Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 January 12

< January 11	January 13 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 09:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alberta Advantage

doesn't belong on wikipedia; any useful information can be included elsewhere! Aurush kazemini (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Alberta Advantage reads like a marketing screed for Alberta. Scrap whatever useful information is in it for the Economy of Alberta article. Aurush kazemini (talk) 06:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. I don't see why anything worth saying on this subject can't be said at Economy of Alberta, as Aurush suggests. TastyCakes (talk) 15:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google News archive and Books searches find plenty of coverage for this marketing campaign. Any content that is not directly relevant to the campaign should be removed or merged elsewhere, but there's still plenty of scope for an article on the campaign itself. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is encyclopedic and well sourced. Notability has been strongly asserted by Google News and Google books hits posted above. There have been no strong arguments for deleting this article, other than personal opinions. --MrShamrock (talk) 06:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge the basic info per Aurush kazemini. The sources provided are for the Albertan economy, not this marketing phrase. Since the article is about the phrase, these sources serve very little purpose. Yes, Albert's being written about, its economy is being written about. So, move that over to another article. The rest of the article serves to illustrate that Alberta's economy is booming. Technically, this has nothing to do with the phrase. In other words, even if Alberta's economy was tanking, the government may still use a slogan such as this. A redirect to the Economy of Alberta article would suffice for anyone searching for the phrase. freshacconci talktalk 15:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: was booming ;) TastyCakes (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Didn't want to be the one to say that... freshacconci talktalk 15:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dancing on the edge of WP:OR, given that the references aren't about the slogan, but are supporting economic statistics in what's essentially an essay about what makes Alberta such an advantageous place. A real encyclopedia article about this phrase might be possible, but this isn't it — and realistically, it's very unlikely that we can write anything so encyclopedically useful about it that a short section in Economy of Alberta wouldn't be sufficient. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:43, 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 Rope-a-dope. MBisanz ^talk 09:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ropeadope

marketing screed for a non-notable record label

Delete. Ropeadope is not a notable company. Wikipedia isn't a place for marketing your stuff. Aurush kazemini (talk) 06:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It should be noted that the creator of Ropeadope, User:Mrfortune, seems to have signed on only to create one article and never returned. Aurush kazemini (talk) 17:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am not familiar with the label, but it seems most of the musicians listed as clients have substantial, undisputed wikipedia articles. I think the article could use a bit of a rewrite, some of it does sound like a press release. Incidentally, I think it should be noted that Aurush is apparently nominating this article because I edited it in passing a few weeks ago and he's looking to hurt my feelings or something. I have listed him as a sock puppet suspect of MiltonP Ottawa, a user now banned for vandalism, sock puppetry and aggression towards other editors. TastyCakes (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to WP:AGF. Whether or not you're having a disagreement with another user doesn't affect whether or not the article is notable. Stick to the issues instead of attacking the Wikipedian. SmashTheState (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure and all that. If I agreed the article should be deleted I would have said so, even if it meant agreeing with this probable sock puppet, as I did here. Also, I hardly think you're one to lecture about good faith when your immediate response to any edit you dislike is to claim political bias. TastyCakes (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A Google search shows the only references are music sales sites. The only citation in the article is a blog posting. Almost none of the bands with the label are notable enough to have their own article, and the few that do should probably have a deletion review too. SmashTheState (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd like to see better sources to prove it is a publisher, not merely a distributor, of CDs. Bearian (talk) 18:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be quite a few bluelinks of bands who are signed to this label. I'm not too familiar with WP:MUSIC, but in any case, if it doesn't pass, don't delete, Redirect to Rope-a-dope.SMSpivey (talk) 03:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: advertising, non-notable label, fails WP:CORP. JamesBurns (talk) 06:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:25, 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. MBisanz ^talk 09:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of high schools in Alberta

long-winded list - what little of this information is useful could be found/placed elsewhere.

