not satisfied. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 02:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO anyway, and belonging to a Microsoft program is not itself a claim to notability. §FreeRangeFrog 02:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' It fails the sources test, much less verifiable sources. --Bejnar (talk) 07:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete MVPs aren't well known. Not even to MCSEs. Ddawkins73 (talk) 11:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Betamakers (the page's creator) removed the AfD notice from the article. I've restored it and warned him. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:23, 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 WP:SNOW Delete as probable hoax. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:41, February 10, 2009 UTC

Blitman

Article is about a siamese cat and a documentary made on it. However, I couldn't find any reliable sources for it, apart from some MySpace links, which are not really reliable. Also, there is a section stating that the documentary is "the highest grossing documentary of all time", but a Google search returned less than a page of unreliable results on this apparently expensive documentary. I even suspect this is a hoax. Victor Lopes (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That claim of "highest grossing documentary of all time" can easily be proven to be complete bollocks. This site lists the highest grossing documentaries 2001-2009 in the US. When you take into account the amount of Thai who watch and can pay for a film, combined with the fact not everyone is interested in documentaries about cats it's impossible for the film described to earn more than the top one in the list I cited. Google also fails to turn up any of the massive media attention mentioned in the article. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete hoax/vanity/made-up. JJL (talk) 01:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hoax. Matt (Talk) 03:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I assume this is a joke -- either that, or the article creator has very great confidence in the level of intelligence that cats can achieve. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as quite possibly a hoax. A search for the film shows no notability. A search for the cat shows even less. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy G1 - This looks like a blatant hoax to me. Grandmartin11 (talk) 22:33, 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 per WP:SNOW. Lack of effort in improving an article is irrelevant to its potential state. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 07:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stupidedia

Does not appear notable-if anything it is unsourced. Egebwc (talk) 22:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, WP:WEB for speedy, if there ever was one. §FreeRangeFrog 02:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I assumed WP:WEB because both references linked to the same website, but after going through the page I see that it does establish notability, at least in Germany. §FreeRangeFrog 21:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable website. Matt (Talk) 03:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per the references found by all the participants in the previous discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stupidedia. Those sources are enough to establish notability per WP:WEB. The nom has not disproved any of the references in the previous discussion, so this is an easy keep. Remember, there is no deadline to articles being improved. Cunard (talk) 03:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable per Cunard. Matt (Talk) 04:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per first afd. There are enough web hits to make it notable. Spinach Monster (talk) 04:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems that notability can be established per WP:WEB. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 05:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It can clearly be referenced. Not being referenced is not the same as unverifiable. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why have none of those sources been added to the article since the first AFD back in July? They have to actually be in the article. Based on the article itself, I would have to say Delete. TJ Spyke 21:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:SOFIXIT. There is no deadline to improving articles on Wikipedia. The sources should be in the article, but many of the editors here do not speak fluent German (including me), so we are uncomfortable with using a translation tool to expand and source the article. I've listed this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Germany, so maybe someone who knows German can expand it. Cunard (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - I'd like to add to that, that it's more productive to find someone who is qualified to add the sources mentioned in an earlier AFD rather than trying to get it deleted, when people are going to cite said sources again. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep - Per the comments above... laziness != non-notability. --Explodicle (T/C) 20:04, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Crass

AfDs for this article:

Delete, Clearly non-notable. I know him, and agree he is a minor figure in San Francisco activist subculture, but that's not (nearly) enough. Resumes don't belong on Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.107.135.247 (talk) 19:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are lots of articles on google about him and his works. rkmlai (talk) 18:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been listed as an Anarchism task force deletion discussion. Skomorokh 14:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the external links can be turned into in-line cites, as tagged. Bearian (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems to fail WP:BIO. The sources are not in the nature of reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficent coverage to justify inclusion. Icewedge (talk) 04:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems to fail WP:BIO. Entry reads more like a resume than anything else. This is Wikipedia, not LinkedIn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.148.13.81 (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag for further sourcing as any concerns inre article style can be addressed by WP:CLEANUP. Deletion diminishes wiki. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable: if this person is kept, it would seem to indicate that anyone who has ever helped organize a counter-cultural event and written a few articles in an underground magazine should have a Wikipedia page, and I don't think that is desirable. This person does not stand out in any way that I can see.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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] ttp://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=LA&p_theme=la&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0FE826A130BADA95&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM

[2] ttp://latimesblogs.latimes.com/allthingstrojan/2008/08/ch-ch-changes.html

[3] ttp://www.theaggie.org/article/1026

[4] ttp://nfldraft.rivals.com/barrier_noentry.asp?ReturnTo=&sid=1164&script=content.asp&cid=203323&fid=&tid=&mid=&rid=

[5] ttp://nfldraft.rivals.com/barrier_noentry.asp?ReturnTo=&sid=1164&script=content.asp&cid=231849&fid=&tid=&mid=&rid=

[6] ttp://nfldraft.rivals.com/barrier_noentry.asp?ReturnTo=&sid=1164&script=content.asp&cid=238797&fid=&tid=&mid=&rid=

[7] ttp://nfldraft.rivals.com/barrier_noentry.asp?ReturnTo=&sid=1164&script=content.asp&cid=242340&fid=&tid=&mid=&rid=

[8] ttp://nfldraft.rivals.com/barrier_noentry.asp?ReturnTo=&sid=1164&script=content.asp&cid=250648&fid=&tid=&mid=&rid=

[9] ttp://nfldraft.rivals.com/barrier_noentry.asp?ReturnTo=&sid=1164&script=content.asp&cid=253087&fid=&tid=&mid=&rid=

[10] ttp://nfldraft.rivals.com/barrier_noentry.asp?ReturnTo=&sid=1164&script=content.asp&cid=253087&fid=&tid=&mid=&rid=

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]