Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 January 11

< January 10	January 12 >

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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 04:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Cook University School of Medicine and Dentistry

fails WP:ORG. nothing particularly noteworthy to justify a separate article for this School. almost no third party coverage as in Google news search. Michellecrisp (talk) 23:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 00:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep a medical school of a major public U. that is the only medical school on the North half of Australia is surely notable, despite the lack of sources attesting to this fact. Would change to Keep if such sources (external to the school) were provided. JJL (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "only medical school on the North half of Australia " surely this can be mentioned as one sentence in James Cook University? Michellecrisp (talk) 01:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I think the question is, has the medical school, apart from the larger school in general, distinguished itself in any noteworthy way? Does this count as distinguishing coverage, for example? I'm saying "weak delete" for now for sort of the same but converse reason as JJL above. Jlg4104 (talk) 01:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 01:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep all medical schools (and law schools) of universities are notable, whether called schools, faculties, colleges, or whatever. . There is always enough sourced material to say. It has sometimes been disputed for business schools and the like ( but, while disputed, the consensus hold that they too are notable) , but this is the first time I have even heard it even questioned for a medical school. It is so absurd a nomination that I'll defer argument unless it becomes necessary. DGG (talk) 01:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the policy which states " all medical schools (and law schools) of universities are notable"? Michellecrisp (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same question as Michellecrisp. By what logic do we say that since some educational institutions merit inclusion, therefore all do? I thought the WP approach was to test all cases against some established (but not in stone) criterion. Hence the constant references, e.g., to "notability." These criteria trump subjectivity, and they trump such logic as it appears you're using, DGG, unless I am mistaken on some point. Jlg4104 (talk) 11:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the university. No evidence it's independently notable, but it's certainly a valid search term. StarM 02:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is enough there for a stand alone article. Merging with the Uni article will only clutter that one further. Passes WP:N as far as I can tell, so keep and expand is best option.--Sting Buzz Me... 02:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has sources that meet WP:ORG. TerriersFan (talk) 02:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment DGG's claim of inherent notability for all medical schools (and law schools) should be confined to accredited schools, methinks. There are remarkably few real medical schools in the US; 158, and about ten times that many in the whole rest of the world. Having an article on each one will not constitute a burden to Wikipedia. 66.57.190.166 (talk) 06:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to James Cook University. It is a constituent part of the University with little if any autonomy from its parent body. It is not a graduate school, like say, Harvard Medical School (although graduates can attend), but a faculty the same as the Arts faculty, the Business faculty, the Science faculty etc. etc, none of which are independently notable. I am interested to know why AfDs for medical faculties are more or less "absurd" than other faculties. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the details of the degree of autonomy are not relevant. Harvard, FWIW, is almost unique in the essentially total autonomy of the various Schools. In general, when "faculty" is used here, as in the sense of a distinct primary part of a university, I think the article can usually hold if the university is significant enough--the medical and law ones so far always have, because their greater significance within a university is well recognized.DGG (talk) 05:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment medical and law ones so far always have because their greater significance within a university is well recognized that may be true in some countries but not always the case in Australia. this School is actually one of the smallest and youngest Medical schools in Australia. Secondly, it still must meet WP:ORG, simply being a medical or law school is automatically notable is not a stated WP guideline or policy. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This article resembles more of listcruft than anything, and no notability has been established. seicer | talk | contribs 03:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malawi web awards

This page was previously nominated for deletion based on "Substantial rewrite needed, appears to be used for promotion of an insignificant organization. Unreliable resources used, hence no WP:N can clearly be established. Spam links related to this organization have been reverted on other Malawi articles." This was applied on 2008-12-21 and the five-day grace period expired. The issues with WP:N and WP:Sources do not appear to have been resolved. The deletion proposal appears to have been merely removed. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G11 Seems pretty blatant to me. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{db-spam}} (CSD 11) was also previously applied[1] to the same article, and was denied in favor of wp:prod. So this is this article's third run-through for deletion. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notability is easy enough to establish - [2]maybe [3]. Badly needs a strong editing hand, but that's an editorial issue. Claims of spammy-ness are patently rediculous - it's pretty clearly a "poor command of English" issue. Wily D 21:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - the notability mentioned by WilyD above is an "interactive news maker" self reporting [4] their own winning of the web award - it is not even close to a reliable independent source. The "awards" are hosted at blogspot.com. This doesn't come anywhere near satisfying notability or RS requirements. It's basically spam. Phil153 (talk) 01:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A straightforward reflection of systematic bias. Webhosting as an American is somewhat different from webhosting as a Malawian. WilyD 11:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a reflection of the scope, anonymity and difficulty of creating the organization. Anyone can sign up for a blogspot account. How do we know that someone from the nyasatimes didn't give themselves the award? They're 2 of the 3 sources you've quoted that mention the awards, and one of their articles is merely gushing about their own winning of one of the first awards. Finding reliable sources supporting the organization would go a lot further to changing my vote than claiming "systemic bias". After all, they're supposed to be a notable web based organization; surely more sources can be easily found online? Phil153 (talk) 12:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While this event may be notable within Malawi, I agree with Phil153 that there are no quality sources to support notability. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. GlassCobra 23:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Reyburn

Patent nonsense -- town doesn't exist, no references can be found anywhere, article reads like something made up school, which it probably was. ArglebargleIV (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete & redirect. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conquer the World

Given the incredibly common usage of the phrase "Conquer the World", finding references to this apparently non-notable game is difficult. However, my good faith effort to do so did not give any suggestion that there was any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Bongo matic 22:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete See nothing Notable about a compilation of other also not very notable games. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to World domination Merge to List of MicroProse games (per Marasmusine below and Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Merging). No need to delete, if we assume this expression ("Conquer the World") to be equivalent to "World domination". This is what Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion says: "If two pages are duplicates or otherwise redundant, one should be merged and redirected to the other, using the most common, or more general page name. This does not require process or formal debate beforehand." --Waldir ^talk 00:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't really follow the logic. While the phrases may be close to synonymous, the sense of the title of the nominated article is not the plain meaning, but a specific product. Bongo matic 01:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is, we don't need to really delete the article; by blanking the page and redirecting it, we'd still be asserting the current content's lack of notability, but we'll also be allowing it to remain in the history, so that in the future it may be easier for another editor to recreate it in case it happens to become notable (or use the content as a section of another article, whatever). This has happened to me several times before, when people had written very unworthy stubs that got deleted, and when I wanted to recreate the article I wanted to make sure I wasn't leaving out any of the original info (which my research could have missed), and thus had to ask for an administrator to check the deleted version. That was an unnecessary step of bureaucracy that we can avoid here, and is recommended by the deletion policy: "There are often alternatives to deletion" is such an important concept that it makes it to the nutshell version of the policy. --Waldir ^talk 10:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This Google search turns up better results. That said, it's the kind of thing you'd more likely find in a printed magazine than on the Web. SharkD (talk) 09:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of MicroProse games - it seems unlikely that a compilation pack will have received coverage, but it's worth including in a list. I see it's already there, so have expanded the text accordingly. Marasmusine (talk) 14:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This resembles more of an advertisment for an institution than anything, and is more of an essay than an encyclopedia article. seicer | talk | contribs 03:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anchor San Diego

Essay - Not An Article Christopher Kraus (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not only an essay it reads like an advertisement. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No notability established. seicer | talk | contribs 03:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red Wayne

Tagged as Not Notable Christopher Kraus (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Being noted as the 6th best steel guitar player in 1962 does not meet WP:Notability. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: it might help meet it if we knew who had said it, but we don't. Google only brings up Wikipedia and the guy's funeral announcement in the local papers, and those have no biographical details of note. Nothing in Google Books. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Full of original research. Wikipedia does not fortell the future. seicer | talk | contribs 03:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Economic Forecast 08-09

Essay - Not an article at all. Christopher Kraus (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if the focus of this article is the United States economy, it should so state, and should be merged with United States of America. Racepacket (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can only assume that you didn't look at the article before commenting. WillOakland (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I skimmed past the one "US". The article lacks a proper lead paragraph and the title is not sufficiently descriptive. I think that Wikipedia can cover the United States, can cover economic forecasting, and can cover various federal agencies that forecast. This is not a useful way to do any of that. Racepacket (talk) 13:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original synthesis and crystal ball. WillOakland (talk) 22:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article is an essay full of original research/synthesis and looks rather crystally to me. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Future film has not started principle photography, and thus fails NFF/CRYSTAL. seicer | talk | contribs 03:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mamma Mia 2! The Movie

Delete at best, this is a future film that hasn't started principle photography, and fails WP:NFF. More likely, it is wishful crystal ball gazing, or even a WP:HOAX Mayalld (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article only speculates of a soundtrack, so would the Mamma Mia 2! The Movie Soundtrack Featuring the Songs of ABBA article worth being AfDd? Cycle~ (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete film and soundtrack, either hoaxes or WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So wonderfully hoaxalicious and crystalline at the same time! TonyBallioni (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Unsourced crystal balling. Reportedly Streep is on record saying she'd like to make a sequel, but that can be covered in the first film's article. Obviously no predjudice against recreation should such a production actually occur. 23skidoo (talk) 01:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced crystal-ballery. Stifle (talk) 13:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 01:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to no sources. Lord Bodak (talk) 14:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mayalld. Rosiestep (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete Both: Fails WP:CRYSTAL or it is a hoax. Schuym1 (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — neuro^(talk) 18:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael D. Lockshin

Looks Like Advertising; Copied from creating user's page (possible advertiser); See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:WikiPRNYC Christopher Kraus (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and rewrite if necessary to remove any actual copyvio, due to his absolutely clear notability: "Professor of Medicine and Obstetrics-Gynecology at the Weill-Cornell University Medical College " Full professor at one of the most important medicalschools in the world, with multiple additional honors as shown in the article. One of them is editor in chief of Arthritis & Rheumatism, the official publication of the American College of Rheumatology. Editor in cheif of a journal like that shows clear recognition in the field as a major authority. Acting director of NIH's National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. I wonder if the nominator has actually read the article, or WP:PROF, or is simply assuming that COI is reason for deletion. Ditto for the "per nom" comment. I've removed over a hundred of his minor publications, which are hardly necessary to show the notability, and do give a CV-like tone to the article. I could look for citations to the several hundred peer reviewed articles, but in view of the obvious notability shown by the rest, it hardly seems necessary. DGG (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 23:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. I have nothing to add to DGG's detailed analysis. I cannot imagine that then om actually looked at this article before taking it to AfD, because notability more or less drips off the screen. Article needs major cleanup, but that is no reason to take it to AfD and waste our time. --Crusio (talk) 23:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, notability obvious beyond question. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per notability asserted and shown. Send toWP:CLEANUP. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — (2x edit conflicts) I see neither a copyvio nor spam here. The publications listed easily establish notability of this scientist. MuZemike 23:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs tidying. JFW | T@lk 23:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to DGG's detailed analysis, a quick Google scholar search[5] revealed not only that his research is highly cited (top few primary papers with 378, 280, 164 citations and many others >100 citations), but also that he is on international consensus committees, a clear sign that he is regarded as an expert by his peers. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per DGG and Espresso Addict. I made some improvements to the article, but still needs more work. I will also leave a message to the article creator with some suggestions; that user has made a few improvements already, but the article still reads like a mini resume (among other problems).--Eric Yurken (talk) 03:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lulu books can receive a 'review' at Amazon, but that does not indicate notability. seicer | talk | contribs 03:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Stewart (author)

No indication of meeting WP:BIO. Google is unhelpful due to confusion with his more famous namesake Patrick Stewart. Contested PROD. Sandstein 20:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails ~~WP:CRYSTAL~~ WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 20:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CRYSTAL is irrelevant. There are no predictions in this article. The subject is an author published by a respected (i.e. not vanity) publisher (McFarland & Company). His books are available through Amazon [6], [7]. Pburka (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I meant to type WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep Being available at amazon means nothing--if one gives them a commission they'll sell anything. However, there are significant reviews of at least one book: Madden, W C, Patrick J Stewart, and Steven P Gietschier. 2004. "Book Reviews - The Western League: A Baseballp Histog, 1885 Through 1999". Journal of Sport History. 31, no. 1: 94.--I'm not sure if that shows merely comprehensive coverage or actual notability. Both are reasonable available at worldCat libraries: 109, & 76 holdings. He's coauthor--Madden is a somewhat more widely published baseball historian. Other reviews would be needed. DGG (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One book listed on Amazon who will shill for anyone at a price and one review of one book does not prove WP:Notability. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. Xihr 00:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. Notability is not even close to established. Boston (talk) 02:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unable to locate any additional sources; ghits are almost all vendors of his books. I'm afraid his work simply does not seem to be notable. JulesH (talk) 08:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. A relevant topic. Put wikify tag instead. Tone 23:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Appeared to be a copyvio afterwards. Deleted as such. --Tone 23:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shag (hairstyle)

I can't find a simple speedy deletion category. This is an unsourced short essay Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KeepIt seems to be a notable hairstyle. Google news archive [8] shows various newspapers calling it a well known hair style. See [9] says the 1970's was "the shag haircut decade." [10]. A haircut which identifies a decade [11]deserves an article. LA Times called it "the once ubiquitous '70s shag." [12] lists it as one of 11 men's haircut styles. So we have considerable evidence of notability, and an article lacking references. That is a good reason for editing, but not for deletion. Edison (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep It is highly advisable to at least check the Googles for things that are unfamiliar before coming here. it ought to be obligatory, because then one can improve the improvable articles, instead of wasting everyone's time here. DGG (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete & redirect Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benefits of yoga

This is a pleasant essay and original research. It is not an article for an encyclopaedia Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Yoga as exercise or alternative medicine as a plausible search term. Otherwise, nothing but a personal essay; also a possible spam as well as maybe a copyvio of something (I cannot find it, yet.). MuZemike 23:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Yoga, as it is an wp:essay --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 01:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. SilkTork *^YES! 23:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Straight hair

Essay and Original Research Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Actually, this user has a history of nonsense articles about hairstyles. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep and improve. Hairstyles are notable topics, and as the nom. for Shag shows, there are immense numbers of books and articles about it. No possible reason for speedy even if one thought this unimprovable; the ed. above should recheck WP:CSD. DGG (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, I was moving too fast from another article. My apology.DGG (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With all due respect, DGG, this is not about hairstyle. It's some sort of OR essay about how lighter skinned, straight haired types arose after their ancestors left Africa due to natural selection related to Vitamin D production in the setting of decreased sunlight. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 23:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I of course declined the CSD. Dloh cierekim 23:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (G12) as a copyvio of http://birmingham.craigslist.co.uk/bts/939397503.html. Also a possible spam attempt to get users to the user's hair-selling website. MuZemike 23:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note — the similar article Shag (hairstyle) (whose AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shag (hairstyle) as speedy kept) has also been tagged as G12 for ~~the same~~ a similar copyvio. MuZemike 23:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? I don't see that at the target. Dloh cierekim 23:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They were both copy-and-pasted from advertisements that linked to the same hair-selling website. But now that has been G12'd. MuZemike 23:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actullay, I was writing out the copyvio, deflffing, and despamming when it was deleted. I think that one should write out a copyvio rather than deleting when possible. Dloh cierekim 23:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When I Google for the first line of this, I get the link on the copyvio tag. I don't find the text when I follow the link. Dloh cierekim 23:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source for this is Hair#Straight_hair. Dloh cierekim 23:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have struck my delete as this is taken verbatim from Hair#Straight_hair. Dloh cierekim 00:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Improve. Needs work, but is a perfectly appropriate subject for an article. Proxy User (talk) 06:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:CSD#G3 - (see below). It's a cut-and-paste of section 3.2.2 of the existing article Hair. JohnCD (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion is not going to happen with Keep Votes. So if someone splits off a section to start a whole new article, that should be treated as vandalism? This looks like the work of a new, well-intentioned editor, not a vandal. Though I suppose we won't see more edits from this person considering the reception they received. An alternative would be to trim down the original section and provide a link to the new article. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 20:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve per Dlohcierekim —xanderer (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OH. Color me "no vote." I just don't think a speedy is appropriate. I'm the one that originally said to delete as OR, not realizing it was a copy from an existing article. I merely pinted that out as an alternative to deletion. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 20:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hair#Straight hair - OK, not vandalism, but I don't think anything is gained by fragmenting the existing Hair article, it's not unwieldily long. JohnCD (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and decide in a discussion on the talk page of the main article whether it should be divided. DGG (talk) 01:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't get over my wanting to delete this as OR, when it's part of a standing article. For those concerned with sourcing, it undoubtedly exists at the parent article. No one there used inline citations. I mention this only because it's drawn another "hoax" tag. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 14:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. seicer | talk | contribs 03:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

40 oz. To Freedom (Forty-Fives Tournament)

I'm sure it's great fun, but per WP:NOT#OR Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. M0RD00R (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per either WP:MADEUP or WP:NOTWEBHOST. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 23:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 00:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobel Prize laureates by secondary school affiliation

What secondary school a Nobel Laureate went to is pretty trivial and is certainly not on the same importance as what university they attended (as they do their research for their prizes at the university they attend/teach at). As such, fails WP:NOT#INFO and WP:WEIGHT. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 20:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is not of the same level as what university they went to (which, at least at an undergraduate level, is never or almost never where they did the Nobel-winning research) but it is none the less significant. High schools play an important part of education also. For anything but the most distinguished figures, it would not be appropriate to have such an article. Here, and in a few other special cases of people who are not merely notable but famous at a global level, it is highly appropriate. An effort should be made to globalize the list. DGG (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. I disagree with the nominator's reasoning that this is "pretty trivial". Even granting that it isn't of the same importance as the university, there's no reason that both can't be referred to. The schools referred to aren't Riverdale High. They're what are referred to as selective magnet schools, where there's a much higher emphasis on particular fields for especially talented individuals. Mandsford (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep obviously. The high school that a Nobel Prize laureate went to is clearly of interest. Bear in mind that not all Nobel Prize laureates will have gone to Uni but all will have attended a high school. TerriersFan (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we're in 1909 A.D. perhaps. Mandsford (talk) 00:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - article is a mess, and schools with only 1 Nobel graduate should probably be removed, but that means it should be fixed, not delete. Peter Ballard (talk) 23:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative Comment - the link to this page, from the main article, is red. Does anyone know how to fix this? Peter Ballard (talk) 23:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Now, this is useful information per WP:LIST. A high school can be extremely important for a future scientist's career, see Outliers (book). A better lede needs to be written for the article. Bearian (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 00:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7 Day Week

This article is interesting, but an essay, original research and speculation. The redirect was overturned by the creator, so I am bringing it here for the community to build a consensus on it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's my intension to cleanup both Week and Days of the Week. As discussed at Talk:Week#Week_and_Days_of_the_Week.

Week is mainly advising on the 7 Day Week and mentions little on other day groupings or divisions of larger day groupings such as a lunar month or year.

Information in Week on the 7 day week should be moved to either 7 day week or days of the week depending on the content.

Both the 7 day week and days of the week are large amounts of information.

By splitting this will and allow the growth of week to focus on 'week' as a subject. i.e. In parts of Africa 3, 4 (especially along the Congo), 5, 6, and 8 day weeks are found. The Mayas, Persians and Malaysians had 5, Muyscas 3, Romans 8. 10 has been quite common too. The Chinese divided the cycle into 10 days at least as far back as the Shan Dynasty 1200-1045 BCE. And too ancient Egypt. Even the French for 12 years from late 1793 to 1805. And for 18 days in 1871 in Paris.

This would also allow for a focused development of 7 day week and days of the week.