Delete. Collection of pointless information. Gawd, who cares LOL Aurush kazemini (talk) 03:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I do. No reasonable deletion rational provided in nomination that I can see. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 00:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Userfy This is a bit listcruft-y. Better suited as a category than a list. If the user thinks a list is necessary, I would say one should remake this into a List of School Districts in Alberta. Each school district page should have full listings of the schools. In any case, there is no reason to lose the work if it can be made into something useful. SMSpivey (talk) 03:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In light of the point DHowell makes, I am moved to say that if the question is between deletion and keeping, I'm going for Keep. Keeping lists for all fifty US states, but removing one from a Canadian province (when they are basically equivalent concepts) would be a form of American-centric systemic bias. And, I'm not down for that. If we delete this, they all should come up for AfD. Theoretically, I feel like all of them should be altered to contain only secondary schools or school districts, as there seems to be a consensus that middle, elementary, and grade schools aren't notable and their addition to the list would constitute a directory instead of a list of notable things within Wikipedia. So... fix 'em all! SMSpivey (talk) 06:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I never gave a rationale for deletion, nor have I ever supported full-on deletion of this article. Don't delete per me. I only said to userfy or keep. SMSpivey (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No deletion rationale has been provided. Edward321 (talk) 05:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a collection of pointless lists WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There is no entry for List of high schools in Ontario for example. Is Wikipedia supposed to maintain a list of every high school in every province, state, or territory in every nation on Earth? If not, what's so special about Alberta? SmashTheState (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's an inverted WP:OSE argument, which is one of those arguments to avoid. Just because we don't want a user to create an unsorted list of every high school on the planet does not mean that we shouldn't relax and let them create a finite, well-maintained list of high schools in their province. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 05:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First of all, a perfectly good deletion rationale was clearly stated --- it wasn't eloquently stated, you may disagree with it, but it's there. I can't imagine why a high school is notable in and of itself. There are probably hundreds of thousands of high schools on this continent, and most of them don't differ all that much. The information in List of high schools in Alberta is perfectly suitable for a category listing. It could be found on other sites (Yahoo! for instance). And, if a high school is notable, add it to the existing or relevant sub-category (for expample, ). Find a better way to organize this information, or just delete it entirely. Bolwerk (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you accept "long-winded" as a valid deletion rational? because we know that a list and a Cat can exist togeather without one being the cause of the others deletion. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These arguments are plain unfounded. That another site has this list is not a consideration for whether we should have it... we are not a book of unique information... we are a comprehensive encyclopedia. Otherwise we could begin deleting all of our featured content if it is already covered on Encarta, Brittanica or World Book Encyclopedia. And your opinion on high school notability is a minority one, and has been well rehashed over and over; see the essay at Wikipedia:Notability (high schools). And finally, to have an article on wikipedia a subject does not need to be "all that different". Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 06:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. See, WP:DIRECTORY. It needs to be turned into a category, as SMSpivey points out. —Drvoke (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. High schools are generally considered notable (see WP:OUTCOMES#Education); thus this is not an indiscriminate directory, but a list of potential article topics. If it is a "long-winded" list, that is a reason to split, not to delete; though I don't find this list too "long-winded" or too broad at all—List of high schools in California is longer. The lack of a List of high schools in Ontario is only because Wikipedia is not finished, not because such a list doesn't belong; we do have similar lists for all fifty states of the United States, so I don't see why there shouldn't be one for each province of Canada. Also the existence of a category, or "should be a category" is not a reason to delete a list; see WP:CLN. This list serves all three of the purposes of lists in Wikipedia: information, navigation, and development. DHowell (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DHowell. List of notable topics that complements a category. It is not indiscriminate. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SMSpivey Raven.sorrow (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - informative, discriminate. It does not duplicate a category because it includes red-linked schools. No valid deletion reason was given. TerriersFan (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete I agree that this should be a category and not a page on its own.Strummingbabe (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep provides encyclopedic information of a finite, discriminate nature. Categories have limitations to their usefulness, such as not allowing other data than the title of the article (or listas parameter) to be viewed by the reader. List articles can grow to include sortable pivot tables with other information, such as year established, current status, number of students, type of institution (private, parochial, public), et cetera. Catgegories just show a bunch of aricle titles, and can not include redlinks for articles that are needed. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 05:47, 17 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 08:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Valve Sound System

This article has no working references or links, the external links are dead. The article reads like an advertisement. Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've edited this and Drum & Bass related articles before and you are going to get Drum and Bass fans wanting to keep it, but it isn't notable and the article text is basically a copy of the only reference. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per rationale in nomination. --Jza84 | Talk 02:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ironically, if they had got in the Guinness Book of Records and Big Breakfast they might have been more notable. Richard Hock (talk) 14:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 16 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 02:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

T-Maxx (truck)

I don't see how this individual truck is notable. There is no substantial coverage of reliable sources and therefore fails WP:N. Tavix (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for above reasons. Only external links appear to be to the team's own sites. Note: created by blocked user's sock: User:Willirennen. Basie (talk) 00:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this trucking article lacks requisite coverage. JBsupreme (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 16 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 02:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leonardo Granados

Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC --fvw * 23:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:VERIFY --Ships at a Distance (talk) 05:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no notable 3rd party sources. JamesBurns (talk) 06:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 16 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) 18:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arran Gare

A well-published academic, to be sure, but not necessarily notable under the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (academics). He does seem to be chief editor of a journal in his subject area, but I'm not sure it is at all near "major" enough to qualify under criterion 8. Overall, this reads more like a truncated CV than a useful Wikipedia article. --Dynaflow babble 23:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Per that notability, he should stay, he is the chief editor and founder of a journal, fulfilling point #8, he has an academic post in a society for higher education per #6 and won a Fulbright Scholarship #2. If someone fits any of those criteria, they are considered notable. Pstanton 23:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)

His journal is Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy, the article for which gives no indication of its circulation, its standing in the academic community (citations elsewhere, etc.), or anything else to show that it shouldn't itself be taken to AFD under Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Academic books. If this is a major, influential journal, the authors of its article forgot to mention it. As for the Fulbright Scholarship, are all 200,000 or so alumni notable enough thereby to get articles of their own? [EDIT:] Just to clarify, criterion 6 states, "The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society." How "major" are these posts listed under Other Positions, per external, verifiable sources? --Dynaflow babble 23:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Meets WP:PROF, chief and founding editor of a journal that is available in multiple academic libraries, [Georgetown University], 2, [3, 4, etc. .--J.Mundo (talk) 00:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). He has several books held by 300 or more libraries worldwide, according to WorldCat. I do not know much about the journal he founded, but it has been published continuously since 2005. Thus he probably meets WP:PROF criterion #8 (editor-in-chief of established journal) as well.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The journal is in fact significant: it is found in Worldcat twice, one with and without the subtitle, adding up to over 200 academic libraries. [1], [2] .Founding it therefore makes him a significant academic, when considered along with the books. DGG (talk) 04:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 200 libraries for a new journal established only in 2005? I almost fell of my chair when I saw that. However.... This is an open-access journal, available for free on the web. Many libraries will simply list a link to such a journal on their sebsites and at it to their "holdings".... Given that the journal is very recent, it will be difficult to establish at this point whether it is "major", as it always takes a few years before citations start coming in (especially in a field like this). --Crusio (talk) 07:08, 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) 05:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pahath-Moab

:Pahath-Moab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) These man fails WP:Biography, as I do not believe he "has been the subject of published secondary source material" especially not ones "independent of the subject". He receives only passing mentions in the Biblical book of Ezra, none of which say anything particularly extraordinary about the man, going no further than his lineage. The verses which mention him are as follows, all NIV:

~~"the descendants of Parosh 2,172... of Pahath-Moab (through the line of Jacob and Joab) 2,812 (Ezra 2:3-6)~~

~~"of the descendants of Pahath-Moab, Eliehoenai son of Zerahiah, and with him 200 men" (Ezra 8:4) Scapler (talk) 22:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn - I now see evidence of notability, thank you Briangotts! Scapler (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous. Strong Keep. We do not delete articles because they are stubs. The following reputable secondary sources are but a few of those that discuss this individual: [3],[4], [5], [6], [7]. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is generally accepted that entries in paper encyclopedias indicate notability. Briangotts has shown that such entries exist. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I did not see those, I will withdraw my nomination, but the article should be updated with some of this information about him signing the compact. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 20:40, 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 (WP:SNOW). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Brown (DJ)

Non-notable person - no reliable and substantial sources to show Notability. Speedy declined: editor declining speedy ProDded, then ProD removed by IP address without editing the page. Springnuts (talk) 21:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only claim to notability would be the multiple awards, but they are poorly identified, completely unsourced, and quite possibly hoaxes. Hqb (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fail verifiability. -- Whpq (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A legend, in his own mind. Rather than regard these sort of claims as a cynical hoax, I am more inclined to roll my eyes and contemplate the ability of people to delude themselves. It is sad because nobody ever got famous wasting their time trying to big themselves up on Wikipedia. Delete. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as A7 decliner. Yes, there's an assertion of notability... but that's it. Agree that awards referred to in article are likely not significant, and no independent RS are presented. Jclemens (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hqb. Wow, just wow. JBsupreme (talk) 00:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Hqb. Schuym1 (talk) 00:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any Admin ivo above could I request SNOW deletion please. Springnuts (talk) 07:32, 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 delete. G7 kur ykh 22:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopaedias from Iran

i made it by mistake. i had to use my user space but made mistake. Xashaiar (talk) 20:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Xashaiar, you can use the speedy delete G7, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Db-g7. Put the tag "Db-g7" (in the brackets of course) and if you were the only contributor of content they can just delete it for you. Pstanton 21:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)