--Pnb73 (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An incomplete article; let it develop. DGG (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep Although it doesn't have sources, it is sourceable, and it goes beyond the parent article in attempting to answer the question of why the world's business is organized in seven-day periods. However, if no sources are added by the close of the variable "AfD week", then delete. Mandsford (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more references as requested. --Pnb73 (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources exist, and while there's a danger of some OR in the finished article, it's simply too early to make the claim that it's irredeemable OR. Wily D 21:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Blueboy96 (CSD G3). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New York Living

This article appears to be a fan-fiction creation by its sole editor; preliminary searches on Google and IMDb.com have come up with nothing. — TAnthony^Talk 19:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax. Rklear (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW Delete: Hoax. Schuym1 (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G3 blatant misinformation. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 18:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glenorchy Plaza

Fails notability - very small shopping centre with one anchor tenant and no independent sources (have checked Google and Factiva). Former PROD but for some reason was lifted. Orderinchaos 19:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Orderinchaos 19:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are trivial, no hope of expansion beyond what's already here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even less notable than most of the sub-regional complexes with articles here. Where is the encyclopedic value? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, some shopping complexes are notable. Not this one though. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Indeed. I believe shopping centres can be notable but that a great many are not, and that size and tenants are an indicator. Orderinchaos 08:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the Chermsides, Fountain Gates and Erina Fairs of the world is where I would draw the line. Brimbank Central Shopping Centre, I don't think so and this one, not even close. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 09:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brimbank does fall over the line IMO, although its article at present is woeful. It has a GLA of 39,505 sqm and 4 anchors, and I can find sources on it. (Glenorchy Plaza, by comparison, is barely 5000 sqm.) Orderinchaos 15:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. seicer | talk | contribs 03:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drexel University Roller Hockey Club

Non-notable school organization, doesn't pass notability guidelines of WP:CLUB --ImmortalGoddezz (t/c) 19:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No non trivial reliable sources.Obina (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

Delete - fails WP:ORG. TerriersFan (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable local club that fails the guidelines of WP:CLUB. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This list features no reliable sources, and can be considered original research. We already have far too many useless lists with no encyclopedic value. seicer | talk | contribs 03:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of films featuring a final girl

This article serves no encyclopedic purpose. First off, the term "final girl" was invented by a single author, and has not gained any sort of mainstream acceptance as an actual term. That author uses the term to promote a feminist theory about horror films, so to list a movie as fitting it is to suggest a POV. They are all original research of the person who adds them to this list. The author, in fact, says that the "final girl" does not have to be the final victim/sole survivor in the horror movie or even a girl: the term is nebulous so she can pick and choose only those examples that fit her theory. Even if we were to assume that the term is real, and not ubject to debate over its meaning or POV pushing in applying it, there' no reason for WIkipedia to have an article just listing them all -- if the theory is correct, then it's just a list of slasher movies, and those are all already handled elsewhere by categories and so forth. DreamGuy (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A POV list. There are also no WP:RS to determine what goes on this list. So in effect this is an article with no notability, sources, or anything. By any measure, it needs to go. Note the Final Girl page has been correctly redirected to the theory creator, but that makes no sense for this.Obina (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and consider nominating Carol J. Clover (who supposedly created the concept of "Final Girl, and whom the term redirects to) as well. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Boston (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this belongs on TVTropes, not here. Also, there's an article at Final girl again; Uncle G (talk · contribs) undid the revert. JuJube (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, because it isn't a concept that only Clover employs. Even a modicum of research reveals several critics who acknowledge, employ, expand, and critique this idea. (Elizabeth Ezra in ISBN 9780252075223 expands on the idea to assert that Call in Alien Resurrection is a final girl, for example.)
  However that same research also shows that a bare list such as this is impossible to maintain in a neutral manner. That is because if final girl were a more finished article, it would tell the reader about the disputes that critics have, amongst themselves, over which characters in film and on television actually constitute final girls. (Christine Cornea in ISBN 9780748616428 disputes Clover's characterization of Ripley as a final girl, for example.)
  A list of examples such as in this article is useless to readers, because it doesn't properly reflect critical thought on this subject. It's cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing. However, final girl has scope for expansion and presentation of other points of view in addition to solely Clover's. That other article's problem is neutrality and lack of a rounded treatment of the subject that informs the reader about views other than that of the inventor of the idea, and what other people have added to the discussion of the subject since it escaped its creator, not existence. Uncle G (talk) 01:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an indiscriminate list. Though the article doesn't explain this, a "final girl" is apparently someone's term for the last person left alive in a horror film where one person after another dies-- obviously a female. I don't know that we need to do our own parallel to a horror film; it will be ironic if this article is deleted, then Final girl is deleted, then Carol J. Clover is on the phone and they say, "We traced the call and it's coming from inside your building...hello? hello?" Mandsford (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

obviously a female? could you explain why the last person alive must obviously be a female, or why a horror film must necessarily end with one person & only one left alive? Many do, of course, as explained by the corresponding article & elucidated by the list. DGG (talk) 04:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why not eh?. Looks like a pretty good list, Just add the uncompleated list box to the top.Curttrfc (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Final Girl article needs alot of improvment Curttrfc (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've nothing against the Final Girl article (though more evidence of the term actually being used would be nice), but this list, is just too crufty for its own good. I hate calling "cite sources" when referring to a list in which the films cited can provide verification, however as I have doubt as to whether the term "final girl" is widely used, there is therefore possible interpretation issues (WP:SYNTH) regarding creating a list of this nature. I've no objecttion to a few notable examples being included in the article in question. 23skidoo (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See above for both evidence of this concept escaping its creator and a reason that editors just watching films, forming personal opinions, and adding original research to Wikipedia won't properly inform the reader as to actual published critical thought on this subject. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The notability of the concept is clear from the examples, and vice versa. Whether the two articles should be combined, can be discussed later. I actually wasnt aware of this explicitly before this discussion--but looking at this list explains it quite well. Why
Keep Concept is notable and was notable before the term was coined. Perhaps merge list with Final Girl article. I'm basing this on this list being a small subset of Horror/Slasher movies. If it turns out to be most, I would change my vote. RoyLeban (talk) 06:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article on Final girl is sketchy enough, but this list is over-reaching original research (O-R OR). 66.57.190.166 (talk) 06:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but trim to only those that have been described as such in reliable sources. It seems the definition of who is and is not a final girl makes the inclusion of most of these films original research, but a sourced list could be built from the sources UncleG has identified. JulesH (talk) 08:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: some valid examples are fitting in the final girl article itself, but an OR list of everything a Wikipedian thinks might meet this definition is not an encyclopedia article. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found this list and the 'Final Girl' entry to be very helpful. This concept is understood in the entertainment industry and if the list is accurate, let it be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Planetprods (talk • contribs) 00:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research. Show me a reliable source that lists these films and I may reconsider. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to literary technique. MBisanz ^talk 04:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Narrative link

This article consists entirely of a definition of an obscure term that is unlikely to be found, much less discussed in detail, in reliable sources. This is not a notable concept. Neelix (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Links are commonly seen in television and narrators are common too, but there's no real point in combining the two. Links in tv shows or plays are usually narrated making the term superfluous. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: maybe this is appropriate for a WikiMediaDictionary, or as section in another related article, but not enough substance to merit an encyclopedia article on its own.-- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to literary technique, or create a more specific list of dramatic techniques and merge to it. A commonly-used dramatic technique, worth noting, but not needing its own article. JulesH (talk) 08:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to literary technique per JulesH sounds like the best compromise between a permastub and a somewhat likely or legitimate search term. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily delete and recreate with a redirect to main article, CSD G12 copyright violation. See also WP:Crystal, WP:Name, WP:Snow. However, any editor may tag this as a CSD R3 for speedy deletion (recent and implausible redirect).. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Megadeth's twelfth studio album

WP:HAMMER, mostly quotes other sources without really saying much of anything except "they'll have another album". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect - to this. ₰imon_K^S_K 17:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Already requested at WP:ANI - the article currently contains major copyvios. Requesting deletion and recreated redirect. Exxolon (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't like the idea of redirecting this even if the redirect is protected. Once the album actually is out it'll be a superfluous redirect. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A redirect is pointless. Who's going to search that term? --neon white talk 18:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. —Travis ^talk 00:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fund for UFO Research

Fails WP:ORG. Groups who are not dominated by UFO-true believers do not seem to have covered this group in enough detail to make them notable enough for inclusion. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks required multiple example of nontrivial coverage in reliable sources establishing notability. DreamGuy (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Notability established by reliable sources, Google Books and Google News. Some of the sources should be included in the article. --J.Mundo (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Politics aren't covered by people not interested in politics. Doesn't mean the people that do aren't reliable because they're interested in the subject. The same goes for UFO fans. Unless the person doing the reporting are specifically linked to the organization as a member or employee, they're independent. (Also, covering crankpot theories or stuff not commonly believed in mainstream doesn't make someone unreliable) - Mgm|^(talk) 20:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike politics, which is a subject where a lot of independent sources exist, in fringe subjects, the fringe-nature of the topic lends itself to an interconnectedness not seen in mainstream subjects. The basic problem is one of unreliable sources that are way too credulous in their coverage of a subject. In particular, MUFON (which itself is definitely notable -- having been covered by truly independent groups) writes about this particular group with such glowing terms that it is impossible to see where facts end and fiction begins. No, in order to truly be reliably independent, we need to find groups that aren't in bed together in the way UFO-organizations obsess over other UFO-organizations. Walled gardens of woo are not to be harvested by Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FRINGE: 'A theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory." --J.Mundo (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. Replace "theory" for "organization" and you can see the issue here. There just isn't extensive, serious, independent coverage.ScienceApologist (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not extensive? Have seen the sources in G. News and G.Books? and what sources from this search are dependent of the subject? This topic meets WP:N and WP:R by a wide margin. --J.Mundo (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I might throw the question back at you. Which one of those sources you link to do you consider to be "extensive, serious, and independent"? None that I can see. The serious and independent sources do not provide extensive coverage and the extensive coverage is not independent and arguably not very serious. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be confused with Foofur, the delightful Hanna-Barbera cartoon from the 1980s. Mandsford (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources are sufficient to show notability. If there is so much foolishness around, NPOV says we do not try to hide it. DGG (talk) 22:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ScienceApologist. If you only have fringe references then you have a fringe article. We need WP:RS and most of the sources mentioned above (I note there are none in the article) appear to come from books with dubious veracity. I have not seen, at least from above or no gogole, quality sources that mention this group. Tgreach (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ScienceApologist. Clearly fails WP:ORG. Xihr 00:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no third party sources to even show that they exist over and above showing that they are notable. Shot info (talk) 00:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jmundo, Google news and book searches clearly show that the organization meets the GNG. RMHED (talk) 01:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but add the Google references so we have third party references inside the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ScienceApologist. A search of media outside of the UFO fringe [13] does not indicate much coverage of this fund, and all of the sources are from its own website. The lack of coverage from independent sources is a clue to the lack of notability or verifiability for this. Mandsford (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A proper search like "Fund for UFO Research" 1 shows coverage by reliable media. --J.Mundo (talk) 18:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No third-party, non-trivial, reliable sources found. Fails WP:ORG. -Atmoz (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The 74 Google News results linked above have been totally misrepresented by delete !voters above. I can't see any fringe publications amonst them. They are from the likes of NPR, The Dallas Morning News, The Washington Post, The New York Times, Dawn, Crain's Chicago Business, Skeptic (which is as far as you can get from a UFO true believer source) etc. I don't have time to go through all 332 Google Books hits but near the beginning of the list we can find The Lure of the Edge by published by the University of California Press (ISBN 9780520239050), Encyclopedia of Millennialism and Millennial Movements published by Routledge (ISBN 9780415922463) and The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience published by ABC-CLIO (ISBN 9781576076538). As I seem to have to constantly repeat at AfDs in the last few days, having an article on an organisation or a belief is in no way an endorsement of it. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this article was about a new soap company (with the only references being to the company's web site), we would regard is as not notable and delete it. Since it's about UFOs, there are news references (just as there are reports of items like "streaker interrupts sports event"), but I don't see any reference to a reliable source saying the subject of this article is in some way notable. --Johnuniq (talk) 23:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per J Mundo, Phil Bridger. Numerous reliable sources exist. Edward321 (talk) 00:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You can find numerous news articles for this. Johnjohnston (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. seicer | talk | contribs 03:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frances Swan

Does not establish biographical notability. Article admits that she is among the "most obscure" of the contactees. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Oh, this is interesting. Example text: In April 1954 Mrs. Swan began to receive messages from Affa of Uranus, who was in command of spaceship M-4 currently orbiting the earth, and later from Ponnar, commander of another orbiting ship, L-11. A good biographical article could possibly be made out of this, if you fixed this tone of wild fantasy into something more factual, but then you're back to the notability problem, which is where we started. --Lockley (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No third-party, non-trivial, reliable sources. Fails WP:N, WP:V, WP:BIO. -Atmoz (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is a third party reliable source helpfully placed under the heading "References" in the article. The author and publisher come with perfectly good non-fringe academic credentials. This just leaves your claim that the source is trivial. I presume that means that you have read it, or how else have you determined this? Could you please let us know how extensive the coverage is? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — neuro^(talk) 18:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Field propulsion

No sources about this subject. Not recognized as a concept except by those engaging in original research receiving no mainstream, third-party independent recognition in violation of WP:FRINGE. Do not be misled by vague accusations that NASA had a "field propulsion program". They didn't. They funded a guy briefly who invented the term out of thin air but haven't adopted the term or the ideas themselves. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While this does seem to be a term that has been taken up by the fringe UFO brigade, it does have some currency, as a google search will show and that in itself makes it notable. There are many, many books discussing this subject and as a notable fringe theory, references are not hard to find, see page 24 of “Outside-the-Box” Technologies, Their Critical Role Concerning Environmental Trends, and the Unnecessary Energy Crisis: A Compilation of Briefing Papers Prepared For The U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee for instance. Academic papers exploring the concept exist such as Engineering the Zero-Point Field and Polarizable Vacuum For Interstellar Flight and Heim Quantum Theory for Space Propulsion Physics. Back here in the real world, NASA has done a lot of work with tethers in space which could legitimately be described as a field propulsion system in that no propellant is required. Although the article is in a dreadful state at the moment, it could certainly be built into a good paranormal article, and even a solid science article (or both) and on that basis it should be kept and allowed to develop. SpinningSpark 23:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Puthoff et al (2001) listed above. There are about 188 scholar ghits (some of which discuss space travel), so I think there's enough information to properly cite the article. The tether propulsion article could be linked in a "See also" section.—RJH (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Loads of Google Books hits. If you look past the fringe stuff talking about such things as the Nazis' supposed development of this technology you'll find plenty of reliable sources amongst them. And here's a report of an academic conference on the subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per everyone but nominator. Edward321 (talk) 00:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — neuro^(talk) 18:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Plug-In Drug

Unreferenced summary, original research and non-npov. Nothing in stub suggests topic is notable, and quick Google search doesn't suggest it's been subject of or part of third-party commentary/work. --EEMIV (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. How quick was that Google search? Amazon counts that 60 books cite this book. Quoted in this 2003 MIT Press Sourcebook on the Internet and the Family. Google Scholar finds about 2,100 hits (not all relate to this book, but still...). Power.corrupts (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clear notability over a long period of decades. Just add some of the references. DGG (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep extremely notable book that as power has noted is cited by a large amount of other books and has a fairly substantial google scholar count. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the most well-known books about television and its effects on children. I have read it several times and it's definitely among the top books that must be read if you pursue broadcasting or social work as a career. Nate • (chatter) 05:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. This is a very well known and influential book. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator must have blinked when doing that quick Google search. Had reviews in the New York Times [14] and the Washington Post [15] when it first came out and has had continuing press coverage since [16]. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added a few refs, a couple of which describes the book as a 'landmark study'. I note also that the book is in its 11th edition and is cited widely up to the current day. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A5. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

אלין

WP:DICDEF THF (talk) 16:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as dictdef per nom. --Lockley (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A dicdef and nothing more. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to the Hebrew Wiktionary. I think this is in Hebrew. MuZemike 19:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it's in English. The words "Ultimately" and "from" are dead giveaways. ☺ I've already transwikified it to the correct Wiktionary and notified the author that xe appears to be accidentally creating Wiktionary articles in Wikipedia. It's clear from the layout and the templates, all of which follow the Wiktionary conventions, that that is what xe was writing. Dealing with this article is now solely Wikipedia's own problem, with transwikification not being a option for this discussion. Uncle G (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per CSD A5 since it has been transwikied (I have placed a tag on the article as well.) TonyBallioni (talk) 23:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I removed the PROD template and am responsible for it being on AfD now. I see it has been deleted on both the Romanian and Hebrew wikis. It is surely Wiktionary. Appologies for the time you have spent on this. Power.corrupts (talk) 01:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 04:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saving Aimee

Subject has some relatively minor claims of notability, none of which meet basic notability criteria. As a result of the lack of reliable sources the article is struggling for sources for most of the info. The previous afd claimed the band had toured nationally however significant coverage in reliable sources is still unavailable and the afd seemed to be closed without enough discussion or valid points made (needed relisting imo). My main concern is that an unsigned band formed in 2005 having only released one downloadable single is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. neon white talk 16:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You state "significant coverage in reliable sources is still unavailable" - a quick Google search found coverage in Metro ([17]), NME ([18]), and the St. Albans and Harpenden Review ([19]), as well as web coverage in Noize Makes Enemies ([20]), dailymusicguide ([21]), and The Dish ([22]). It probably isn't going to get to GA status in the near future, but coverage exists.--Michig (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of those the only one i would consider both verifiable and significant would be the Metro article and that is extremely brief. Notability usually requires significant coverage from multiple sources and i think this case, an unsigned band that has practically no releases, in particular needs extensive rather than sporadic coverage. It needs articles about them in major newspapers, music magazines etc rather than passing mentions in articles about other bands and mentions in small local newspapers. --neon white talk 18:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the article, the group has = "only released a free download single 'Small Talk'" -- fails notability standards big time. Anyone who posted themselves singing to YouTube or whatever has more establish notability than this. DreamGuy (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Several sources Michig listed above are significant publications. Coverage in NME and a profile in Metro are reasonably significant indications of notability. In addition, as Michig points out, there is coverage which verifies that Saving Aimee has toured nationally. In fact, the NME article Michig listed states that Saving Aimee was at the London Astoria, a venue which NME calls "legendary" in a different piece ([23]). The Metro article Michig provided also mentions that their first studio album will be produced by Justin Hawkins, who, as the ex-singer for the vomitous (but popular) retro-rock group The Darkness, is a figure of considerable significance within the music industry and, I think, negates somewhat the non-notability problems caused by the band's unsigned status.

I don't think I've ever said NME so much in my entire life. Stipend Steve (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The mention in NME is barely a single line in an article about another band, it is not in any way significant coverage required for notability. Please read WP:N (Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.) and then reconsider. What NME thinks of a venue is utterly irrelevant. Having a notable producer (for an album that we cannot source even exists or even might exist) is not a criteria for notability. --neon white talk 22:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--This article has as many reliable references as it possibly can at this stage of the bands career. Removing this article would be completely outrageous and cold hearted. With the state of the music industry today with record sales down across the board, a wave of new bands have started doing it themselves. Respectively gaining legions of fans by themselves with no major label backing. The fact that this band have managed to accomplish what they have with nothing but hard work and constant touring is nothing but respectable.