Comment - I have marked it for speedy deletion for you. Scapler (talk) 22:11, 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 08:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul McGowan (artist)

I don't think the subject is notable enough and the lack of information on the page seems to verify my beliefs. Furthermore, the article was created by the subject, which is questionable for PoV and notability discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Greggers ^{(t • c)} 20:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable person who has created a vanity article of themselves. Scapler (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Paul who? Seems to be a clear COI to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.85.236 (talk) 22:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He won a major award so he passes WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is short because it lists only the specific things that make the artist notable. 4 third party references seem more than adequate to satisfy WP:BIO; conflict of interest is not a grounds to delete an article. JulesH (talk) 09:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have expanded the article to include more information about the artist, hopefully this will convince people he is notable. Note that all of this information was already available in the articles used as references for the original article. JulesH (talk)
Keep based on improvements to the article. Bearian (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-encyclopedic..nn..sorry...Modernist (talk) 01:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The student prize falls below WP:CREATIVE, but the multiple references satisfy WP:BIO. --Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 02:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple non-trivial coverage in UK national media stories satisfies WP:N & WP:V. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:32, 17 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 Orangemike (CSD A3). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Instruments used in geriatrics

I suggest this list is unlikely to become useful for the same reasons as listed in the recent AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Instruments_used_in_paediatrics. To the best of my knowledge, most instruments in gerontology are identical to their (younger) adult medicine counterparts. The list is empty anyway. Basie (talk) 20:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Basie (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although defined and not totally unselective, I don't see this list as a genuinely encyclopedic topic. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close and speedy As there isn't any content on the page, I added the speedy A3 tag, and so I would say we should close this discussion. Pstanton 21:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 articles in question, while well-meaning and well-written, are poorly sourced, although not for want of trying. They also fail WP:ATHLETE, as they have not played at "the fully professional level of a sport", that is, international-level games. Even a match against Greenland is not truly international, as Greenland is not currently an independent nation. Until the team plays regular international matches against more than one side - perhaps in a league - many of the players will not pass WP:ATHLETE. I have no doubt that this will go to Deletion Review and that I will have knives of fire thrown at me for deleting these articles, but I cannot see that they have played football at a fully professional level, and cannot in good conscience keep the articles. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tamding Tsering

Footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE because he has never competed at a professional level. He plays for Tibet national football team, but that team is not affiliated to FIFA and therefore doesn't participate in the FIFA World Cup or the relevant regional competition. The arguments regarding Tibetan footballers was undertaken in the recent afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tenzin Tsering. I proposed the remaining articles for deletion, all of which have been contested.

I am not nominating Tsering Dhundup because there is evidence provided that he is a political activist. I am also not nominating Tashi Tsering (footballer) because he has played for the Nepal national football team, which does participate in FIFA competitions. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because the following players are footballers who fail WP:ATHLETE, for reasons similar to those given above. They haven't played for a professional club, and the only "international" football they have played has been for Tibet. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:49, 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]