This year will see the band putting out releases and their debut album. I have also added reliable sources that the band have had reviews in major magazines - NME ([24]) and an article in Kerrang! ([25]) xpedrox (talk) 04:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again see WP:N for info on 'significant coverage', merely being listed as a opening act in a concert review is not good enough for notability. --neon white talk 22:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm neutral about the article, but in response to xpedrox, I'd like to point out that it's not the job of Wikipedia to support (or attack) the careers of fledgling bands. It's not really useful to argue for retention on the basis of the impact of the article on the band; what we're looking for is the impact of the band on the scene. NME is a good source; the St Albans and Harpenden Review not so much. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As i have pointed out the NME article contains a trivial mention at best. It cannot be used as evidence of notability. --neon white talk 22:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-- The bands myspace page states that they are finishing their debut album with Justin Hawkins and this article from Kerrang! (the worlds biggest selling weekly music magazine) proves it and many more facts. ([26]) Checkmate?

I totally agree with you 'AlexTiefling', there's just no need for this bands wiki article to get deleted! xpedrox (talk) 01:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (Nomination withdrawn.) Marasmusine (talk) 14:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Blaze

Contested PROD. I use the same rationale in the prod: I cannot find any verifiable sources for this future-released game as shown here. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; it may be suitable for inclusion at a later time when reliable sources pop up, but not now. MuZemike 16:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 16:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —MuZemike 16:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no third-party sources given. Alexius08 (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- If it's for real, eventually someday some reliable sources will be there and it can be readded. No reason to have an article in the meantime. DreamGuy (talk) 18:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:CRYSTAL. Schuym1 (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are definitely some sources which cover the game: RPGFan, Dengeki, Famitsu, Gamespot. SharkD (talk) 09:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination and WP:TROUT myself for not searching under the Japanese name. MuZemike 17:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, careful where you wave that fish about -- it hurts! —Quasirandom (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll try to minimize the collateral damage :) MuZemike 19:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In case it's needed: keep based on SharkD's citations. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 04:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News

One sentence sub, little or no content beyond "it exists", completely unreferenced, no assertion of notability -- simply being published does not automatically qualify for an article. Contested prod from August 2008, ample time given without any sort of improvement.

Delete as nominator. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable book.Czolgolz (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per the link the article, this, this, this, and this. There is also lots more in Google News. Schuym1 (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is over 30 reliable sources with significant coverage in Google News. Why didn't you bother to do a quick search before nominating? Schuym1 (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Schuym1. --Delirium (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Bernard Goldberg, until there is enough material on the page to support a non-stubby entry. No reason not to discuss the book in the already short article on the author. Merging will create a single article with more substance. bd2412 T 20:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- The page can easily be expanded with over 30 sources and there is nothing wrong with stubs if they are notable. Schuym1 (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - According to WP:STUB. Schuym1 (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per ~~Schuyml~~ BD2412. An example of a perfectly useless article that tells us little more than that a book with this title is in existence. Mandsford (talk) 21:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is it a useless article when there are many sources? Schuym1 (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And why is your !vote per me? I don't want it merged. Schuym1 (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Sorry about that Schuym1. I confused the end of your response to BD2412 with the end of his/her comment. Mandsford (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to the hundreds of gnews hits, at least 30 with significant coverage, that Schuym1 points out, there are 160 gbooks hits and 118 gscholar hits. There's more than enough out there to write a very long article on this very notable bestseller. (As noted on the talk page, " #1 on the NYT Best Seller list for a whole season"). That nobody has is no reason for deletion. Earlier versions like [27] were quite long, but were almost entirely "plot summary." John Z (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, when I said over 30 that was from only 4 pages. Schuym1 (talk) 21:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article is merely underdeveloped. The book was widely discussed in reliable sources when published. WillOakland (talk) 22:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of national capitals. MBisanz ^talk 04:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of capitals by country

I believe List of national capitals is adequate, since the table can be sorted by country. This separate listing is extra maintenance overhead without additional benefit. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Seems an obvious duplicate to me. --neon white talk 16:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to list of national capitals as a plausible search term if nothing else. Stifle (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any information not already in List of national capitals. It's important to note that the other article only recently (December 27) was rearranged to become sortable, so that one can rearrange it by city or by country. Until recently, this was the only Afghanistan to Zimbabwe list, while the other one was exclusively an Abu Dhabi to Zagreb list. Mandsford (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No new information is available here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.29.227.219 (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to FNBO Direct. can be merged from history. MBisanz ^talk 04:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FNBO Direct

Fails WP:CORP. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Fails WP:CORP and is extremely spammy. ukexpat (talk) 15:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After reading guidelines, I agree article should be removed. HOWEVER, i would like the opportunity to add information to First National Bank of Omaha before this page is removed, since FNBO Direct is a division of that company. I forgot to mention that I will not be able to make large edits until next week, as I am using my cell browser right now. Sweet Pea 1981 (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Travis ^talk 00:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dipped Fruit

Former speedy deletion candidate that was declined for no other reason than not being able to find a criterion that fit. Nonetheless, the article makes no assertion of notability whatsoever and will certain fail general notability. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now the Article is edited and is unique now. I think it should be on Wikipedia as it dosn't match with any of the other articles here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Famzz (talk • contribs) 13:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unneccesary duplicate of Fondue#Dessert which states the obvious. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a how-to essay. WillOakland (talk) 22:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is a legitimate cuisine subject and not (necessarily) the same as a fondue dessert as claimed above. Though after taking out the how to and OR and unsourced claims (kids really like dipped fruit) there won't be much left of the article. SpinningSpark 23:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that this duplicates Fondue#Dessert and everything covered in this article is more appropriate to that section of Fondue. Otherwise, this is a non-notable subject for a separate article. If the fondue article doesn't properly cover dipped fruit, as Spinningspark argues, then Chocolate fountain does. Geoff ^T ^C 20:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Fondue - reads like an instruction manual rather than an encyclopaedic article and duplicates information already found elsewhere. waggers (talk) 10:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 20:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Devil's Walk

Potentially fails WP:MUSIC. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails all criteria at WP:MUSIC. No news mentions and no results at rolling stone or allmusic. --neon white talk 18:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: myspace band. No reliable 3rd party sources WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 06:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 20:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Bell (Footballer)

Recreation of article deleted at WP:Articles for deletion/Josh Bell – LATICS talk 15:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion--"Recreation of deleted material." Drmies (talk) 15:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:BIO and WP:N. Although, this article could have just been PRODed. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G4) — recreation of deleted material as noted above. Looks like at attempt to shirk the deletion process. MuZemike 19:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, not a speedy! The article Josh Bell has also been recreated but this seems to be another guy (birthyear is different, among other). --Tone 23:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It can be speedied, as I nominated it originally for deletion—it was about the footballer. The new Josh Bell article is about an American NFL player. – LATICS talk 05:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted the other one because that was G4. This one is therefore not G4, but could be A7. I'd say delete but I'll leave it until the standard AfD closure, though. --Tone 14:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Okay, who's the idiot that deleted Josh Bell, an NFL PLAYER WHO IS NOTABLE? Recreating now.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 16:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the article on Josh Bell, the American footballer, should not have been deleted G4. The article that was deleted via AfD was on Josh Bell the Oldham football (soccer) player. Someone then created an article on the American footballer. The article now being debated is on the football (soccer) player, the same guy whose article was deleted at AfD. So the article on the American footballer was never eligible for G4 (and neither is this one, as the content is substantially different to when it was deleted). Does all that make sense.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentStill not exactly clear why someone deleted a notable NFL player...►Chris Nelson^Holla! 16:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, ok, too many people with the same name and same occupation... I believe you if you say this NFL player is notable and leaving it alone. Sorry for inconvenience. --Tone 20:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't let anyone at the respective projects hear you saying that playing American football and playing association football are the same profession ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable footballer, fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 14:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:Athlete and I can find no significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject to warrant inclusion under WP:N. Can easily be restored should he ever play in the Football League. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CCSTV New Year's Gala

While by no means an expert on Chinese media, I don't believe that this webcast satisfies WP:WEB. The only English-langauge reference in the article that is actually about the webcast is from the "Beijing Today" website [28]. This website is apparently an official publication of the Chinese government, so we have one mention in a (presumably) reliable third-party source. If the Chinese-language reference ([29]]) is equally reliable, the article may satisfy the criterion; however, I can't immediately find any references to this site or the organization behind it, and am unfortunately unable to read the site itself. Intrinsically, the webcast doesn't appear notable; a parody/alternative version of a major national TV show that a satellite TV station was potentially (but not actually) interested in sponsoring would _not_ be at all notable in the USA or Europe, but I appreciate that China may be different. ~~My opinion is Delete unless notability can be demonstrated.~~ Tevildo (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that I am going to have to disagree with your suggestion if it's only based on the number of English sources. There were four English-language references in the article, those numbering 1-4 in the references:

1. ^ "'Shanzhai': Faking it for money or fun?", China Economic Net (10 December 2008). Retrieved on 5 January 2009.

2. ^ "Touch Beijing (感受北京)", Radio 774 (外语网络电台) (30 December 2008). Retrieved on 5 January 2009.

3. ^ a b c d "CCTV New Year gala to showcase grassroots talent", China Daily (24 December 2008). Retrieved on 5 January 2009.

4. ^ a b "Robin-hood Chinese New Year's Gala challenges CCTV", Beijing Today (12 December 2008). Retrieved on 6 January 2009.

Additionally, any news source within China is going to be from state-run media.

I personally think that this should go back under Shanzhai, as I did when I initially inquired as to whether others thought that it should be deleted. (At the time, the information was duplicated there.) Still, I'd rather your response after knowing that there is more than one English source. L ^talk 15:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Apparently there are more than one English-language reference in this article. Besides Beijing Today, there are also China Economic Net (sponsored by Economic Daily, a major newspaper in China), Radio 774 (a radio station run by Beijing Government), and China Daily. The Chinese reference is from Jinghua Times, a major newspaper in Beijing. The references have already established the notability of this gala.--Neo-Jay (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. The China Economic Net article just includes the webcast as an example of Shanzhai (so I wouldn't call it _substantial_ coverage), the China Daily article is a press release by the organizer (and therefore not a _third party_ source). The issue with the other two references is the reliability of the sources. We have a very basic article on Radio 774, which would suggest that it's a potentially valid source, but no article on the Jinghua Times, and I can't seem to find anything obvious on-line about that newspaper with an English-language Google search. That being said, the radio interview and the Beijing Today article are probably enough to pass WP:WEB. However, I would agree with Alainna that the "Subculture" section of the Shanzhai article would be a better place for a mention of the webcast as things stand; perhaps things may change after the broadcast. Tevildo (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Jinghua Times should actually be the Beijing Times. (Per English Google search: 京华网(Jinghua Wang -- Jinghua Online) —京华时报 (Jinghua Shibao -- Jinghua Times/Beijing Times) http://www.beijingtimes.com.cn) My fault for the false translation, which I haven't yet corrected. (You'll note that it does appear Newspapers of the People's Republic of China.) L ^talk 18:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Arilang ^talk 19:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The webcast is notable because of the stature of the gala it's trying to imitate. The original CCTV New Year's Gala is watched by an estimated 700 million people every year. This is not just a major TV show: it's the only TV show available in China on New Year's Eve, and more than half of the population of China watches it. In proportion of the population, it's even bigger than the Superbowl, America's most watched TV program. There is nothing comparable in Europe and America. The webcast is generating a lot of interest because it's the first time someone puts together an alternative to the huge state-sponsored show. With this in mind and in the presence of four English-language references, I say keep without hesitation. Madalibi (talk) 01:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I think that this goes better under Shanzhai, but I do not mind it being its own article. I think that if it gets more press following its broadcast, then it would be better used as its own article. L ^talk 02:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable by the fact it is a parody of a very major tv program in china(CCTV New Year's Gala).Teeninvestor (talk) 13:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI would say the above statement would set very bad precedents, however that's different from delete. Usually, I'd go with the "should wait until event actually happens and then create an article" stance, but since Wikipedia has geographical bias, and I don't know the extent of it personally, I'm neutral on this. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Madman#Film adaptation. MBisanz ^talk 04:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Madman (film)

Film has not yet entered principal photography and therefore fails the notability guideline for future films. PC78 (talk) 14:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content to Madman#Film adaptation; looks like this project has been dragging its feet for some time now, so the section at the broader article seems most appropriate. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy back to author. Even the article itself says "Currently, the plot for the film is unknown"... so it screams WP:CRYSTAL. Let it return if/when it begins principal filming. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:CRYSTAL. Schuym1 (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No consensus to delete. The discussion WRT merging can continue on the article's talk page (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Machete (film)

Film has not yet entered principal photography and therefore fails the notability guideline for future films. PC78 (talk) 14:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content to Grindhouse (film)#Machete. This theatrical project strikes me as a pipe dream more than anything else, and it does not need any more than a passing mention at the relevant subsection under the "Faux trailers" section. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge because the production itself has received enough coverage to warrant an article. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge as coverage in WP:RS met requirements for WP:NFF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has generated enough attention due to Grindhouse that even if it fails to be made it's still notable that an attempt was made to turn one of the faux trailers into a movie. There's also the connections to Desperado and Spy Kids 3-D: Game Over. JJL (talk) 00:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Odyssey Con

Non-notable SF convention. No significant coverage in reliable sources, including blogs and internet. Bongo matic 14:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I have notified all of the editors who opined on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MatsuriCon of this nomination. Since there were no editors who though the article should be kept, I have not requested the opinions on anyone who has suggested keep on similar articles. I did point out in my notices on their talk page, however, that (unlike in the case of MatsuriCon), this AfD had an immediate keep suggestion added, and that the argument should be considered. Bongo matic 03:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about these "Odyssey+Con"&btnG=Search&um=1&ie=UTF-8 Google news results? - Mgm|^(talk) 15:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Delete this is a regular event, fringe topic, but keep as per NOTPAPER. Power.corrupts (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the significant coverage in relable sources that are independent of the subject? Bongo matic 22:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Where's the reliable third party sources of notability? If anyone add faithful stuff, I can change my vote, but now, I can choose deletion. Zero Kitsune (talk) 03:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm getting some interesting hits here. There appears to be some third-party coverage by at least two reliable sources. But I will state that WP:NOTPAPER is a bad reason to keep any article. --Farix (Talk) 03:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the Spanish language hits that are unrelated ("con" means "with"), they seem to be predominantly passing coverage in local news sources. I went through pages and pages of hits to see if there was anything that looked like significant coverage in reliable (non-local) sources independent of the subject and didn't find anything, but did not come up with anything. Happy to be proven wrong on this, but would like to see a specific reference cited rather than a search results page. Bongo matic 03:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG, unnotable small local event. NOTPAPER is not a valid keep reason at all. As Bongomatic notes, it needs significant coverage in reliable sources that are independant of the subject (which excludes local papers as well). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't remember why I created the page, so I don't have any sources to back up the article. However, given that it is a local event, there probably will only ever be local coverage of it. If such local coverage exists, it would be significant and reliable as any local paper. -Dr Haggis - Talk 21:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable, yes, but not notable. If the event isn't covered outside of its city/county, it isn't notable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my vote. Power.corrupts (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly where in WP:NOTE is local coverage excluded? --Farix (Talk) 00:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its the same as with a WP:BIO - local coverage of a person is not sufficient for establishing notability. They are, in essence, not "third-party" as they are local and discussing local things. Reliable sources for details, sure, but not for establishing notability. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then there is a conflict between the notability guidelines since WP:NOTE does not exclude local coverage. Anything that passes the criteria of WP:NOTE should pass any other notability guideline. Remember that these guidelines are not suppose to trump one another, but can be applied in an either/or manner with WP:NOTE covering the most basic criteria. --Farix (Talk) 03:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per obvious consensus, or merge if anyone feels inclined to do so. (NAC) --J.Mundo (talk) 04:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 7th Riots, Oakland, California

Delete. A minor four-hour riot with no fatalities and, to date, only three criminal charges--Detroit has riots bigger than that every October. Other than the minority shopkeepers terrorized by local anarchists (who are unmentioned in this NPOV-violative article, though they have received a great deal of press coverage), this will be forgotten in a month, and flunks WP:N. The two sentences in BART Police shooting of Oscar Grant are fully sufficient for the weight of the event. THF (talk) 14:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I'm not writing about riots in Detroit, though some of them may very well warrant expansive articles. If you are suggesting the riots were non notable, and do not merit any inclusion in BART Police shooting of Oscar Grant and do not merit their own article, I'd submit to you the riots were covered by the San Francisco Chronicle, The Associated Press, CNN, and The New York Times (see references in article) The international news media (Toronto Star and others) has covered the riots. This article does not make the riots notable, the news media coverage, 120 arrests, 300 affected businesses with broken windows and looted merchandise, burned cars, etc. does.Critical Chris (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#NEWS. While there is no WP:RIOT guideline, I think you prove my point with your defense of the event's notability. Compare: December 23 Riots, Kedougou, Senegal, January 9 Riots, London, England, January 9 Riots, Algiers, Algeria, January 9 Riots, El Arish, Egypt, all of which had similar or greater damage and international press coverage, and occurred in the last three weeks. The January 3 Riots, Idaho State Correctional Institution isn't even in the Idaho State Correctional Institution article. (Contrast the scale of an event that is notable: 2008 civil unrest in Greece.) THF (talk) 14:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I am not familiar with the facts of those other cases, and they may all be more notable than this incident, and worthy of an article, and other editors may pick up those topics and write about them in due time. I would offer support and take interest in your efforts to edit good articles about those topics. However my edits and interest concerns this article and subject here. I don't compare things in that way, and don't see the rationale in doing so. Is your nomination for deletion a "last resort" action as per Wikipedia's notability guidelines which state that "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort?"Critical Chris (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't unclear. It's not notable, and, since it's over, it's not getting any more notable over time. THF (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THF, I disagree, I believe, in time, these riots, and the events surrounding them, the way they were handled by police, and other factors, will be seen as a historically significant tipping point in stifling economic investment in Downtown Oakland, which, until recently, had seen a cyclical resurgence and influx of private investment capital. See: 10k_Plan, Uptown_Oakland, Encinal Tower, the Lakeside Skyscrapers in the planning pipeline, the Jack London District for context. It will certainly make property and casualty insurance experience modifications and premiums rise. Now I'm not inserting that myself as original research, but I will add sourced material on same from the news media. More will be written on the damage costs, and other sociological observations in the coming weeks. It's simply too early to write this incident off as not notable, IMHO.Critical Chris (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also point out that as late as 8 December, 2008, the main article on the shooting itself was under discussion for deletion here, with some editors raising the same NOT NEWS issue and others saying it's not notable enough.Critical Chris (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is the only issue here: this is a valid, well-sourced article otherwise. The standards of notability are unclear for civil disturbances, so the arguments about number of fatalities, etc., don't make sense to me. Because of that, and because deletion is the last resort, and because the aftermath of the Oscar Grant shooting is a still a developing event, it seems more prudent to retain this. --Lockley (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to BART Police shooting of Oscar Grant. Content fork if that article becomes to big. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep This article is becoming increasingly better sourced with articles from the mainstream national news media, and is notable enough for a heavyweight like the New York Times to cover. It's too early to conclude these riots were not notable, IMHO. At last count 4 days after the riots, there are no less than 48 media pieces written about it linked here at Vsmooth's "A Better Oakland" - http://www.abetteroakland.com/downtown-oakland-riot-link-round-up/2009-01-08 Critical Chris (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge applicable content to the BART Police shooting of Oscar Grant. Even if all content from the riot article were kept the total size of the merged article would be ~ 50KB. E_dog95'^{Hi '} 18:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge not a viable spinout candidate; NOTNEWS Sceptre ^(talk) 19:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Although I appreciate the author's work in making this detailed and sourced, rioting happens all over the world and it happens on a regular basis. There are times when a riot eclipses the events that triggered it, such as the Watts Riots, where 34 people died after a routine arrest. This is not one of those times. Mandsford (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to BART Police shooting of Oscar Grant#Public reaction. Insufficient notability for a break-out article. WWGB (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to be more inclusive to all the riots that are tied to this shooting. These riots have been extensively covered and have had devastating impact on dozens, perhaps hundreds of minority businesses in the downtown area who were completely uninvolved. Multiple riots have occurred on multiple days and the Bay Area has a history of peaceful protest marches being overcome by anarchist break-out groups. As has been reported here as well. As a result of these riots the Jerry Brown, Ca. Atty. General was brought in to the original case and brought added attention to the investigation of the shooting that started it all. -- Banjeboi 00:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the article on the BART shooting until and unless the riots demonstrate ongoing notability. Although they did get national coverage, they don't seem to have taken on, for example, the scope of the riots that occurred after the Rodney King verdicts, or certainly the Watts Riots. No prejudice against recreation/breakout if the riots take on sufficient notability. 23skidoo (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's as serious as the LA riots, and it's gonna get worse before it gets better. Maybe rename the article to something less specific (i.e. remove the date.) BoL (Talk) 02:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a definition of "as serious as" that I have not previously seen. 53 people died in the six-day 1992 Los Angeles Riots, with a billion dollars of damage. This was a bunch of anarcho-communist-wannabes smashing a few store windows in a few hours. THF (talk) 03:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 04:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nizzardo Italians