Delete Fail Bio and also the less strict Athlete. BigDunc^Talk 20:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--The articles about the players from Tibet were nominated for deletion using a prod based on the deletion of Tenzin Tsering. After searching for sources to establish notability users have found two players so far that are notable beside the connection to the national team. The nomination says that the National Team of Tibet is not affiliated to FIFA. It's important to understand that this organization's decisions are heavily influenced by politics, 1, 2,3, 4: "The national teams of Tibet, Northern Cyprus and Gibraltar have seen their progress hampered by larger countries with a political interest in the territories." Our WP:ATHLETE guideline should not be based solely on the politics of FIFA and China. Keep the articles until we can judge them on their own merits. --J.Mundo (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to stop the players from playing for a professional club, however. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to stop the players from warranting an article in the encyclopedia by virtue of our notability guidelines. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - these players fail every single one of our notability guidelines. We cannot verify that any of them have played for Tibet, which is not at the footballing standard of most FIFA-affiliated national teams. Even if this did not warrant deletion, it does not prevent any of them from playing for professional club side, in a fully professional league, and it is likely that if any of them were good enough, they would be picked up by one. There is no significant coverage from independent reliable sources. See also: arguments made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tenzin Tsering. – Toon ^(talk) 21:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources are available to verify the notability of the players, 1, 2. --J.Mundo (talk) 21:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources verify the notability of the team, which is not in question. They just mention the names of the players individually and do not cover them in any depth. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for researching, but those articles stand for the notability of the team more than any single player listed for deletion here. Only a few of the players are mentioned in those articles (Tenzin Dhargyal and Tseten Namgyal). The article also makes it clear that these players are part-timers so they are not playing in a fully-pro league. Since they fail WP:ATHLETE, the articles need to pass WP:BIO and I see no evidence of that. Jogurney (talk) 22:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a lot of articles to consider. I also think a merge to a team article as needed is a superior result to deletion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your logic. You say keep, then you give an irrational reason - do you mean you would vote differently if there was only four articles listed?). Finally you say a merge is preferable - what content is there to merge? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the articles are deleted there isn't much to merge. If some or all of them aren't individually notable enough for independent articles then merging them to a team article seems reasonable. Was a merge ever attempted? That would have been my first option before a deletion nomination. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - per J.Mundo. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 12, 2009 @ 22:11
Strong Keep I think it is going a little too fast to delete lots of articles after the rapid deletion of article on Tenzin Tsering. One should wait at least two weeks to leave the possibility of adding valuable information. I have actually just added some info in Tibet national football team concerning the association linked to it. Although I did not explored all the possible data, this is clearly showing the prestigious organization of this team. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 22:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So it has been said that these players meet our notability criteria I will take just 2 for an example Nyima Gyalpo and Gonpo Dorjee just picked at random from the list. Can you show me were they have met any of the below criteria
“Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.
"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
"Sources," defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.
"Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion. For example, it may violate what Wikipedia is not.

Can someone show how they meet these requirements. BigDunc^Talk 22:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These football players represent the Tibetan national squad in exile, a population of 6 million people (that is WP:ATHLETE) Davin (talk) 15:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete player articles I do agree that the player articles should be deleted, simply on the basis of failings to qualify via WP:Athlete, (As never playing a professional game at National level or International level.) However this does not stop an article about the team. In a single article the names can be listed and no player should have an article until they have played professional football. Govvy (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per the article cited by JMundo, these players are part-timers and do not pass WP:ATHLETE. Also, there is no evidence provided which shows they pass WP:BIO. Jogurney (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Parallel discussion running at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 January 11 where I challenged the first deletion (of Tenzin Tsering). Thanks to Jmorrison230582 for bringing this class action up here (I still disagree with this user though and oppose deletion). Power.corrupts (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the same grounds as Jmundo Ijanderson (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, WP:ATHLETE doesn't state anything about footballers having to represent FIFA nations. NF-board is the ruling-body and playing internationally for Tibet is still the highest level to these players. --Jimbo^[online] 02:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The players haven't competed at a professional level, and they haven't competed at the highest amateur level. So why are they notable? It's too bad that they can't compete for Tibet in the World Cup, but the fact is they don't. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because they've played in NF-board international matches. Can't get any higher than international honours. --Jimbo^[online] 03:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J.Mundo could you explain to me how the two sources you provide in any way establish the notability of the individual players? BigDunc^Talk 11:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right each article should be judged on its own merits unfortunately the format of this massive deletion of 19 pages doesn't permit that. How much research when into deciding what players didn't meet our notability guidelines? The best example is Tsering Dhundup, tag for deletion using a prod with the same argument that he was a Tibetan player and later found to be a political activist arrested by China. Guilty by association is not a valid reason for deletion. --J.Mundo (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) And either is notability by association a valid reason to keep. The reason I voted Delete is that none of the players listed meet notability requirements, you provided a reason that Dhundup might meet notability why can you not do it for the rest. Not one valid source has been given to prove notability on any of the players listed. BigDunc^Talk 19:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timing isn't the issue. WP:FOOTY project members have researched these articles and it just so happens that there are very few of these players that can be sourced (Tashi Tsering (footballer) was the only one I found to have been mentioned in match reports). If someone in the future finds sources that establish these articles will pass WP:BIO (or even WP:ATHLETE), they can quite easily re-create them then. What is the point of keeping articles with little or no content on the hope that someday someone will provide the sources necessary to pass WP guidelines? Jogurney (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions: Did you say researched? How many members from WP:FOOTY were involved in this? Can you direct us to the page where this discussion happened? --J.Mundo (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I was speaking for myself, but I believe others in the project did research as well. Jogurney (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly researched them, and was in the process of adding sources to Tashi Tsering (footballer) but Jogurney beat me to it. Surely if you're that passionate about keeping them J.Mundo you've done the research as well? I don't see many sources popping up from you either. Basement12 (T.C) 11:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even if playing for Tibet was enough to establish notability, and I don't believe it is, there is no evidence that most of the players in question have done so (match reports for example). I have not seen anything to suggest to be that these players pass ATHLETE, BIO or any other criteria for inclusion. There is virtually no information in the articles so there isn't even anything to merge into the main Tibet national football team article (beyond their clubs but as these are mostly unsourced and red links anyway i'd question their worth. At best the pages could be left as redirects to the team article. Basement12 (T.C) 14:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all for failing WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 14:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep These football players represent the Tibetan national squad in exile, a population of 6 million people (that is WP:ATHLETE). It's not their fault that political circumstances are the way they are. We can at least respect that Wikipedia does not support the wish of undemocratic regimes. Davin (talk) 15:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tenzin Tsering has been deleted yet in a massive deletionist attack [8] [9] It seems to be ease to get crowds of people together here that will definitely vote massively 'delete' over here ... Davin (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Can you please explain to me why asking Wikiproject Football members to comment on a Football AfD is somehow a "massive deletionist attack"? Surely it's just common sense? You also seem to be neglecting to mention your interesting attempts at vote-stacking? – Toon ^(talk) 15:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Because it only provoked people to vote 'delete' after you did that. You know your way here better than me. Don't play the fool now. Davin (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - The reason it provoked people to vote delete is because that's the correct outcome! I didn't ask them to vote delete, I asked them to come over and have a look for themselves! The players clearly fail the notability guidelines. – Toon ^(talk) 23:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't seen one irrational delete vote, all the votes cast for deletion have been on grounds due to the extradite Tibet footballers having failed to play at a high enough level of competition in football. As it goes, the extradite Tibet national team do not play in any recognised competitions, thus all player articles fail WP:Athlete on grounds, because either they haven't played in a high enough competition in club and the major factor, because the Tibet national team does not play any recognised competition football at all, which thus fails WP:Athlete yet again. This brings me to the next problem, the votes for keep are because there are some external links which has the players name, a name on a list is not notable, there must be at least a few citations, news links. More evidence than just a name on another website to even pass WP:BIO which is clearly failing on every article up for AfD. Thus, why I vote delete earlier above. Govvy (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - clear cut case of failing to meet WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:ATHLETE, and probably a whole host of WP:something else as well! One of the most obvious delete of football-related articles since I've been with Wikipedia. - fchd (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If these players had been selected from the whole Tibetan population to play for Tibet then I would accept that that would confer notability, but actually they are selected from the much smaller pool of Tibetan expatriates who are willing to act in defiance of the Chinese regime, i.e. who do not wish to return to Tibet and are not frightened of any possible consequences for their families. This means that they are in no way a team truly representative of their nation, so playing for this team does not get through WP:ATHLETE. This may be unfair, but having a Wikipedia article isn't some sort of honour in recognition of courage or good intentions. Also no sources have been presented to indicate that any of the players may pass any other notability criteria. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the following common sense reasons:

- Notability. We are talking about the players of the Tibet national football team. Common sense implies that they are notable in Tibet, to the extent that people there are aware that such a team exits. Notability in Tibet is notability. I would also say that notability in the eksile-Tibetan community is notability.

- Verifiability. Serious problem if verifiability equals Google footprint. It's about 20 ago years ago since I travelled Tibet, even with some quantum leaps of development, I would assume big time problems with Internet penetration there, in particular among the Tibetan segment, add thereto literacy problems and their own special curly alphabet. Verifiability goes both to verify that they are in fact notable there, and to verify the identity of the players.

- Athlete, there is no way they can pass, but it is not relevant if they pass the first two.

Google reveals that a Dane facilitated the creation of the team and organized the first match against Greenland. A film on the team came out in 2003, ref here and here, unfortunately pages are in Danish and the sites do not qualify as independent, a blog and an NGO. According to the sites, the match was covered in "international media" and in "Radio Free Tibet" (appears to be part of Radio Free Asia). I have e-mailed the organizers and filmmakers if they have evidence of notability and verifiability, and pointed them to this page.