The whole article is a mere piece of nationalist propaganda, started by the indefinetely blocked User:Brunodam to promote his views on the topic of Italian irredentism. The article hasn't evolved much since, in fact it's been tagged for NPOV for the past six months. The current revision includes a section about linguistics in the Nice region (making it for this part a content fork of Niçard) and, as already stated, nationalistic rants (when Italian irredentism already tries to cover the same argument in a more serious manner) Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 14:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The term seems to be wholely made up. --neon white talk 18:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the term is not made up, at least not recently, Mussolini certainly seemed to be using it. While Italian irredentism does cover the Nizzardo, it is not in such great depth as irredentism is much broader than Nice. NPOV issues should be dealt with by editing, not by deleting the whole article. SpinningSpark 00:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Nizzardo" is just an adjective for Nice in Italian, in the book you cited the term is not used in the same way it's used in the wikipedia article I listed for deletion.--Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 11:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is necessary to give an account of Italian irredentist claims to Nice in the past centuries, which are part of history. But it should be modified, on these accounts: 1. The whole of present-day France and Italy was inhabited by people who spoke local languages, mostly Romance. In trade and administration, most of those used other Romance languages: French, Occitan, Catalan, Italian and Neapolitan -- and even Latin, in the early 2nd millennium. Nice was no exception. People in Nice spoke Niçart, a language closely related both to Occitan and Northern Italian local languages. The official language switched from Latin to Italian and French, the last two languages alternating in time. 2. A referendum was held in 1861 and more than 99% of the votes favored annexation to France. Garibaldi, a prominent Niçart, was disappointed. But with due respect, his position was always a minority one. 3. No doubt the centralist government of France repressed the local language and those in Nice who favored joining Italy (any state discourages separatism). But the language is now officialy protected, at least to some extent, and Nice's inhabitants are not currently displaying any propensity to become Italian. Even if it is difficult to point out exactly where it happens, on the whole the current article seem to incline towards considering the people of Nice as Italians -- which they are not, by their own choice.
Keep Well done and well documented article. I agree with Spinningspark.--DuilioM (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I regrettably have to take issue with the idea that this is a "well done and well documented article". It is entirely lacking in sources, and my attempts to find suitable reliable sources have turned up nothing at all, I'm afraid. It's pure OR, and as such it has to go. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ethnic groups are inherently worthy of inclusion where possible (which includes here). Claims of things like OR appear baseless. Wily D 21:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wily, if "claims of things like OR appear baseless", would you be kind enough to point out the reliable sources you are referring to? Many thanks. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 07:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The New York Times of March 29,1881 -for example- is a reliable source. It is not italian or french (and nobody can blame it to be irredentist). Please read [30]. It clearly states that "The Nizzards were quite as much Italians as the Genoese and their dialect was, if anything, nearer the Tuscan than is the harsh dialect of Genoa".--DuilioM (talk) 15:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The local language, traditionally spoken by most people in Nice until it was replaced by French in the 19th century, is known as Niçard, and it is generally considered a distinct subdialect of the Occitan language, not Italian. There was an interesting discussion about this at Talk:Niçard in the summer (bear in mind as you read that Merighi was one of the abundant socks created by the now-banned Brunodam, the creator of Nizzardo Italians). Now, what we are faced with here is two Wikipedia articles, Niçard and Nizzardo Italians, on essentially the same topic, either or both of which might or might not be inherently POV in their intent and content. We can only, as editors trying to compile a decent encyclopedia, look to the balance of scholarly opinion out there. This is, and has always been, that Niçard is not a dialect of Italian. I am firmly of the view that the article titled Nizzardo Italians is a content fork of Niçard created to espouse a particular POV, namely that "Nizzardo" is a subdialect of Italian, and that the local people are rightfully considered Italians. Well, if that were really the case I somehow doubt that in the 1860 referendum 27,003 people would vote to join France and just 345 to join Italy. So, to sum up, I reiterate my earlier view that this article should be deleted. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 27,003 people would vote to join France. 345 to join Italy: the Nizzardo Italians: they existed, like Giuseppe Garibaldi!--MacLot (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's some impressive detail for someone who joined Wikipedia a month ago, made four edits in mainspace of which none related to the subject. I wish all new users were like you.--Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question is very simple, dear "Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso": the name of my family is Pastorelli, and my roots are in Nice. PS If "the details" are the numbers 27,003 and 345, please, see above my keep...--MacLot (talk) 08:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes during the twenty years of the fascist regime the case of Nizzardo Italians was used against France but Nizzardo italians were an part of the society so an article about them in wikipedia has to exist.User:Lucifero4

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SS John Stagg

No offense to people (or relatives of people) who may have served on this ship, but I can find nothing notable (in a Wikipedia sense) about this ship. It was one of some 2500 liberty ships built in WWII, but was neither attacked nor sunk. It participated in several convoys but none of which came under attack. News archive searches find the following:

6 mentions (1946–48) in The New York Times reporting only the ship's arrival or departure in New York (under the name John Stagg).
1 mention (1954) in The New York Times when it was one of 15 ships under consideration for transfer to a foreign flag (under the later name of "Takoil")
No mentions under the other two names, National Servant or Yianna.
One passing mention in the John Gorley Bunker book "Liberty Ships" (OCLC 164624038) reporting it as one of 6 liberty ships operated by the Mar-Trade Corporation — Bellhalla (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Users might want to read the creator's edit summary and ~~WP:NOTMEMORIAL~~. Ryan4314 (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Sure, the article was created in honour of the creator's grandfather who served on her. That does not mean that the article violates WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Yes, it needs work, but there are plenty of WP:RS out there that can be used to improve it, such as Miramar Ship Index and Lloyd's Register. Improve the article instead of deleting it - see SS Timothy Bloodworth. WP:SHIPS informed. Mjroots (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the article creator, I feel I should explain my comment. My grandfather's service on these ships led me to do the research on them. I posted what I found in hopes that it would be helpful to others. The only memorial I intended to leave was in my edit comment; for the article to be a memorial of my grandfather, I would think it would need to mention him, right? I'm not a ship enthusiast, so I'll certainly bow (pun intended) to the judgment of those who are. But I hope you'll decide to improve it, and I hope someone with an interesting story about it comes out of the woodwork. Tad (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Reply for Mjroots) I believe the article was nominated over concerns on being non-notable. Notability cannot be "improved", instead you have to find proof of it. I haven't voted in this discussion, but the reason I pointed out the creator's edit summary was to perhaps shed some light on why a non-notable ship article was created. Although in hindsight I agree that this article is not attempting to be a memorial, and have struck out the claim. Ryan4314 (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. The questions raised about the notability of this ship are significant, however, this was a ship that sailed under the charge of ~~the US Navy~~, not a barge on the Mississippi. Overall, ships seem to me to be like bridges (which I am interested in). People with an interest in a particular subject consider the mere existence to confer notability. WP:WikiProject Ships needs to begin this discussion. Sometimes it's easier to think in terms of what ships are not notable and start from there. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 22:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification: There is no evidence to support the contention that this ship was ever under the control of the U.S. Navy. During World War II it was owned by and under the control of the War Shipping Administration, a wartime civilian agency that handled all U.S. merchant shipping during the war. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - As the WSA administrator was an appointment of the president, the ship sailed under the command of the President of the United States, exercising his duties of Commander in Chief as authorized by the Constitution and the war powers act. Same level of notability to me. This was no banana boat, but an element of the US war effort. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 02:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (with regret) I note the Hull number 1737. Does WP need perhpas 2000 articles on individual liberty ships, let alone on every cargo ship. On the other hand it might be possible to merge some of the content to Liberty ships, by way of example. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has about 2.7 million articles. Even if a article was created for each individual liberty ship, another 2,000 won't make much difference. Mjroots (talk) 06:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing notable found and nothing notable portending. Compare to SS Jeremiah O'Brien for WP:notability.-- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All ships are notable. (as distinct from boats, barges, ferrys, etc.) There has always been enough material, and there is here also. given the fate of this one, all the more so. DGG (talk) 01:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For the benefit of those following this debate, DGG, can you point out where the claim that "all ships are notable" is stated? I'm not familiar with such a guideline. — Bellhalla (talk) 04:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

empiric observation of the fact that articles on them are essentially never deleted, though sometimes challenged. That's one of the ways in which policy is made. If you prefer, it can be worded "In practice in WP, all ships are considered notable, as they should be." And I gave the reason why I think it's a rational practical policy--that information can always be found--as is the case with this article. DGG (talk) 05:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining further. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —J.Mundo (talk) 04:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The ship was rebuilt twice, each time gaining more tonnage, and lengthened once. I believe that the rewritten article demonstrates the ship has sufficient notablility for Wikipedia. Mjroots (talk) 06:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the good work, mjroots, but I'm still not seeing any notablity in the improved article. Can you elaborate on what made this ship notable? — Bellhalla (talk) 13:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notability:- Most ships are not substantially rebuilt in their lives, some get re-engined, a few are rebuilt. Very few are rebuilt twice! I'd say this makes John Stagg notable enough. Mjroots (talk) 13:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not sure I buy your contention. Can you provide reliable sources that indicate the uniqueness of a ship being rebuilt twice? — Bellhalla (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I didn't say it was unique. However, it is quite rare. Compare with listed buildings in the UK, only 1.4% make it to Grade I status. I'd say that a ship being rebuilt twice is probably rarer than that. Mjroots (talk) 17:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Forgive my improper choice of uniqueness, then. Since your assertion is that two rebuildings of a ship is of sufficient rarity that, hence, makes this ship notable, can you provide a reliable source that indicates the frequency or rarity of such an event? — Bellhalla (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I can't provide a reliable source for that. However, a search of the thousands of ship articles on Wikipedia will show that a ship being rebuilt twice is quite rare. It's not like every third or fourth ship got rebuilt twice, is it? Mjroots (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could you please explain why you think this? Nick-D (talk) 07:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well documented warship. Played a significant part in naval history. If people decide later to merge it to an appropriate list of ships, that would be okay with me, but including historical information on a naval warship seems like a good idea. How many sailors served on it? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for elaborating. I would like to point out that this and the majority of all liberty ships were civilian cargo ships and not warships. But to answer your question, a typical liberty had a crew of about 40 with a Naval Armed Guard (gunners) of usually 15–20. (Compare to a typical destroyer, a small warship with a complement of over 300) — Bellhalla (talk) 13:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct that it was not a Warship. It was not built to make war. However, I agree with the intent of ChildofMidnight's comment. That is, this ship was a ship of war. It was built and operated by the US as part of their war effort. The same person that commanded the US military might commanded this ship. It can be called civilian because it wasn't military. I would emphasize that it was a government ship, not a private ship for hire. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 02:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no guideline or convention which states that civilian ships are automatically notable; they need to meet WP:N. I don't think that the available references are sufficent to meet this requirement as none of them appear to be specifically about this ship - it only appears as an unremarked entry in lists of ships taking part in convoys and as a brief entry in massive databases of ships - I don't think that this constitutes "significant coverage". Nick-D (talk) 07:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ignoring Wiki-policies and guidelines and just looking at the article as a worthwhile addition to the encyclopaedia I say the answer is yes. Okay, the ship was no more notable than all the others, but a well cited article describing the life of one of these ships, just as a random sample is surely a good thing. MortimerCat (talk) 07:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are other articles which cover "typical' liberty ships:
  - SS Jeremiah O'Brien, had a very ordinary career, but is notable as one of only two operational liberty ships
  - SS George Washington Carver, ordinary merchant career, but notable, in part, for her construction largely by African-American shipyard workers and documented in a series of photographs
  - SS Andrew Furuseth, again, an ordinary career. This one, however, is notable for its role in the Philadelphia Experiment hoax.
- These are apart from many other liberty ships with articles that were taken into the U.S. Navy, or bombed, or torpedoed, or blew up, etc. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The nominator themself mentions multiple mentions in reliable sources (NYT), which is a sufficient condition of itself.

As to the creator's "tribute" comment, then that's more to do with their effort in setting it up as being a tribute, not that the article itself has no existence beyond a tribute.

Do we need an article on every Liberty ship? - maybe not. But we certainly do need some articles on them as examples, and this seems like a good one. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While the The New York Times is indeed a reliable source, the mentions of this ship are trivial — as part of a regular feature that listed the arrivals and departures of all ships into New York area ports, and one article that mentions the ship in passing. These all fail the first criterion of WP:N in that they do not provide "significant coverage". The one book reference suffers the same shortcoming. (I know I'm not notable, but I'm pretty sure one could find at least six trivial mentions of me in my local newspaper.) — Bellhalla (talk) 12:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:Notability (vehicles), this article meets the criteria of "vehicles that are generally treated by secondary sources as distinct entities are generally notable in and of themselves. (Examples: Large ships such as the RMS Queen Mary II)" Scapler (talk) 12:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That ~~guideline~~ essay is instructive, Scalper. Thanks for pointing it out. One point, though, the ~~guideline~~ essay says "large ships". I will point out that the tonnage, one indicator of size in ships, of RMS Queen Mary II is some 20 times larger than that of John Stagg. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I also note that just above that point, the same essay states "Almost all individual vehicles are not notable …" (empahsis as in original). — Bellhalla (talk) 15:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while the current refs are meagre, there are at least two books which cover the history of every single Liberty ship ever built - they are The Liberty Ships: The History of the 'Emergency' Type Cargo Ships Constructed in the United States During World War II by Leonard Sawyer and William Mitchell (1970), ISBN 9780715349076, and The Liberty Ships from A (A.B. Hammond) to Z (Zona Gale) by Walter W. Jaffee (2004), 978-1889901251. On that basis I would say Liberty ships are inherently notable. Gatoclass (talk) 13:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not have access to either book so I could be wrong about this, but if you take the Jaffe book, presumably the more comprehensive book, it is 722 pages (per Worldcat.org). Even if we ignore the table of contents, index, and illustrations, that equals on average a fraction more that ¼-page for each ship (722 pages ÷ 2,751 liberty ships). Without seeing the book, it's hard to know, but that would not seem to be any more comprehensive than, say, the LIBERTY SHIPS - Joaquin - Johns source in the article currently. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon summarizes the book as follows: The result of over five years of exhaustive research into government records, published works, professional contacts, libraries and the internet, this encyclopedia contains everything known about Liberty ships -- every single one of the 2,710 ship built during World War II: who each was named for, where built, when launched, when delivered, type of ship, engine manufacturer, ship operator, wartime history, postwar service, every name they were subsequently known under, what ultimately happened to them -- all cross-referenced and indexed so readers can find any ship they're looking for. This is truly "the last word" on Liberty ships, and the most complete, including diagrams, specifications, special chapters on the last two Liberty ships still active, and over 400 photos, on high quality stock. It is a reader-friendly book, avoiding codes and setting forth the information in clear language.

Sounds pretty good to me! I might buy it myself it is wasn't so expensive :) Gatoclass (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-- Research for historical topics can't be done only with a Google Search. This kind of research is tedious, but sources are available. --J.Mundo (talk) 15:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: No one said that this was "only a Google search". I've consulted many of the sources that I use in writing ship articles. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Note that we have an entire category devoted to Liberty ships. And before you go quoting the contested essay about "other stuff exists", the existence of an entire category devoted to naval ships constructed by a government during a major war counts as a strong precedent, and proof of editor interest. Most importantly, deleting individual entries on the grounds that a nominator finds an article about any one ship less interesting than he thinks it ought to be is both subjective and random, and creates inexplicable gaps. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: As nominator I didn't say it was boring, uninteresting, or unexciting. What I questioned was the notability of this ship. Yes, there is a category for liberty ships, as there are quite a few that are indeed notable either as commissioned naval vessels (which this one wasn't); being attacked (of which there is no evidence; for example, no mention in Browning's definitive U.S. Merchant Vessel War Casualties of World War II); or being sunk or a wreck (which obviously doesn't apply here). All we have are sources that confirm the existence of this ship and its specifications and characteristics and name changes and changes of registry. It was neither the first nor the last liberty ship built. It was neither the quickest nor the slowest built liberty ship. It was neither the longest- or shortest-lived liberty ship. It was not the first tanker-style liberty ship nor was it the last. From my searches of the ProQuest newspaper archives between 1942 and 1970, I can find nothing but the trivial mentions noted above. It all seems to boil down to this question: Is a liberty ship inherently notable because it existed or must it otherwise meet notability requirements? — Bellhalla (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - What you're suggesting here seems to me to involve some kind of reorganization of the way we deal with all of these ships. Most of these articles seem to have enough information to support a separate article about each, and this one seems to have such as well, including US government images. I have no opinion on whether some ship articles should be merged, and if so how: saving only that all the data we already have should be preserved. Your argument apparently boils down to a claim that this ship is just average, not exceptional enough to be an article subject. And nominating individual ship articles as an attempt to force a major reorganization of the existing Liberty Ship material is not helping. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not suggesting any sort of reorganization at all, nor am I intending on being WP:POINT-y (and my apologies if it comes across that way). I'm not one to nominate articles for deletion willy-nilly, and I would not call myself a deletionist by any stretch. There are two extremes to notability
      - One extreme says any ship (whatever may be the definition of ship) is notable (as is expressed above in this discussion).
      - The other extreme, is like the case of the B-29 Superfortress. I can only find one named vessel, Enola Gay, included in Wikipedia, though I'm sure quite a few were named. (Even though the comparison of airplanes to ships is a stretch, there were comparable numbers of each produced.)
    - An AFD discussion, like case law, helps to establish a precedent. By discussing the appropriateness of an article on a ship that, in my opinion, fails to otherwise meet notability guidelines, we help to establish where between the two extremes the median is located. If the decision is keep, that, to me, will speak to the inherent notability of all liberty ships (which is the only point intended from my previous reply to you). — Bellhalla (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - We have been through this recently within the last month; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SS Timothy Bloodworth (2nd nomination). It strikes me that Liberty ships are particularly at risk of this particular controversy, since by definition they represent one of a large number of very similar, mass produced ships. To me, that counts as a precedent that Liberty ships don't have to have done anything particularly memorable to merit an article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        As hard as you might find it to believe, I was one who worked on 'saving' SS Timothy Bloodworth. In that case there were multiple sources that noted that Timothy Bloodworth was the first ship to be hit by a German V-2 rocket, which, in my view, established a higher level of notability than has been done for this article. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are enough sources available to write an informative article and there are interesting pictures. Jehochman ^Talk 17:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The quantity and quality of sources for this ship, however, are not the reasons mentioned in the nomination. What is in question is what makes this ship sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia? — Bellhalla (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: If the decision is to keep this article, then the precedent is set as mentioned above for all Liberty ships to be added to Wikipedia, should someone so desire. If suitable information and external sources could be found -- aside from database-type entries -- then the ship's notability could be supported. But if the SS John Stagg is mentioned relatively as often as many other Liberty ships, either they are all notable for the mere presence in a listing of all such ships, or they are not. What's the appropriate criteria here? -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Support "there are interesting pictures" as a reason to keep. The Liberty ships as a whole are notable, and an individual ship for which meticulous individualized documentation can be found should be a worthwhile article. This article does not overstate or embellish the importance of this particular ship; it just tells it like it is. If the worst consequence of this decision is that we wind up with 2,751 articles on Liberty ships, that might be OK. (Very unlikely that even a fraction of that will be realized, since it is so much work to create a ship article as good as this one). EdJohnston (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - amount of information available on the subject betrays its notability (roughly, per WP:N) Valid encyclopaedic topic, with notability demonstrated. How much more do you need? Wily D 21:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject of inherent notability of ships is under discussion here. These proposed guidelines are open to further discussion and revision to enable a consensus to be obtained re the inherent notability of ships. Mjroots (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mjroots' link is to the draft version of ship notability guidelines. The link to the discussion is here. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article provides reliable and verifiable sources to establish the notability of the ship. A thorough, well-researched article. Alansohn (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Good article, good sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 00:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Elena Lagomasino

Delete. A vanity page, written as a resume, no attempt at establishing notability, references, or wikifying. MrShamrock (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I hate to rain on your parade; I'd rather join it. However, the woman is notable enough, as evidenced by this search on Google News. Also, apparently she was the 2007 Hispanic Businesswoman of the Year, and that's not nothing. This awful piece will have to be rewritten, unfortunately, rather than deleted. I wish the burden for that kind of work was indeed on the creator of an article. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Sources in Google news and the award by Hispanic Business Magazine have established notability of this individual, meets WP:BIO.--J.Mundo (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lagomasino clearly has, I think, enough notability for an article. Plus, the article has been improved substantially since it was nominated.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect. Docu (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lago Forst Sfazu

Unreferenced article, couldn't find it on maps. Docu (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy delete CSD G7, author request, i understand there is no sources. Its not a official name either. The Rolling Camel (talk) 13:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If it exists, I'd keep it. Can you provide coordinates? Are there other names for it? -- User:Docu
  - Its called Lago di Saoseo. Coordinates: 46´23.52.82 N and 10.07.35.61 O. The Rolling Camel (talk) 14:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lago di Saoseo that is the same lake and then redirect it. Speedy Close The Rolling Camel (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 00:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moorov v HMA

Unable to find more than passing references in mainstream media. Don't think Wikipedia is the place for every non-notable legal doctrine. Bongo matic 13:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The doctrine certainly is notable with it being mentioned in being featured in a bbc story in which a quadruple rapist was set free beacause of it [31], discussed in the Parliament of Scotland with regard to the rape [32], and being featured as an article in The Law Society of Scotland's Journal [33]. If need be the page could be renamed to the Moorov Doctrine, but I feel that it is fine as it is now. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but needs considerable more background and explanation. DGG (talk) 04:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No Wikipedia policy requires mainstream references, AFAIK. In case people think the case is unreferenced, the first sentence provides two references for it (Justiciary Cases and Scots Law Times; note that not all cases are reported in either of these, they are reserved for "the most significant decisions"[34]). JulesH (talk) 08:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't know Scottish law, but if the statement The case established a precedent named the Moorov doctrine in the article is true, the article should be kept. Any case that establishes a precedent significant enough to be called a "doctrine" is sufficiently notable to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. That article doesn't necessarily need to be exclusively about, or entitled with the name of, the case. For example, there could be (but there is not, at the tiem I write this) an article on the Moorov doctrine. If such an article existed, and the Moorov v HMA was in as sad shape as this article is, I would support a merge. But not a deletion. TJRC (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to History of the Daleks. — Aitias // discussion 21:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kaled

Non-notable Doctor Who alien. All relevant information in this article is already found at History of the Daleks and Genesis of the Daleks. A Google search for "Kaled 'Doctor Who'" returns only 56,700 results, most of which seems to be DW fan sites and plot summaries of Genesis of the Daleks; searches using Google News and Google Scholar return virtually nothing that have anything to do with the article's subject. A search with Google Books only returns Doctor Who episode guides. As such, no reliable sources have been found that can establish notability. Unscented (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into History of the Daleks Sceptre ^(talk) 13:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into History of the Daleks, and leave Kaled as a redirect (see [35]). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per above. Explaining Kaleds is crucial to the history of the Daleks so at the very least a redirect should remain. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: The second I saw the name I thought "merge". Ryan4314 (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I weighted the various comments, and in the final examination, it seemed both sides set forth equally strong arguments. As such, it was impossible to determine consensus. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exopolitics

AfDs for this article:

This article was AFD'd and deleted seven months ago, and salted. So far, I see no evidence that the prominence, or notability, of this fringe concept has progressed significantly to warrant an article. And on a process point of view: as this article was a protected redirect to Black Holes and Revelations (which contains a song called "Exo-Politics"), the method of recreation (asking for unprotection on ANI) is against our current process for undeleting salted articles (that is, sandboxing in userspace, and presenting at DRV). Sceptre ^(talk) 13:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. The article was only just started a day ago; immediately nominating it for deletion seems inappropriate. Besides it already seems notable and has a few sources, so why not give it a chance? Artichoker^[talk] 14:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Some reliable sources, all found via Google Scholar: [36][37][38][39][40][41][42]. Artichoker^[talk] 14:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't inappopriate when the recreation was out of process. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems appropriately verifiable, reliably sourced, and neutral for now, though it will require continued attention as it was a crank magnet in the past. And the redirect was labeled {{R with possibilities}}; it seems a little strange to view unprotecting that as out-of-process, though going through DRV would have been better. I suppose it would still be possible to review the draft in DRV, but we seem to be doing it here instead, so I don't see any point in shifting to a different forum; in that sense, unlike Artichoker, I don't view the new AfD as premature. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is essentially original research. Do not be fooled by the supposed sourcing. Many of the statements are synthesized out of whole-cloth to try to create some idea that there is a coordinated concerted "exopolitical effort" underway. There isn't. Note the over-the-top language and the bizarre use of the term light year. Not only is it original research, it's also a soapbox for the kind of intellectually backwater rhetoric employed by the woo-woos in these groups. Let them actually get some recognition beyond News-of-the-Weird spots and their own orchestrated "press conferences" and we'll create an article on the subject. See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astrosociobiology. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete again. Still not a subject covered by anything I would call reliable sources. It reads as an apologia mixed with novel synthesis. There does not seem to have been any significant change in the status of this subject since it was deleted entirely within process previously. Come back when the official response to those who propose an official system for handling extraterrestrial contacts is something other than to laugh and point. In any case, the article is basically a coatrack on which the nutjobs at the Exopolitics Institute can hang promotion of their little organisation. Guy (Help!) 17:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Imo Accounting4Taste said it best in a previous AfD: "There is a place in Wikipedia for the annotation of the existence of such beliefs, but that's a far cry from (a) explaining them in great detail, which leads to (b) their being lent a scrap of credence by being so annotated in an encyclopedia. I think WP:FRINGE comes into play here. The more that a theory is -- let's call it "difficult to accept" -- the greater amount of proof and verifiability by being considered notable by reliable sources ought to be present. The germ of information that defines the word "exopolitics" has been completely obscured here by WP:FRINGE". Springnuts (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here's just one example of substantial coverage, an article on the subject in the Toronto Star [43] and here are the google news hits just for the last month [44]. The term is well established and the subject has received substantial coverage. What's the big deal? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of reliable sources and previous AfD. Verbal chat 17:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At first glance it seems well-sourced, but if you actually look at the sources you'll find that they're either self-published "policy papers" or news articles that tangentially mention the phrase "exopolitics". Skinwalker (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again and salt. "Exopolitics" is a buzzword coined by a small subset of the UFO-conspiracy community. As a buzzword, it is not notable. The overall concept of belief, by UFO conspiracists, that 20th century history has been orchestrated by secret alien-human pacts, may well be notable, but it's already covered in UFO conspiracy theory, UFO religion, etc. (One of the allegedly reliable sources cited, a self-published article by a guy with a PhD, says "the concept of exopolitics has been implicit in terms such as the 'Flying Saucer Conspiracy', 'UFO Cover Up', 'Cosmic Watergate', etc. that have been a standard part of UFO literature for over 5 decades.") As such the article on exopolitics is basically a POV fork. Oh yeah, and all this was explained in the last three AFDs, so can we stop this already? <eleland/talkedits> 18:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh and also, people please stop claiming that because you found documents containing "exopolitics" in a Google Search, all of a sudden WP:RS requirements are met. You've found extensive coverage in a small set of UFO buff websites, and extremely trivial coverage in reliable sources - such as an article about Eisenhower making a trip to the dentist, which is claimed by UFO nuts to be a cover for his trip to an alien spacecraft (did they fix his teeth?) That's not good enough, thanks. <eleland/talkedits> 18:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I see sources already listed, and the potential for more. Being a magnet for cranks is not a reason for deletion. Creation might have been a little out of process given prior AFD's, but, assuming good faith, i have no real problem with that. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Userfy~~, source it impeccably, and take it to deletion review. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. My experience with DRV on recreation of contentious material (e.g. Encyclopedia Dramatica) is that once the DRV allows the article to be created we then go through an AfD anyway. Since we already have a re-created article and an AfD, why not express an opinion now on whether you think it's appropriate rather than requesting greater amounts of bureaucracy? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~Keep~~ Good point, DE. I was waffling as to whether the references represented sufficient outside coverage for us to be able to write an article, but on balance I would say that they do. - Eldereft (cont.) 09:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Delete Actually, the more I look at this, the less there seems to be. It looks like there is a scant modicum of coverage, but there is really nothing to it. - Eldereft (cont.) 14:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We haven't made contact, therefore this field of study doesn't exist or meet notability. This is more a page about a conspiracy theory then a page about an academic field. Pstanton 21:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)
- Comment. I agree that this is bogus fringe speculation, and I think that shouldn't be obscured or glossed over in any article we have about it. But you haven't addressed the question of whether this is or isn't notable bogus fringe speculation. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I mostly agree with the delete opinions above that the term is merely a buzzword used to describe things we already have articles on (though one that is gaining wider use, it appears) and that a full article on the subject is not necessary, I believe that changing the page into a disambiguation including a single line on the current subject and a link to Black Holes and Revelations (and possibly others) is the best solution. If nothing else, the restoration of the redirect to Black Holes and Revelations is preferable to deletion. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 23:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It looks like it might be notable, and it's at least well-referenced. If it's been created recently, give it time to mature before applying the axe. Xihr 00:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:RS. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think by now there's enough of a demonstration that its a matter of notable discussion--if not exactly practical application. The article needs expansion, and a clearer separation between speculative law, science fiction, and ufology. DGG (talk) 04:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The idea seems to have attracted mainstream attention, and while the name exopolitics is not universally used to describe this idea, it seems as good a name for it as any, and does have mainstream use so the arguments at WP:NEO don't apply. JulesH (talk) 09:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: lacking reliable sourcing as to the existence of the topic's subject matter ("political relations between humans and extraterrestrial civilizations"), the bar for establishing the notability of the study of this apparently non-existent subject-matter is raised considerably (not exactly like, but by no means completely unlike, a WP:HOAX as a topic), and I do not think that the marginal sourcing passes this. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep neutral article, well sourced, no good reason to delete. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable as well documented by reliable sources. Some detractors appear to argue the positiom that the exponents of the exopolitics field have a clearly pseudoscientific slant in their rhetoric. That and the fact that the field is being driven by individuals with a decided penchant (and savvy) for self-initiated PR events, nevertheless, does not undermine the fact that the field is being discussed in a sufficient number of reliable sources to ensure compliance with our inclusion guidelines. If it can be argued that a reliable source is being gullible for being guiled into covering a subject, that still does not present an argument congruent with the coverage not being applicable. __meco (talk) 11:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of reliable, independent sources that establish notability (a mention here or there in "on the lighter side" pages just dosn't cut it). Seems to be a lot of synth and or, about something that appears to have never happened.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many sources are collated on the article's talk page and have yet to be incorporated into the article. I think it quite unfortunate that no ample time is given to implement this work. __meco (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noted the new article and AfD on the Paranormal project discussion page. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a notable topic, even if still speculative. Deleting the article will not make it go away. (BTW I was almost kicked off of WP for AfDing Xenu. :-) ) Steve Dufour (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a matter of making it go away, the fact is it is not actually here to go away. Exopolitics is a minor fictional meme in the outer spiral crank of the ufology community. But "The retired elementary school principal spends his time lobbying reporters to blow a massive government cover-up wide open and reveal that extra-terrestrials have been visiting our planet for years" is, without doubt, one of the biggest belly laughs I have seen on a serious news site in recent times :-) Guy (Help!) 23:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology has over 400 WP articles. Exopolitics could probably have one. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 05:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Bloomberg, the Toronto Star, and the Washington Post are all reliable sources which cover the topic. Scapler (talk) 21:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, they don't cover "exopolitics", they cover (briefly) the UFO conspiracy theory of the people associated with that label. Do we now need an article on every individual variant of that conspiracy theory? See also my comment below. Sandstein 21:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP! This is very notable. Powerzilla (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to UFO conspiracy theory, which seems to be our umbrella article about this kind of idea. "Exopolitics" appears to be the label given to a variant of this theory by a few vocal advocates, and their advocacy has duly been reported by a few media, but it does not appear that their actual ideas are very distinct from the standard "the ETs have already made contact and the government doesn't want us to know" story as covered in the proposed target article. As for exopolitics as a putative branch of political science (as opposed to conspiracy theory), there seems to be no substantial and reliable (let alone academic) coverage for this. Sandstein 20:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not really; the term is also used by those who consider this kind of matter as a theoretical exercise without asserting any conspiracy really exists. See the second source in the article. It's an umbrella term that can be used by both those who think extraterrestrial contact has already happened, and those who consider that it might happen one day in the future. The conspiracy theorists may be dominating the media usage of the term, but that's not all this is about. JulesH (talk) 17:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although a mention in a UFO article might be suitable. Let's look at the sources. The Bloomberg story sounds like a good source until you realise that there is no suggestion that the word 'Expolitics' was used at the alleged after dinner meeting, and thus the source doesn't support an article trying to suggest that there is a field called Expolitics. Then we have 'Media for Freedom' which Google's Chrome didn't want to visit. What's that? It's an Exopolitics site that says "You are invited to send your article, Press Release, or news.", and the referenced article is by the site owner. It is one of two references used to back up the statement in the lead " Exopolitics has also been used by futurists and science fiction fans to explore the possibilities and considerations that would arise if political relations with alien visitors were undertaken and how the interaction would influence the handling of issues such as global warming and morality." But there is nothing in it that mentions the user of the term in that way. The other reference to this claim is an article by an Expolitics official, but again, there is nothing in the article that backs up the statement. The last sentence in this short article says "Alien contact and the politics involved have been a feature of popular culture including films such as Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Mars Attacks, Starship Troopers and E.T." But none of those used the term Expolitics, so what is the sentence doing there? Most fiction about alien contact mentions governments and thus politics, this doesn't give credence to the term Expolitics, which is what this article is about. The more I look at the term, the less convincing the sources are. dougweller (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I had it to do over again I would include pull quotes in the citations. For instance the Bloomberg story is mostly general coverage of UFO related discussion at Davos, but is cited because near the end of the article it says, "This April, the 57-year-old activist and 2002 independent congressional candidate from Maryland will host the First Annual Exopolitics Expo. All the Democratic presidential hopefuls have been invited to assemble in a Washington hotel ballroom to spell out their positions on UFOs. 'Voters are increasingly willing to confront candidates on the UFO issue,' Bassett says. 'There is an alien presence in our air space and the government has access to their technology.' He should know. In 1996, Bassett registered with the U.S. Congress as a lobbyist for 'extraterrestrial affairs.' Still, ET's man on Capitol Hill remains somewhat skeptical about little green men on Wall Street. 'I'm only 30 percent confident that aliens have contractual relationships with major corporations,' Bassett says."

The citation verifies the content in one sentence of the article. Other stories, such as the Toronto Star story cover exopolitics more substantively and go further in demonstrating the term's notability. The article headlines are mostly not helpful, as they are pretty off the wall. As has been mentioned there are more sources on the talk page. I haven't added the one covering exopolitics and Barack Obama's victory announcement. It discussed the belief that having lights in orb shapes is a very good sign of positive relations and acceptance of extra-terrestrial contact. However strange or ridiculous, the term and the movement have been covered substantially and meet the inclusion guidelines. I actually think an encyclopedic discussion of how the movement's members address broad and philosophic questions like "how to negotiate with an orb of light" (as one author titled their book on exopolitics) is amusing, interesting and potentially worthwhile. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--Subject notability is established by coverage from reliable media, Google News search. --J.Mundo (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Oh and also, people please stop claiming that because you found documents containing "exopolitics" in a Google Search, all of a sudden WP:RS requirements are met. You've found extensive coverage in a small set of UFO buff websites, and extremely trivial coverage in reliable sources - such as an article about Eisenhower making a trip to the dentist, which is claimed by UFO nuts to be a cover for his trip to an alien spacecraft (did they fix his teeth?) That's not good enough, thanks. <eleland/talkedits> 18:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)" <eleland/talkedits> 20:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PR Newswire, Washington Post, The America's Intelligence Wire, Canada Free Press, Vermont Guardian, Cape Cod Times, etc are not "UFO buff websites". Another search in Google Books shows extensive coverage of the subject by well established publishers, including one where the topic is Christianity 1. It's not that difficult to establish the notability of the subject. Finally, please refrain from labeling a group of people as "nuts", we are not here to judge or label anyone but to decide if the topic meets our criteria for inclusion. WP:ITSCRUFT is not a valid reason for deletion. --J.Mundo (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe PR Newswire and The America's Intelligence Wire are press release collators that don't count as reliable sources. The others are ok, but some (Wash post) are more ok than others (small local papers). And of course, it depends a lot on how nontrivial the coverage in those sources is. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per CSD:G3 (vandalism by creating a deliberate hoax). Stifle (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany cheng

Article about a Chinese pop-star that makes claims of notability but provides no reliable sources to support. Also, some areas, like the entire lead section, are textbook examples of Cruft. Delete unless reliable sources can be found and the offending sections removed. TheLetterM (talk) 13:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete WP:HOAX. A copy of the Lee Hyori article with some names switched around. cab (talk) 14:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong or even speedy delete. Blatant copying of Lee Hyori as indicated by CaliforniaAliBaba. The article was recreated hours after being speedy deleted. ^LeaveSleaves 18:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christ Carrying the Cross (Leonardo da Vinci)

One-sentence stub on a non-notable painting. Only one scholar, Carlo Pedretti, thinks it's by Leonardo da Vinci, and he tends to discover new "Leonardos" with surprising frequency. If anyone wishes to add more info on the painting they can do so on List of paintings by Leonardo da Vinci, where it's listed with other recent attributions. But there's not enough to say to merit a whole article. Ham 12:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have other people determine if the person doing the attributing is notable, but if he is the attribution should be mention in the other article as mentioned by the nominator. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It isn't a painting it's actually a small pencil sketch attributed to da vinci of no particular note. --neon white talk 18:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're referring to this sketch, it isn't the subject of the article. The article appears to be about this painting. WillOakland (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is too short to be clear what it refers to. --neon white talk 22:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I'd argue that anything produced by Da Vinci should be covered per WP:BK. It has provision to cover all the works by a notable author. Da Vinci is even more notable than most authors so his work should somehow be covered. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with the list entry. The cited source doesn't actually say that Pedretti determined the painting to be a Leonardo. WillOakland (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or perhaps merge. I'd argue that every painting by him or thought to be by him should be covered, and covered in a separate article. We do not make a determination of who painted what, any more than we determine the truth in other subjects. I point out that if there is significant dispute about the attrribution, then there's sufficient material for an article. per WP:FRINGE, we include such articles. DGG (talk) 04:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as already on the list for now, without prejudice to recreation if a fuller article was written. The painting is notable, but this one-line text does not need a separate article. The list actually has more information already. Johnbod (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If a notable scholar has attributed this work to da Vinci, we should have an article on it, if only to discuss the opinions concerning that attribution. While I haven't looked, I find it highly unlikely such a work would not meet the general notability criterion. If the article is short of information, this should be fixed by editing rather than deletion (as required by WP:DELETION). JulesH (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If more factual and relevant information turns up, then bring it back...Modernist (talk) 04:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "maybe Leonardos" are not notable. Maybe the grafitti in my neighborhood were original Harings - time to get articles for all of them.Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The painting seems to have previously been part of the permanent collection at the Uffizi Gallery, which I believe suggests that this work was notable even without the Leonardo connection. (I'm basing this on a painting of the same title and artist this painting is usually attributed to according to the Forbes article, which appears in the 2000 edition of their catalogue on page 114. It is possible that there were two paintings of this title attributed to the artist, but I presume this is the same one.) JulesH (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until some more sources emerge attributing it to Leonardo. If the painting was in the Uffizi, it isn't now, and I'm not even sure that every single painting in a museum collection is automatically notable.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not entirely sure, but I think we should probably aim to cover every work of art that's in what you could call a top-tier gallery (i.e., the Louvre, Uffizi, the Tate Gallery, ...) assuming we can find sources about it. While this painting is no longer in said gallery, notability is not temporary, so by my reasoning we should still have an article. We have one trivial and one non-trivial source about this painting. I also found another source describing its sale in 1989 (presumably to Uffizi, as this was the last sale before the one described in the Forbes article). These are enough to build an article from. JulesH (talk) 18:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would not be very usual for the Uffizi to sell a painting, especially one they bought so recently. I wonder if it is in fact the same work. Usually "permanent collection" means what it says. There is also the question of the notoriously tough Italian art export restrictions. Johnbod (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the Uffizi version is this one: [45]? Similar in pose to the painting illustrated in the Forbes article, but clearly a different work. Another version is in the Hermitage: [46]. Gian Francesco Maineri, the artist responsible for all three versions (the official auction-house attribution for Mr Brugnara's possession is still Maineri), would be a notable subject for an article.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 21:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resonant capacitor

This article was previously declined for a Prod, the declining admin giving the reason; With over 400 hits from a Google Books search I very much doubt that the whole subject is a hoax. If any content needs correction that can be done by editing. I still believe that this article is a hoax, and that the closing admin is mistaken in the interpretation of the ghits results. I will give a more detailed explanation after nominating, but in short I think the author has subtly (and sometimes not so subtly) used genuine terminology to give credence to a ficticious device. SpinningSpark 12:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a technical article and I am sorry, but it will be necessary to delve into the technicalities to explain why this is a hoax. Firstly, what I understand to be meant by phrase "resonant capacitor": it is a phrase that does commonly occur in electronics, and it means a capacitor that is being used in conjunction with another component (an inductor) to form a resonator. What it is not is some special kind of capacitor. The phrase is used in the same sense as the hallway carpet, that is, a carpet that happens to be in the hallway. It is still just a carpet. Likewise, a resonant capacitor is still just a capacitor which happens to be being used for a particular purpose - a purpose for which we already have an article; LC circuit.
The article not only claims that resonant capacitor is a special component, but that it is actually an inductor. Because the phrase is actually genuine, the article can point to a number of external links using it. But not one of them uses it in the sense that is claimed. Nor do any of the google books hits - I spent a considerable time trying to find one. The issue is further confused by the fact that inductors do have parasitic capacitance which can cause them to resonate. All inductors do this, you don't have to make them specially, and I cannot help but conclude the author is using this fact to sow further confusion.
There are a number of applications given for the device which all sound plausible on the face of it. The first is to spread the spectrum of a clock frequency. I will go out on a limb here and declare that nonsense. A resonant circuit does not cause spectrum spreading in any way, if anything, it will restrict the spectrum through filtering action. Similarly the robotics application makes little sense, low-pass filtering and damping are the usual solutions to those kind of problems. I won't even bother taking apart the aerospace application, any physicist will immediateley recognise that pseudo-scientific jargon.
The so called mathematical explanation consists of a sequence of basic electrical formulae, which are all probable correct, but actually explain nothing at all. And even the trivia section, dropping in flux capacitor as another buzzword, is certainly not true - the device in the film looked nothing like an electrical wound component which is what this is supposed to be.
My final point, if this device exists, why is it that the largest electronics supplier in the country cannot sell me one? SpinningSpark 13:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although capacitors are integral to any electrical resonator, the opening sentence, "A resonant capacitor is an … inductor," belies any truth or coherence. No inductor is ever called a capacitor. Furthermore, the lead claims that said capacitors "spread signal energy over the frequency spectrum," which is also nonsense: all LTI systems respond to sinusoidal inputs with a proportional sinusoid, with input and output frequencies combining linearly. Nonsense which purports to be technical knowledge is a hoax. Moreover, the term "resonant capacitor" is not in common parlance, and article is orphaned, so a redirect would be pointless. Full disclosure: I was personally notified of this AFD. Potatoswatter (talk) 14:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"A resonant capacitor is an acoustics and electrical engineering term for a frequency resonant inductor." No it isn't. Delete per nom. Tevildo (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Resonance in an LC circuit is already discussed in another article, and as far as I'm aware no one makes or even talks about "resonant capacitors" as devices in their own right. Saying that, I guess there are so many types of component available that someone may have marketed packaged LC circuits as "resonant capacitors". Even so, they are certainly not notable devices. (I was also notified of this AFD) Papa November (talk) 14:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I notified two editors who had been taking part in a Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronics collaboration on the capacitor article because of their technical knowledge of the field. The wording of the notification asked them to review the article, it did not in any way canvas them to !vote in a particular way (or at all). SpinningSpark 15:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Read no further than "Electrons from β- decay are absorbed in the magnetic field while positrons from β+ decay are absorbed in the electric field" :)) NVO (talk) 17:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BJAODN. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is not uncommon in high-speed circuits to see something like an inductor becoming a capacitor, but even considering that, the article is nonsensical. WillOakland (talk) 23:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
question to avoid confusion, might it be a good idea to have an article, but for the article to consist of the explanation given by SpinningSpark here, protected if necessary? DGG (talk) 03:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am flattered that you want to turn my words into an article, but in this particular case I think it would be a bad idea. It is not a likely confusion (actually, unheard of as far as I am concerned) and an article would only be promulgating an unnotable hoax. Even a redirect, I would be against, as stated by several others here, it would actually be sowing confusion rather than disambiguating it. SpinningSpark 21:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to LC circuit#Resonance effect. DGG's suggestion could also work, as the term gets enough GScholar &c. hits (in context of LC resonance) that someone might wander across the term and search us. - Eldereft (cont.) 12:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article sounds like it's describing an LC filter ( which comprises both a capacitor and inductor, which resonate ). However, the tone of the article suggests that resonance, rather than being a property of the circuit, requires a special "resonant" capacitor (a little like saying you need "resonant brass" to make a trombone from). Either that or the article is about an LC circuit as a discrete package; not sure I've ever seen such a beast. There are crystal and ceramic resonators that have similar properties, and they might be mathematically modeled as a capacitor with a coil, but the article doesn't mention those. There is such a thing as a spread-spectrum clock in some motherboards; this is done to make FCC compliance easier. Its possible that a ceramic resonator might be used in such a wideband clock, or in motion control which is also in the article, but the article doesn't go into detail on why you'd use them versus other designs. The material on resistance to gamma rays and the "flux capacitor" from Back To The Future, on the other hand, is new to me. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is fundamentally a hoax. While it does have some true elements, they are mainly just applications of LCR circuits. --Polaron | Talk 17:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Travis ^talk 00:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Pacheco

Fails WP:BIO/WP:MUSIC, no reliable sources —Snigbrook 12:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and salt. It has been deleted five times already during a nine month period. If he really does release a record and achieve notability then the protection can always be removed. For now, he is not notable. At the moment the only reference refers to his "15 minutes of fame". As anybody who is familiar with Andy Warhol knows, "In the future everyone will be famous for 15 minutes". He didn't say anything about everybody achieving encyclopaedic notability. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and salt. Doesn't even have real website; no google footprint. His YouTube videos have a few hundred views each. This is spam and the recreation of the article is disruptive editing. Only notable if we're going to have an article for each David Letterman Stupid Pet Trick. THF (talk) 14:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would anyone object if I put a NOINDEX tag on it and have it userfied to my own userspace (User:MacGyverMagic/WIP/Danny Pacheco)? I've kind of specialized in articles on children and userfying would ensure a creation when it's time without having the page in its current form sticking around in mainspace. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No objection. THF (talk) 15:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that this might be useful then I have no objection. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to it being moved to userspace. —Snigbrook 17:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for all the reason already stated. No objection to move it to your userspace, unless the creator wants it on its own userspace. --Seba5618 (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Note that he does get a mention in New York Entertainment, but that's not sufficient in my view for notability for a living person and a child no less. All other coverage I find is unreliable (blogs, YouTube, message boards). Caution on googling -- there's another person of the same name who is a footballer. No objection to moving to Mgm's user space. Antandrus (talk) 16:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. I think we've reached WP:SNOW here. ~~Oh...yeah salt this one!~~ -- Gmatsuda (talk) 07:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: If moved to user space, it should still be salted. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: OK...don't salt it per Paul Erik below. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – My concern about salting it is that it might discourage someone from writing an article about the footballer of the same name, who plays for Liverpool F.C. and is notable, as far as I can tell. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I was unaware of the footballer. I have removed my suggestion to salt. I strongly recommend writing a stub for him, even if it is only one line, as soon as this article is deleted to stake his claim to the article name. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wells Point

Appears to be a neologism, with no reliable sources and no assertion of notability —Snigbrook 10:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only reference seems to be the author's personal website. JuJube (talk) 11:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a valid concept taught by professional photographer at institutions including ICP (the internation center for photography) in NYC, Maine Media Workshops, University of Pennsylvania, Brooks Institute in Santa Barbara and the Rocky Mountain School of Photography:

http://workshops.brooks.edu/calendar/48

https://www.rmsp.com/workshops/workshopcontent.aspx?wid=117&prog=7

http://www.theworkshops.com/catalog/courses/coursepage.asp?CourseID=3186&SchoolID=20

If ansel adams was just now teaching the "zone system" would and there was a wikipedia entry for it, would you delete as a neologism?

Michaelcolby —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelcolby (talk • contribs) 16:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC) — Michaelcolby (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

What has Wells to do with the facts and tricks established decades ago? What makes his revelations differ from those they taught back in the seventies? I do remember that 45 degree threshold (actually, quarter of a light day since sun rarely rises above 45° here) since school days. Looks like a coatrack to me. NVO (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is to use the The Wells Point as a teaching tool and/or a simple memory trigger, especially for students, to figure out when the light is better or worse. It is taking an existing concept and making it easier to use, which happens all the time in many different subject areas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomboechat (talk • contribs) 18:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC) — Tomboechat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. The article has no purpose other than to advertise David Wells. The term has no currency whatsoever outside of his classes and as far as I can see there are never going to be reliable sources to use in the article. SpinningSpark 00:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either (a) delete or perhaps (b) radically rewrite and move to an article on Wells, whose own claims to notability I have not investigated but who does on the face of it seem to be a teacher of some note. We're asked above: If ansel adams was just now teaching the "zone system" would and there was a wikipedia entry for it, would you delete as a neologism? If it were a neologism that wasn't yet noted by anyone other than Adams, I'd happily have it deleted, yes. That would neither condemn it to oblivion (after all, the Zone System flourished even without the help of Wikipedia) nor prevent its appearance in some other site's list of photographic terms. -- Hoary (talk) 01:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independant sources. no evidnce of notability. Appears to be self-promotion. Edward321 (talk) 15:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 21:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citizen sensor

Twitter, blogging, etc. are covered sufficiently elsewhere in WP. The term "citizen sensor" is not used in any of the references provided, and the word "sensor" is only found in one of them. Not one Google News reference for the term, and no obvious reliable sources generated by a standard Google search. This non-notable neologism should not have an entry in WP. Bongo matic 09:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neologism. A lot of the refs are about things like Wikimapia which is not the meaning defined in the article. SpinningSpark 00:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)*[reply]
Delete per nom and note that this article is orphaned. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 04:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted under G12 by Athaenara. (non-admin closure) ^LeaveSleaves 18:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Community Information Centre

Delete. This is an advertisement, essentially reads like a webpage for the Information Centre. MrShamrock (talk) 09:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is difficult to understand (needs copyediting by an English speaker) but appears to be a government sponsered service to bring online government functions to remote regions. If I understand the article correctly you can now get married on the internet. That must be notable in itself! Seriously, India is a huge country and such a project is easily notable and a good subject for an encyclopedia. I cannot really detect the claimed advertising tone, but even if it is there, that is not in itself grounds for deletion because it can be edited out. SpinningSpark 01:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete copyvio; http://udalguri.gov.in/cic.htm 66.57.190.166 (talk) 06:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it as per G12 (blatant copyright infringement). Since the first edits by user Chhana (talk) in March 2006, there has been no non-copyvio version. — Athaenara ✉ 08:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 21:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oshodhara

Article does not cite any references.
Little context given.
Contains what appears to be promotional material and links.
Opinionated (see progress section). ←Spidern → 08:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete religioncruft. JuJube (talk) 11:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. -- ←Spidern → 00:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Irretrievably unencyclopedic. Even if the group were shown to be notable, the article would have to be written again from scratch, there is nothing here that is usable. SpinningSpark 01:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I more or less agree with Spinningspark's assessment that the article's present state is hopeless towards keeping, although there is hint notability considering the extent of network of their centers. Unable to fulfill WP:ORG though. Salvageable content could be added to Osho under Legacy. ^LeaveSleaves 18:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 18:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ami Lustig

Fails WP:N, and looks mostly promotional. Nudve (talk) 06:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree with nominator, no assertion of notability, or of any particular achievements to explore notability from. ThuranX (talk) 07:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO, lack of substantial coverage in secondary sources. —Snigbrook 11:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 19:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article claims numerous books, these would all appear to be due to his editorship of the publication of the Elevcon congress papers (ie not his presentations). The article claims publication of papers, Google scholar comes up with his name on only one site in Japanese. If he is publishing, Google scholar does not know about it and no-one is citing him. In short, no verifiable notability. There is nothing in the article that indicates he has published anything notable, and since the article appears to be self-created, I would presume he would have put it in if it existed. SpinningSpark 01:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Singapore Scout Association. MBisanz ^talk 04:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

02 Raffles Scout Group

The original article from this space was merged into Singapore Scout Association two years ago, as the Scouting WikiProject has guidelines that local units are not notable. This recreation is a vanity piece, Scoutspamvanicruft, and should be deleted. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 07:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Singapore Scout Associationand protect. There may be a small element of notability as the oldest Scout Group in Singapore, although it was not the first, and being foundered in 1922 when Scouting started in 1908 is rather odd. Singapore Scout Association states that Scouting in Singapore goes back to at least 1910. However this needs to be well sourced and even then the notability is very slight. It is best mentioned in the history section of Singapore Scout Association. I tried to remove vanity material but if all is removed there is nothing much left. --Bduke (Discussion) 07:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Singapore Scout Associationand protect. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Raffles Institution (Secondary). The group is founded as part of the School and is still a co curricular activity of the school. All thou the claim of oldest surviving Scout group in Singapore looks genuine [47], I don't think a article will grown to more than a stub. --Egel _Reaction? 15:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The oldest Scout group in Singapore is a claim that would make this group instantly notable as the scouting wikiproject has a provision for this in the individual troups guideline. Someone should deal with the inconsistency before it is deleted. Is the claim in the other article referenced? = Mgm|^(talk) 15:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Singapore Scout Association. Stifle (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Singapore Scout Association or Scouting in Singapore. Notability deserves mention, even a section, on one of the Singapore pages, but is not notable enough internationally for own article. DiverScout (talk) 01:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The page contains zero WP:RS sources, and there is nothing really to userfy as the info simply duplicates IMDB at this point in time. Cirt (talk) 07:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Alyson Stoner Project

AfDs for this article:

Unconfirmed project which only gets 220 G-hits and the usual 'it might be out' IMdB cite. From what I could find, it seems like a web-only exercise video or dance video. Nate • (chatter) 05:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 06:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At least for now, could be covered by a brief mention in the Alyson Stoner article. --Delirium (talk) 06:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks like a failed movie deal with an attached dreamcasting. ThuranX (talk) 07:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Alyson Stoner or WP:Userfy. Bring back when principle filming has begun. The fan base alone for this character will assure WP:GNG and WP:NFF... then. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy, with note in closure where the article has been moved too. Everyone here makes it sound like once the filming has begun, another editor will magically have access to the delete history. We all know that is not the case. So the editor will have to recreate what these twenty five editors have already created. Yes, twenty five editors have edited this article since it was created.travb (talk) 12:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
25 editors and it's in this state? That's a shame. I don't think there's any content yet that makes a userfication neccesary, but I don't oppose one either. Let's see what the major edit it is undergoing will bring. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The number of editors are indicative of the character's popularity... but there is just not enough about the film itself yet to merit its own article. The "In Use" tag has been removed.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 21:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarence Eddie Woods III

Delete. Non-notable rapper, fails WP:MUSIC. Referenced only for his death, just WP:ONEEVENT. WWGB (talk) 05:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 06:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. THF (talk) 14:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The career before his death wasn't covered by any reliable sources and the label doesn't appear to be notable either, with one entry in the discography being a mixtape. His death may have an effect on police procedure, so I'm not totally convinced it should be fully deleted just yet. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Themfromspace (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mobile Phones with Xenon Flash

This, I believe, comes under listcruft (or would if listcruft was policy). Silly list, is my point; list of phones with a certain flash? The world duly waits for the next project, 'List of flippy phones that make a beeping noise when you open them'. Ironholds (talk) 05:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC) Ironholds (talk) 05:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't give anyone any ideas :P! Anyways, yes, this is unnotable listcruft for a feature almost nobody looks for in a phone. Nate • (chatter) 06:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At best, the feature might warrant an article, but the particular models which use a technology aren't notable for that... List of machines with combustion engines? No thanks. and check for a category as well, let's cut taht off at the twinkle in the eye. ThuranX (talk) 07:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what the...? Is this any use to anybody? I don't see any encyclopedic value here. Or maybe we should keep it as an ideal example of WP:BEANS :P Chamal ^talk 13:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this was a category, it would be deleted as overcategorization. While lists can be used in conjuction with categories, the same criteria apply, this is overly specific and of no encyclopedic use. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is actually a very useful and relevant list — a xenon flash is by far the best lighting option (besides natural light, of course) for taking photos, as camera phones go. However, it's unreferenced/original research, so it's a delete, strictly without prejudice against recreation if a list or similar source is published by a reliable source. Stifle (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A Xenon flash is actually a very important feature for anyone who is going to use their phone as a camera regularly in low light conditions and as more and more mobile phones come on the market with xenon flash this article will become of more importance, I have addressed the concerns people have had of this article not being referenced.Accumet8000
Because your keep vote is made in such a neutral fashion :P. Wikipedia is not a review site for phones, though. We do not have five-star ratings for products and the wonderfulness of xenon flash is not for us to decide. Wikipedia is also not a crystal ball; if the content becomes important enough that it deserves an article it can be recreated in the future rather than having it linger around 'because it might be notable in the future'. In any case coverage of this topic is already present at xenon flash. Ironholds (talk) 09:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawing afd. Article was tagged for speedy while I was writing my nomination. (non-admin closure) — Twinzor ^{Say hi!} 04:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Super Short

Unreferenced article about a movie released on youtube. NN. — Twinzor ^{Say hi!} 04:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alfredo Caponnetto

The only claim of notability is the receipt of the Dewar Arts Award. This is not a significant award and the subject of this autobiography / resume does not meet any notability guidelines. Bongo matic 03:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I don't really feel that this guy qualifies yet as notable, but if deleted, it should be without prejudice for recreation when notability is better established. AKRadecki^Speaketh 05:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I tried searching Google news archive for him and while it did find a single Portuguese-language article about him from Zenit News Agency, it didn't seem like quite enough for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, David Eppstein (talk) 04:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steroid-laden extra strength delete. Still not notable despite the relist. JBsupreme (talk) 04:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SNOW, notability has been established through sources, now someone please add them to the article. Since deletion is not an issue here, I am closing this. Tone 23:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wink murder

Fails WP:N, no references, probable original research. Wikipedia is not for things made up in a day. Tavix (talk) 03:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can't vouch for its lack of sources, but this is not original research and it wasn't made up in a day. I have played this game before; my father played it as a child, and his father taught it to him. It'll be hard to find reliable sources, but I believe this is a notable game. Noir (talk) 06:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After a brief Google search, I've come up with a couple of references that might be of use. The game is reportedly played by the Cub Scouts. This blog post talks about a Filipino rendition of the game, and this South Philly Review article also mentions it. Not stellar sources, but that should at least be evidence that the game is not a hoax or made up by the article's author. Noir (talk) 06:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely notable per the references I found via a search for sources. In a Google Books search, there are plenty of third-party, reliable sources that can be used to source the article. The Practice of Psychosocial Occupational Therapy written by Linda Finlay says that wink murder is a good treatment for people with poor eye contact. Circles, PSHE and Citizenship by Marilyn Tew, Mary Read, and Hilary Potter (one paragraph long) and 101 Family Vacation Games by Shando Varda and Valerie James (half a page long), Setting Up and Running a Peer Listening Scheme by Kathy Salter and Kathy Salter Hampson (a pargraph long), Making a Leap by Sara Clifford, Anna Herrmann, and Alec Davison (one-and-a-half pages long) Emotional Literacy at the Heart of the School Ethos by Steve Killick (half a page long) give descriptions of how to play the game. These sources and the many sources on Google Books and Google News that are I have not listed here show that this game is very notable is definitely not madeup. The article needs cleanup and expansion, not deletion. Cunard (talk) 06:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW keep. This is a clearly notable game, and I'm surprised to have found an editor who has apparently never heard of it. JulesH (talk) 10:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the references found. If Cunard hadn't found them, I'd given it a try. I'm not really surprised there are people who don't know it. I've come across several such people when I was a kid and just learned the game. I'm unsure if I learned it at cub scouts or in school, but the result is the same this game is even played internationally. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Abrahamic religions. MBisanz ^talk 04:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abrahamic mythology

At best a neologism, perhaps even a nonce term; I cannot find any publications that use the term this way and the article is full of OR and synthesis... "How Abrahamics feel?"... "Habiru religion?" What RSS ever wrote anything about that? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 03:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are ZERO sources available to discuss any such subject as "Abrahamic mythology"; this is a synthesis, fork, and an original terminology invented by wikipedia editors' research, and the article is pushing a variety of disputed POVs as if they were incontrovertible fact. If redirect, I agree with users below, it should be to Abrahamic religions. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 03:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC) (nominator)[reply]
Delete--I agree with nominator on the content of the article; it's unsourced material, and quite unclear. Whatever is relevant here is already treated in Abrahamic religions, which seems to be a calmer area. While I'm on the topic, I did go into the article to remove a section that seemed concerned mainly with literalist apologetics. Drmies (talk) 03:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy move - To Biblical mythology (which redirects there anyway). It's clear this was the intention of the articles creator. I'm not sure what to make of the SYN, FORK etc claims made by Til, but cleanup discussion is for the talk page. Ben (talk) 04:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- But didn't the article's creator intend to lump the Qur'an in with their 'mythology" label as well? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 04:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right. Ben (talk) 04:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Abrahamic religions. Graymornings_(talk) 04:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redir as per Graymornings, article reads like a big lump of SYNTH. ThuranX (talk) 07:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems like a lot of OR and smells like a neologism. Abrahamic mythology is not a term used in mainstream research in the history of religion as far as I know. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at the ghits for this phrase and it seems like it's used quite a few times to refer to the general Abrahamic canon - i.e. the central mythos of the major Abrahamic faiths. It's distinctly possible that someone might search for it. Graymornings_(talk) 20:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a hard time finding a single scholarly use of the term (jstor and ATLAReligion return 0 hits), but it does seem like the term is getting some use on wikis and online discussion forums. So yes, someone might definitely search for it and a redirect to Abrahamic religions is certainly appropriate, but the current article still needs to be deleted. Best wishes/ Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 18:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scottown Fireworks Fire

WP:NOTNEWS. It looks like a news ticker to me, with a little blurb on the perpetrator. Tavix (talk) 03:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've also felt for a while this article also didn't feel good in a BLP sense.--Scott Mac (Doc) 04:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This looks like a ONEEVENT, rolled over into a BLP invasion of privacy. I note the guy has brain damage, is institutionalized, and never convicted of any crime. There's no lasting coverage, and unlikely to be enough to really expand this topic beyond it's stubbish form. That stub would be ridiculously short without the BLP, leaving an odd ONEEVENT situation. ThuranX (talk) 07:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The guy was never convicted and event also had no lasting effects in the sense of rule or law changes. Fails all the notability criteria for news events and half the article is dedicated to negative information on said non-convicted person which means it indeed crosses BLP lines. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:ONEEVENT. Schuym1 (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear to have had any major coverage, and I'm pretty sure some of the content falls under our BLP policy. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 04:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Louisiana Missionary Baptist Institute and Seminary

Unnotable, non-accredited institute. Fails WP:ORG. No WP:RS about this organization. "Louisiana Missionary Baptist Institute" in google news archive has one hit; an article asking for contributions (from bossierpress.com - Jan 4, 2007). "Louisiana Missionary Baptist Institute" in google turns up only 207 hits, which also don't pass WP:V and WP:RS. It's most notable graduate is Jimmy G. Tharpe whose article is up for AFD here. As such, this is mere promotion for a non-accredited educational place seeking donations. No RS for an article/notablity. Tgreach (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unaccredited is irrelevant. All genuine established colleges are notable for the purposes of Wikipedia. Additionally, many conservative religious institutions deliberately remain unaccredited to minimize outside involvement and possible control of their programs,and this is not necessarily a sign of low quality. Even when it is, it is just as important to cover them. DGG (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a RS that it is genuine or not? You can't have a NPOV article without third-party sources. It is not notable. You seem more focused on the accreditation issue than the lack of sources. If it were accredited, I'd say its an automatic keep since you'd have third-party sourcing. That's why I said it wasn't accredited; not an automatic keep. Nor did I imply it is a diploma mill, if could be or could not; we have no sources either way. Tgreach (talk) 00:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The school is 57 years old. It started with two pastoral students in a minister's home. It is not a diploma mill. It is in a new building. It does not seek accreditation from a secular agency. Degrees from the school are intended for use within the denomination.Billy Hathorn (talk) 02:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ORG says "a company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." What "significant coverage in secondary sources" are there? Tgreach (talk) 04:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per DGG. Edward321 (talk) 15:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a reflection of its existence or its worthiness, but of its failure to attain significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources. Many traffic schools have more notability that this - and anything can call itself an institute or seminary. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy redirect to Gatineau. Tone 13:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gatineau Police

I personally find this to be an extremely clear-cut A7, however a speedy has been declined in the past as has a prod, which is why I removed the PROD placed yesterday. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever in the article or to be found online of the notability of this police department. Gnews results are limited to local news covering the actions of this PD, nothing that establishes notability. StarM 02:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 02:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 02:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect into Gatineau. This is unlikely to move much beyond a stub. TerriersFan (talk) 02:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to Gatineau. Graymornings_(talk) 04:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if consensus is to redirect, it will likely need to be protected. I don't disagree with a re-direct and would not object to one, but I brought it here to establish consensus in order to be able to point to it when the re-direct is reverted. StarM 06:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Redir. There's nothign there about its notability beyond existing. No amazing case cracked, no scandal. Redi to the town and move on. ThuranX (talk) 07:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Not enough information to merge--it just says it exists and that the police drive VWs. an article. Small city police departments will almost always be non-notable. DGG (talk) 07:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 21:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Metisse leather

No evidence of notability, seems to be a term made up by one company to enhance the desirability of their products. FreplySpang 02:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as meaningless marketing term that has no relevance beyond this company's products. Graymornings_(talk) 04:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the company is notable and ever gets an article, this brand name can be redirected to the main company article. --Delirium (talk) 06:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. nomination withdrawn. Mgm|^(talk) 19:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xangati

nn org, advert, very possibly by npov. Tried to slip by with several references, unfortunately they are mostly RFCs that have no bearing on the article itself. Fowartehlluz (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google news lists 36 references, including MarketWatch, Business Wire, Earthtimes, Computer Technology Review, IT Jungle, Newstex, XDSL News, Wireless News and Customer Interaction Solutions. The Deal article already listed on the page is independent.
Wikipedia:Notability Guideline states: "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself." Nominator has not shown that he looked for sources first before putting the article up for deletion.travb (talk) 13:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Closing nominator: I have cleaned up the links since deletion was posted on article. travb (talk) 13:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I edited the original spammy article and brought in references to highly respected trade media that would enable it to pass WP:RS and [{WP:CORP]]. It is hardly a NN company. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination Withdrawn -- still don't feel there's any substance here, but with the ELs cleaned up and better references, it looks okay. Fowartehlluz (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy redirect to List of Lego Island characters. The consensus appears to be there's too little information to warrant a separate entry, so I'm redirecting so readers can find our coverage. Mgm|^(talk) 14:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pepper Roni

Does not establish notability. Perhaps redirect to a list character page? TheAE talk/sign 02:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing to indicate independent notability and no content worth saving. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or redirect to the sausage, as a more likely target than a minor character in a video game. ThuranX (talk) 07:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Difficult to imagine something less notable. --MrShamrock (talk) 09:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons self-evident. JuJube (talk) 11:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability asserted, no refs. Any information on this character can be included in the video game articles. No need of a separate article, and that too, one line. Chamal ^talk 13:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Laws of Jersey

This could never be complete. I mean, in theory, a list of all laws is possible, but it's not realistic. Suggest deleting and recreating the way the other "Law of ..." articles are made, namely, focusing on the history of the legal system, not a list of all laws in existence. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move to the "Law of..." page and do the history of the legal system, like Ricky said. flaming lawye r^c 02:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "Law of Jersey" page redirects here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You have stated in your nomination that this list should be recreated in a similar style to other "Law of ..." articles. However, other lists of this nature exist for different jurisdictions, such as List of Acts of Parliament of the United Kingdom Parliament, 2000-Present and List of United States federal legislation. Is it the principle of having a list that bothers you, or just the way it is implemented? Road Wizard (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's implementation. I'll withdraw my nomination. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perfect suitable list. It can perfectly well be complete and accurate and uptodate, and in practice , not just theory. There are utterly reliable public sources for what they are. Perfectly realistic goal. lawyers have been doing it for much larger bodies of statutes for millenia. DGG (talk) 07:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Twilight Watch (Sumerechniy Dozor)

Fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced article that appears to be about a future film; apparently still in pre-production http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0418205/]. JJL (talk) 02:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks anything beyond the promise of an existence eventually. Agree with Girolamo that recreation in light of actual production (or articles about failure to launch due to lousy box office of first two), would be reasonable. ThuranX (talk) 07:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Dusk Watch, the novel on which this film is based. PC78 (talk) 11:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Both Twilight Watch and Sumerechniy Dozor (I created the latter one just now) redirect to Dusk Watch. This title fails naming conventions and without any actual proof the film is being made, mention in the book article is too early. Lack of actual content makes it too early to have a separate article. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 21:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Throw It Down

No notability asserted. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't asserted much yourself. Nomination statements should state what the article is about and show that basic attempts to fix the issue failed or aren't possible. Can notability be asserted? Did you attempt to find sources? Just because it doesn't assert notability now, doesn't mean adding one sentence can't change things immediately. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As failing WP:NF. I have just myself visited to article to remove WP:ADVERT, WP:COI, and WP:POV and to rewrite per film MOS. Searches for sources leads to mentions and writeups in blogs and websites not independent of the subject. Perhaps an earlier version might be userfied, but it just does not yet have enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, much less WP:NF. Sorry. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Currently doesn't pass WP:N in the slightest. I Googled and Googled (News/Books) and couldn't come up with anything substantial. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Stepshep.--Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Whispers Like Thunder

The result was delete. I've left a note for the creator in case he wants it userifed. Spellcast (talk) 10:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Explicitly fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has already begun. Page has very little content on the film itself, and categories suggest blatantly false information such as being a part of the National Film Registry. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is any of this salvageable? There's an awful lot of stuff in this article (some of it referenced) that isn't about the film, so perhaps there is a more appropriate place for it elsewhere. As for the film itself, basically it's been announced and that's it, so an article at this point is inapropriate per WP:NFF. Maybe userfy rather than delete. PC78 (talk) 11:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the content appears to be about the court case rather than the film. It might be solid under another name or if an appriopriate merge target can be found, it might be mergeable. That said, in it's current form it's deleteable as a film article. Both 2009 and 2010 film article categories means the release date is not known yet, so it can't be a national registry film, they only include films with some sort of importance to the film world and a film that isn't yet finished obviously can't claim such notability. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy this amazing and quite well written and sourced article. I suggest it be returned to the author so it might be reworked to become The Wyandotte/Wyandot peace pact (or something similar) with the film conection being a part of the overall article. Yes, it fails WP:NFF, but certainly passes WP:N for its history alone. Its a keeper... but it needs to be determined just where. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per MichaelQSchmidt above. Per WP:NFF, we shouldn't have an article on the film yet; but the content of this article is worth preserving, as it is mostly about the historical events rather than the film, and could probably be reworked into a separate article or else merged somewhere. Terraxos (talk) 01:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First in Assamese Cinema

Along with these related lists:

are overexpansive and/or indiscriminate collection of facts related to Assamese cinema, most of are already covered in other awards and cinema articles. (The latter article also is intrinsic POV/OR.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All: Simply copy-pasted from the link given in the three articles:http://www.rupaliparda.com/english/History.htm. Since, this link is listed as an external link in Assamese cinema article, there is no need of these copy-paste articles.--GDibyendu (talk) 17:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First in Assamese Cinema and Classic films in Assamese Cinema, but keep List of awardees in Assamese Cinema, since only the awardees list has a well-defined inclusion criterion. The fact that the award information is available off-site is not a reason to delete a list (that is true for many, if not most, featured lists too) - hopefully the article will expand to include information about the awards etc. Abecedare (talk) 05:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 21:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voice from the Sky (2009 film)

Explicitly fails future film notability guidelines. (Per this interview, the film did not start in September, contrary to what the article asserts.) No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Explicitly fails WP:NFF per nom. PC78 (talk) 11:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nom's good search. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 12:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Michael de Larrabeiti. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeeno, Heloise and Igamor, the Long, Long Horse

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:BK. Schuym1 (talk) 21:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 22:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge: Google search only turned up Wiki-rabbits and blogs. Not notable for own article, either delete or merge with authors article if information not already present.Jo7hs2 (talk) 00:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to article about the author. There's too little information there to support a separate article at the moment, but it should obviously be covered. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to the author's page. Nothing really to merge that doesn't sound like a sales catalog. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tripp York

A professor at a private University, the subject fails WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. There are no relevant relaiable sources who cover the subject, and there are no relevant Google News hits. The only references in the article are to a small religious ethics website on which the subject writes, and do not demonstrate notability. – Toon ^(talk) 01:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could not find enough to establish notability under WP:PROF. Does not seem to pass WP:BIO either. He may meet WP:PROF in the future if he continues publishing or one of his current books (e.g., The Purple Crown) becomes notable. Not there yet though, in my opinion.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:31, 7 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) 00:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - couple brief publications in academic databases. No evidence of coverage in reliable sources. Jlg4104 (talk) 02:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Full professor at a very good university, Elon University, "ranked as one of the top southern master's-level universities by USNWR". 4 books, 1 by a university press. DGG (talk) 18:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinary professors fail WP:PROF (the notability guideline for academics) unless they hold a named chair or distinguished professorship position, or they have made a significant impact upon their area of study. There is no evidence of this. Just about every professor has published books. There's no evidence that this guy passes WP:N either, with no significant coverage evidenced, or seemingly available. – Toon ^(talk) 18:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

they don't fail, its just that stating it is not sufficient in an article (unlike such posts where it is). All full professors at research universities have been found notable here, for they invariably can be shown to be an expert in their field. . Now, this does not apply to Elon,so it has to be shown by the publications also. But the quality of the place does make a difference. DGG (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep-- His book Calculated futures is listed in 260 libraries including Princeton and Yale. 1. Another one is listed in Harvard, Columbia, Pricenton, etc 2. The subject is an expert in his area of research, no doubt about it. --J.Mundo (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been listed as an Anarchism task force deletion discussion.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Crisis

Not notable. Google reveals that "Merry Crisis" is something that people say sometimes, but that's not enough to justify an article. Article3 (talk) 01:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This just might be a notable neologism after all. 185k ghits for "merry crisis", 80k for "merry crisis and a happy new fear", a dozen gnews hits for "merry crisis", and 70+ gnews hits for "merry crisis and a happy new fear", including articles in the Washington Post, New York Times, Boston Globe, Seattle Times, Toronto Sun, Guardian, etc. Another option would be to change the focus of the article to talk about the event of the spraypainting of this slogan in Greece. Perhaps also a merger with 2008 civil unrest in Greece would be in order. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 01:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of the Google News hits are copies of the same AP article as far as I can tell--It contains one sentence that mentions this phrase. The number of Google hits is obviously meaningless unless some of them are reliable sources.Article3 (talk) 02:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although the term's appearance in the 2008 civil unrest in Greece is notable in itself, the term has also appeared elsewhere. Dorcas Hardy, a former US Commissioner of Social Security distributed buttons proclaiming the term^{[New York Times]}. The term also appeared in an article from the Sunstar here. Since the term has been the subject of multiple secondary reliable sources, I believe it does not fail to meet any notability inclusion criteria. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does a three-sentence article in the NYT really amount to "significant coverage"?Article3 (talk) 02:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this neologism has not been analysed as a neologism, and is a pun which does not need explaining in an encyclopedia. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 02:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:07, 6 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) 00:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a term, not a topic. It could appear in every piece of literature ever, but that doesn't promote it to anything more than a very notable exclamation, which is on the fringe of not even being considered a dictionary definition. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 17:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a very minor meme, with minimal documentation. We do cover these slogans, but not that this trivial level. The entire actual AP story is about one slogan painted on one wall, once, during one demonstration. And the picture which is the evidence shows a different slogan entirely. The rest is dependent on a single group's self publicity. DGG (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Arbitrarily0 --Qsaw ^(talk) 20:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Denny's. MBisanz ^talk 04:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lumberjack slam

PROD nomination was removed with no explanation or alteration of text. Can't find anything on google other than a cholesterol-delivery vehicle available at Denny's. Looks like an example of WP:MADEUP Steamroller Assault (talk) 02:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~menu item~~ made up in school one day. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 02:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just to be clear, the article is not about the menu item. It is about a likely made-up racquetball variation. Steamroller Assault (talk) 02:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:23, 6 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) 00:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete quickly--sorry, should have said that the first time this came around. Made-up game. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete now please, its WP:MADEUP alright. JBsupreme (talk) 04:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Denny's. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 07:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bands Against Bush

Not sure what to make of this. It was previously deleted as WP:CSD#A7. I think it does assert significance, though it looks like a soapbox to me. The thing was recreated by a single edit account with the edit summary, (Previous Deletion was not in interest of wikipedia and only conducted for Revisionist conservatism to bolster failed Bush legacy). Be that as it may, there are 26 deleted edits. I'd have deleted myself except for the 66 google news hits and the 400 unique google web hits. Whether or not the subject "has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" is the question. The article is not really coherent as it sits, and I'm not convinced of the group's notability. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 03:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To see the article at it's best, I have undeleted the deleted edits and restored the best version I can find. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 03:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - how updated is the page, considering the external link is an archive to 2006. Is this movement even happening anymore?--Tr uc o 03:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Too true. Maybe it should say was a group. Their effort seems moot now, as his term is days away from expiring. Dloh cierekim 03:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment- I found some sources out there, but i'm not sure how reliable they are by wiki standards. Here's a few: [48], [49], [50], and [51]. On the basis of these at least, I'm voting weak keep. But that may change depending on the judgment of whether or not those sources are viable. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment--Any connection with Rock Against Bush? --Jmundo (talk) 06:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, more comments than votes. Don't think so, they at least have a discograpghy. Dloh cierekim 14:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:35, 6 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) 00:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ - sadly, this movement seems to have received a disproportionate amount lot of press attention, and thus satisfies WP:Notability. However, remove the decidedly non-neutral language from the article. If this movement comes to nothing in 4 years (which seems likely), I should think it might be worthy of deletion at that point. Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Per WP:NTEMP, if the article meets the notability standard now, it will continue to do so in the future. Steamroller Assault (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right. Weak delete for now; if more coverage surfaces, then open to recreation. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't assert its own notability, and looks like a soapbox rather than a legitimate article. Hard to see how it will have any lasting notability, which is precisely what notability requires. Xihr 00:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources exist to assert notability in the usual jargon. WP:N is the sensible guide, which makes it an easy keep. No reason to be exceptional here. Wily D 21:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Magog the Ogre and WilyD. Notable per WP:MUSIC because of extensive press coverage. Bearian (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus - not deleting per the source found at the end, but without prejudice towards a future nomination --B (talk) 14:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Perron

Prod removed without comment. I can find some name drops on this person, but nowhere near the substantial independent sourcing that would support a full biography. Does not appear to be notable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No awards, but she did make the cover of the March 2005 Spanish edition of Elle, Canada edition and Quebec edition. --06:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete Insufficient ntoability to meet inclusion guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "cover of the March 2005 Spanish edition of Elle, Canada edition and Quebec edition." Making the cover of coveted fashion magazines in its respective countries clearly meets "depth of coverage", also found via googletubes something in Marie Claire. Had she been in the American and British edition of Elle, I am sure you guys would have voted for keep... WP:BIAS. Also Fashion TV covered her [52] Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 09:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no bias here, as I would readily argue to delete under the circumstances you state. Being on a magazine cover does not make one notable, nor does being on a Youtube video. Having multiple, substantial, reliable sources written about a subject makes it notable. In the absence of those, the subject is not notable. These sources are, in one case, not substantial, and in the other not particularly in-depth. A full biography of a person requires a lot more. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:29, 10 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) 00:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – I found one article about her in The San Diego Union-Tribune, which I added just now. It gives me some hope that there is more coverage out there, if a non-Canadian newspaper has reported about her. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. I might have had good faith intentions, but the complete misrepresentation of sources and the general non-notability led to its removal seicer | talk | contribs 04:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Running with scissors (band)

Non-notable band on a non-notable label; Google turned up few notable hits for this band. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 00:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article claims two albums on an established label, but I couldn't find much at all on this band. The 'references' don't appear to include anything related to the band. I couldn't find any evidence that their albums actually exist, let alone coverage.--Michig (talk) 07:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax. Claims of platinum belong to Alexisonfire. Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G3 Blatant misinformation, misrepresents sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Newtones

Non-notable subject. Dudesleeper / Talk 04:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Reaching the International Championship of High School A Cappella semifinals (even coming second at some point) and receiving awards in three separate years from said competition qualifies as placing or winning in a notable contest per WP:MUSIC. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep. The group has received all the awards/achievements in 2008 only and not multiple years. Considering that the group did not receive the top prize under any of the categories, I'm not particularly enthusiastic towards keeping the article. ^LeaveSleaves 17:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 04:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CreationFlow

No assertion of notability & strong suspicion of COI. 4 person software team started 2007. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC) Tagishsimon (talk) 04:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am gathering all the information for the page, give me some hours. CreationFlow is a product for project management, similar to those listed in List of project management software. See in Google Argentina- I am expanding the competition section. This entry is relevant because of the company's sofware product, not the company itself. The software is fully functional, as can be assesed on company's home page.--Oscarguindzberg (talk) 04:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC) Oscarguindzberg (talk) 04:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest creating an "Online image and video reviews software" page to list all the software products included in this category: CreationFlow, Conceptshare, cozimo, octupz, etcOscarguindzberg (talk) 05:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Business seems to have won several local & national awards, although my Spanish isn't good enough to determine the precise nature of these awards. Certainly looks like it's notable, though. JulesH (talk) 10:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naves competition is a Startup's competition organized by IAE business school (Ranked world's top 11th university in executive education according to th Financial Times http://rankings.ft.com/businessschoolrankings/iae-management-and-business-school#executive-education---customised); CreationFlow was a finalist of the Naves competition. Buenos Aires Emprende 2008 awarded ARS 40.000 to CreationFlow (around USD 12.000). "Agencia Nacional de promocion cientifica y tecnologica" awarded ARS 100.000 to CreationFlow (around USD 32.000).]Oscarguindzberg (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Love Hina. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liddo-kun's Big Adventure

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Liddo-kun's Big Adventure

Minor part of the plot (even the article admits this) with no need for a seperate article, non-existant notability outside of the franchise Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Love Hina, likely search term. Note: you could just have boldy redirected it. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 05:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article isn't a likely search term though. Nor do I see how it would merge into Love Hina. Redirect perhaps, but not merge. I haven't used bold because I don't believe there is a need for the article, or even a redirect. Dandy Sephy (talk) 05:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect as per 76.66.198.171. Edward321 (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'll have to call undue weight on this one. The details are already covered by the episode/volume summaries, and other then the Liddo-kun pushie, which should be covered by the character entries, it didn't play a significant role in the story. It is also not a likely search term. --Farix (Talk) 12:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Love Hina to also allow interested editors to perform a merger. Seems like a very nonnotable fictional element, but two other-language wikis also have articles on this topic, so at least some claim could be made that it's a popular search term. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shinmeiryuu

Unreferenced, Much of the article is WP:OR, mostly in-universe and has Questionable notability Dandy Sephy (talk) 05:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Those are reasons for improvement, not deletion. This fictional martial arts school features prominantly in two different notable series Love Hina and Negima by the notable mangaka Ken Akamatsu. Edward321 (talk)

It's not prominent in Love Hina though, the school or the teachings are barely mentioned. it may be more prominent in negima, but that needs to be proved. Much of the article is based on unverifiable links between the two fictional universes, and is original research. Improvement would mean removing most of the article, leaving us with a list of techniques with questionable notability. Not only that but its been tagged for these issues for over a year. We don't have an article for Hiten Mitsurugi-Ryū from Rurouni Kenshin, which is vastly more notable and forms the basis of much of it's parent series. Removing the OR and rewriting it to be less in-universe would certainly be an improvement, but I'm not convinced this will make the article of more benefit Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unless it's become more prominent in the latter chapters that haven't been translated into English, it's less prominent in Negima then it is in Love Hina. In short, it is very rarely mentioned. --Farix (Talk) 04:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability outside the fictional work. Actually plays a minor role in Love Hina and is just briefly referenced to in Negima!. --Farix (Talk) 04:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's WP:INTERESTING but I see no evidence that it's notable or a fork of something like the "Akamatsu-verse" referred to there; plus, it seems to be misspelled (an extra u at the end). Also seems to have elements of at least WP:SYNTH. Perhaps correct the spelling and rd to the author's page; if it covers a few series, it's likely worth a rd. JJL (talk) 00:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doubling the u is a valid alternate way of representing ū in Hepburn romanization, and common when typing without access to high ASCII characters. It is quite possible it has been so romanized in at least one official translation. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the martial arts pages widely use e.g. Isshin-ryū, Uechi-ryū for this. (I think it comes from the Japan WikiProject, not the martial arts one, but don't precisely recall.) So, it's not consistent with the treatment of historical martial arts at least. JJL (talk) 14:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - A point. Though in this case, I think the guideline to follow is the one saying use the spelling of an official translation, if one exists. If we keep it at all. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. (NAC) --J.Mundo (talk) 07:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Takegami

Article is approaching 3 years old and still no content aside from the fact that it is a OVA anime series, who made it and when. ~~No assertion of notability~~. The only external information is a link to the official site. Delete because it doesn't meet notability guidelines. Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mention at the J.C.Staff article. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 05:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: article fails to establish notability. JamesBurns (talk) 05:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under corrected English release name Guardian of Darkness with added redirect of Takegami: Guardian of Darkness. has been reviewed by several reliable sources.[53][54][55] Being a stub doesn't mean it isn't notable, even if its been a stub awhile. Likely to be covered in some print sources as well...will work on expanding after I get back from shopping. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Done some work on the article and it now has 12 reliable sources, not counting those 3 reviews already noted. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Multiply reviewed = notable, so keep. (Thanks to Collectonian for doing the searches I hadn't gotten to.) —Quasirandom (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notability established by the sources provided by Collectonian. --J.Mundo (talk) 07:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after collectonian's efforts. ThuranX (talk) 07:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nom changing to Keep article appears to have been fixed, thanks Collectonian! --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to .mobi. MBisanz ^talk 04:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NYC Mobile or .mobi Information

No notability shown through secondary sources. Large list of categories taken from their website, seems to be promotional rather than informative. TrulyBlue (talk) 10:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Almost made the mistake of going with dotmobi returns on Google as I didn't find anything for nycapt. However, when looking for the correct results, I found nothing which would indicate this article has notability. --Izno (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything verifiable to .mobi; not notable for a standalone article. I agree, you do have to filter the search results a bit. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Romo

By definition a 'fad', no assertion of notability, unsourced Archivey (talk) 12:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It was a musical movement that got quite a lot of press coverage. For example articles (some about Romo, some that mention it in passing) from the Washington Times, MTV, The Independent, The Guardian, and El Universal. A merge to New Romantic may be in order but it shouldn't be deleted.--Michig (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources established by Michig are sufficient to establish notability and worthiness of encyclopedia entry. Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

romo got a front cover of melody maker which was a leading music newspaper at the time. how one earth is this not notable? its ridiculous this has even been flagged for deletion in the first place. the person who did that obviously doesn't know anything about romo.

romo was covered in virtually every single major newspaper and magazine in the UK during 1996. romo was also featured on radio 1 and LBC. channel 4, ITV and BBC 1 also featured romo.

can we please end this absolutely ridiculous discussion over whether something that recieved massive media coverage is notable or not? thanks.

p.s. romo has virtually nothing to do with new romantic, so a merge makes no sense whatsoever. again, the person who suggested clearly know little about romo and their opinion should be weighted accordingly. thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.244.75 (talk • contribs)

Tip: Create an account, sign in, cite some sources, then your opinion may have more influence in this discussion. --Michig (talk) 07:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Washington Times is nontrivial, for instance. Wily D 21:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 04:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Kirkman

Unsourced BLP. Falls under WP:ONEVENT. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 16:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - regular cast member of notable show.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:15, 9 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) 00:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nominator WP:ONEEVENT most certainly applies. JBsupreme (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to All That#Relaunch Cast, as she hasn't done anything else since the end of the show. Nate • (chatter) 04:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. And one event would apply if she were in only one episode. She has become a regular cast member. And sourcing per even a cursory search is a matter for WP:CLEANUP and not deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fandangle

AfDs for this article:

Doesn't meet WP:BAND. Only one album by a major record label. The one outside reference in this article doesn't seem to mention them. Article is written like an ad. Concerns from last AfD haven't been addressed - no sources, no evidence to support most of the claims in the article, no change in notability. Graymornings_(talk) 19:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, so what if its only one album off a major label. They're a well-known band in the ska scene. Biography is adequate. No reason to delete in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.5.51 (talk) 00:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mediocre Keep I feel that some of the claims being made in favour of the articles deletion are unjustified. According to the last consensus it did meet WP:MUSIC on the grounds that it was signed to a major record label and had had a national tour. Since then they have had some minor tours of the country and their Myspace reports a European tour in early 2009. I also dispute that the article is written like an ad, it was originally in good condition but with little content, much has been added since then, but in general not by seasoned contributors, all that needs to be done here is for some contributors to sort out the content they have added into an encyclopaedic manner, and if there is a problem with sourcing, the article can be sourced. Essentially I feel that this article can be made to meet wikipedia standards, and I personally feel that they meet WP:MUSIC and are noteworthy enough to warrant their own article. However, if that is not consensus, I am happy to see the article go; BUT I will only support its deletion if it purely due to notability reasons and not because of content issues (which can be resolved). I am curious to the motives of someone who would want to delete this article though, as at worst it is borderline, and that can easily be rectified. Philc 02:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The band actually didn't meet notability according to the last AfD - the result was "no consensus" for some valid reasons. The criteria for inclusion is two albums on a major label, and nobody's been able to find a reliable source for the national tour. There are simply zero sources, period. The band just hasn't been the subject of enough coverage to be included. I know as the creator of the article you'd like to keep it, but it's going to need some sources, and I can't seem to find any reliable ones that support inclusion. Hopefully, you'll have better luck. Graymornings_(talk) 10:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:06, 9 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) 00:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I found one brief article about the band and have added it. It confirms they have been touring to promote their new album. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party sources WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 04:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Williams (basketball, born 1988)

Not notable enough an amateur/ NCAA basketball player. At an appropriate level (NCAA Div 1) but not a starter or statistical leader. Mayumashu (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is actually a discussion that has already taken place on such players as Louie McCroskey and Matt Gorman. All of these players compete in Division I college basketball, and thus meet the requirement of having "played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports." There is a good post from the Matt Gorman article that neatly summarizes why all of these articles should be left in place: "Members of U.S. Division I men's college basketball receive national coverage from third party reliable sources, without regards to how good they are, how many points they score, or how many starts they get. This is what notability guidelines for biography are meant to ensure. Attempting to winnow top ranked players from also-rans is going to raise PoV issues and falls outside the scope of notability guidelines as currently written." GoCuse44 (talk) 01:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So all NCAA Div. 1 basketball players, regardless of the school, meet notability requirements? Mayumashu (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Division I basketball players from an elite program like Syracuse are specifically and clearly notable per WP:BIO, as the team receives significant third-party press coverage both locally (Orange basketball is arguably the biggest team in upstate NY. This should be enough of a reason to keep. Additionally, another good piece of supporting evidence is that we cannot attempt to define who is a star and who isn't. It raises POV issues to say that player X is more notable than player Y because, in essence, the coach plays them more. As long as they are both on a college basketball roster, X and Y are equally notable from an objective standpoint. We cannot delete articles based on us as fans speculating whether or not a player is a "star" or if they will be drafted. GoCuse44 (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Actually, NO. Nobody is entitled to his own article simply because he plays on a college basketball team, even if it's an elite program like Syracuse. There are more than 250 NCAA Division I men's basketball teams, each with a dozen players and nothing that gives each player a no-questions-asked, beyond-debate, "right" to an article. WP:ATHLETE gives an inherent notability to athletes playing on a "fully" professional team (such that if Williams plays even one game in the NBA someday, he would be entitled), but there is no similar provision for athletes on a college team. Some have made the argument that the "highest level of amateur competition" clause means that anyone on a team that plays at the highest amateur level would get a bye, but it's not been successful so far in debates over college football players. Sean Williams, just like the other 12 persons listed on the current Orangemen template, has to establish his notability just like anyone else. He's not prohibited from showing that he is notable enough for an article, but he most certainly is not entitled to one. Mandsford (talk) 01:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:00, 9 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) 00:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I think NCAA Division I players are notable in general, but, as with other subjects, articles can only be written on those for whom there is non-trivial coverage in multiple third-party sources; otherwise, it's impossible to write a verifiable article. I think this particular player is on the borderline for there being enough sources to write at least a short article, based on a quick search. --Delirium (talk) 03:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The NCAA=Notability is horse shit, but this player was reported on by ESPN and other reliable sources.I see 3 non-syracuse citations, seems to establish marginal Notability. ThuranX (talk) 07:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Player is on a big school that receives significant media attention on television and the internet, deserves his own article. --MrShamrock (talk) 09:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Flunks WP:ATHLETE. Isn't even notable on the Syracuse team, where he can't crack the rotation on a 16-man roster, and the Syracuse team doesn't play at the "highest level." It's no more "POV" to say he doesn't meet WP:N standards than any of the dozens of deletions made every day. Are we going to start including people cut from NFL training camp before they see a single snap because it's the POV judgment of the coach that the player isn't good enough for the NFL? Is someone really going to want to use Wikipedia to look up the third-string center on Syracuse ten years from now? Which editor is going to do the research to include the last forty third-string Syracuse centers, not to mention the last 4000 Division I third-string centers? THF (talk) 14:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Carey (actor)

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Schuym1 (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient coverage to establish notability. Also, I don't understand the bit about "child actor". If we go by IMDb, the roles were performed at age 24 and 27. ^LeaveSleaves 20:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this the same David Carey who later became a voice instructor? Also, IMDB is incomplete, as THIS shows he has done several projets. Because of slip-ups by production companies, he is listed on IMDB as David Carey (I), David Carey (II), and David Carey (III). Certainly a lot more than just a voice in two Charlie Brown movies. His arer has progressed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The David Carey in discussion here is David Carey (I) per IMDb. You can check out the filmography as a cross-reference. The one in the second link you provided is David Carey (III). David Carey (II) is not an actor. The one in question here hasn't done anything to fulfill inclusion criteria. ^LeaveSleaves 04:41, 10 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) 00:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to fail WP:ENTERTAINER. Merge content to the musical's article, if it's not there, and delete. ThuranX (talk) 07:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I did have a look at the hits mentioned in the discussion, but they appear to involve two different people. This search didn't show any hits that were suggestive of notability. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Fischer (actor)

Only voices one character who's been redirected. No sources, no real notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Schuym1 (talk) 23:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The article is clearly not notable upon verification.--Ped Admi (talk) 01:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Though the article itself is less than a stub, THIS and THIS would seem to indicate that there is enough out there to properly expand and source the article. Shall I do it myself... or will I get some help? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:40, 10 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) 00:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom we need a whole hell of a lot more than an IMDb listing to indicate notability. JBsupreme (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As mentioned above, he's a one trick pony, and it reads like a pity job, and lacks citation, so BLP grey area there. Merge the content to the American Dad Characters section. ThuranX (talk) 07:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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