Why I oppose deletion: Most of the deletion arguments reflect bureaucratic reasoning of the most rigid type. Nominee's key point of departure is that the team is not affiliated to FIFA and therefore "not international", hence, "not notable". Chinese bullying and general appeasement will ensure that FIFA affiliation is impossible. In effect, the nominee allows China to define the outcome of WP's notability decision process in this case. This is problematic

I would also like to challenge BigDunc's assertation of imminent chaos (here): We have the Homeless World Cup, are these soccer players notable?. Wikipedia has a notability guideline, the arguments above are construed as if Wikipedia had a notability policy and a common law system. It is precisely this difference that ensures that we wont have the Homeless World Cup problem anytime soon.

Please name an article about a player in the Homeless World Cup. Nobody is suggesting that the Tibet national football team or the Homeless World Cup articles themselves should be deleted, because they both clearly pass Notability due to the media coverage of each organisation. Articles about individual players in both entities have serious weaknesses, however, because of a lack of coverage due to the low standard of competition, which means that there are few if any reliable sources. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also concerned about the inertia of this wiki-lawyering deletionist steamroller. First a single article Tenzin Tsering is deleted. As in common law, this is used as precedent to leverage deletion of the entire team. What's next? I have just seen that Greenland national football team is not affiliated to FIFA, so this might be the next victim of this massacre. Power.corrupts (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, nobody is suggesting that the TEAM article should be deleted. If there are articles about individual Greenland players asserting notability purely because they have played for Greenland, then, yes, they should be deleted also. But presently I only see one Greenland player linked, and he appears to play for a professional club in Denmark. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, except that it doesn't. Only one member of the Greenland team has his own article, and he passes the guidelines, policies call it what you will by his professional play in Denmark. All of the other Greelandic team members are redlinks, and would probably end up here at AfD if the articles were created. Are any of the individual players from the Homeless World Cup notable? I don't know, I've not even looked at that article. I'm basing my response on these articles, as they stand now, and how they relate to the core tenets of Wikipedia, which as if you hadn't guessed is still a major delete. - fchd (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATHLETE is not a core tenant just a guideline. On the other hand "Wikipedia does not have firm rules" is a pillar of Wikipedia. The political situation of Tibet goes beyond the scope of WP:Athlete. --J.Mundo (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Let's ignore WP:ATHLETE here. How do any of these articles possibly pass the standard guidelines such as WP:N or WP:BIO. They don't. If we want to keep the articles someone needs to step up and add reliable sources which provide non-trivial coverage of these players (not the team itself). I don't see it happening. Jogurney (talk) 02:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the nominator points out, they all play on a national team. Nfitz (talk) 03:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you realise that we can't verify that they actually do? – Toon ^(talk) 11:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for verification: letter signed by the team asking to participate in the Olympic Games in Beijing; a documentary about the team called the Forbidden Team; team's tour in Europe (played two matches against FIFA teams), another article about participation in the Wild Cup. All sources meet WP:RS. --J.Mundo (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which of those sources provides any form of in-depth coverage of these players, or actually even confirms that any of them have ever taken to the field in a football match representing Tibet (which is the point Toon05 was making)? Only one seems to even mention them, and then only as signatories to a letter -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources are excellent sources - for the Tibet national football team, which already has an article which nobody is debating the validity or notability of. The players, however, as Chris says, are not covered in-depth by any of the sources you present, or any sources anybody has been able to provide. – Toon ^(talk) 14:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not one of those articles indicate that Passang Phuntsok has ever played for Tibet. The only time his name is mentioned is on the Tibet national sports association website with the indication that he was part of a team that toured Denmark in 2003. We don't know if he played a match and its unreasonable to assume that everyone named to the squad would have played (or even traveled to Denmark). I don't understand the value of such a speculative article. Jogurney (talk) 15:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those "excellent sources" are fair use in this discussion when the articles are about the players from the team. You can't expect individual discussions when this AfD is about multiple articles related to one notable topic.--J.Mundo (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)Well, the sources you need are ones which provide significant coverage of one or more of the players; this is basically to avoid the bureaucratic nomination of 20 players who are in exactly the same situation. If you can provide significant coverage of any of the players, we can remove them from this listing. This isn't anything against the Tibet national football team, just that the individual players aren't individually notable enough. – Toon ^(talk) 16:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Well, there is actually another problem, it is that you are proposing here to suppress from wikipedia the only articles about Tibetans from the Category:Tibetan footballers, and the only Tibetan sportmen that are on this encyclopedia. As it can be noticed when reading the article on Tibet national football team, this team is not a minor one, and the issue of FIFA and international pressure has been discussed. For all these reasons, it seems a better choice to keep these articles on wikipedia, and request improving their notability, by adding a tag such as this one: { { Notability|date=January 2008 } } I suggest you to do so, and to restaure the already deleted Tenzin Tsering and adding the same tag.--Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 11:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason that the Keep side seem to argue is that this is an attempt at political censorship which is absolute nonsense. Can any of the editors who have voted keep provide at least one reason that is backed up with policy to keep the articles listed. I have searched for each of the listed players and I am unable to find anything to assert their notability. Are we to forget about policy just to placate a group of pro Tibetan editors who feel that deletion is an attack on the country of Tibet and political censorship. Why would we have AfD's if all we can do is add a notability tag to every article? I played football and I had my name mentioned in the papers in my country can I have an article too and just put a notability tag on top? BigDunc^Talk 12:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My keep is solely based on a common sense assumption of notability in Tibet, normal for players of any national team. I expect that somebody will turn up sources such as radio interviews, clandestinely circulated posters in Tibet, picture cards or picture books, you know, regular (but suppressed) fan behaviour. I would just expect it to take more time, than if this were available on the Internet. If somebody told me that this fan behaviour did not exist, my support would vanish. My concern is that lack of Google footprint for that region is but to be expected due the circumstances, and cannot be taken as evidence of lack of notability. How many Tibetan editors have participated in this debate? how many are there at all?; haven't seen them around here (except perhaps Rédacteur Tibet). Verifiability is a cornerstone indeed, my concern is time. My keep support is based on a perception of Tibet as an underdog, it's is not political, and they should not enjoy preferential treatment other than more time to present their merits, out of plain necessity. Power.corrupts (talk) 17:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your reasoning. The articles can easily be re-created when sources are found (if they are found). Jogurney (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that deletion is a last resort (Wikipedia:INTROTODELETE. The last resort is not re-creation. I wonder how editors would be alerted to the task and inclined to fix it, if the articles are deleted. Power.corrupts (talk) 07:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - you can't improve someone's notability. Notability is not a writing style or something which can be improved by adding some pictures; if a subject is not notable enough, there is not much that we can do to make them so. That tag indicates that an editor is concerned that the subject is not notable enough for an article. This is not an attempt to "suppress" anything, editors here are arguing from a nonpolitical standpoint; I'm sure that many - if not most - would agree with your political stance on Tibet, in fact. – Toon ^(talk) 12:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I meant improving the article by adding references, which is requesting time for editors. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 12:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. None of these players play club football at a fully professional level, so they fail all WP:ATHLETE. None of these players are the subject of any meaningful third-party sources, so they all fail WP:BIO. None of these players have done anything of note, either inside or outside the world of football, so they all fail WP:N. None of these players' participation in the Tibet national football team cannot be verified, so they all fail WP:V (the references provided only indicate that they were selected into the squad but not whether they played or not). I would also like to re-emphasise the points made by BigDunc and Toon above - this AfD is NOT part of a anti-Tibet / deletionist conspiracy. How about assuming good faith? Bettia (rawr!) 14:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deletionist rethoric. All articles state their references. Davin (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - Please try to follow WP:AGF - this "deletionist" talk is totally uncalled for. Jogurney (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  ....none of which give any sort of in-depth coverage of the players concerned or actually confirm that they've ever taken to the field in a match representing Tibet -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If they are exiles of Tibet, maybe the people that actually live in Tibet don't know they exist! Ever thought of that? Govvy (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FTenzin_Tsering_and_WP:ATHLETE--J.Mundo (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not as interesting as Davin encouraging folk from the Dutch wikipedia to vote keep. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all There is nothing available to establish notability of the individual players, either as athletes or as icons in the Tibetan political struggle. We do not have a single source that discusses the biography of any of these players - only online sites listing them as members of the Tibet national team. As has been noted multiple times in the above discussion the Tibet national football team is clearly notable enough to merit a wikipedia article, but its member are not (at least yet). Abecedare (talk) 05:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite sure yet but if we don't keep then merge. I am sitting halfway between "weak delete" (where is the verification of notability, are they truly notable) and "weak keep" (they do represent their country albeit not recognised by FIFA or indeed many governments), with some concern about systematic bias. I would love to have more time to look deeper at this, particularly with the view that not all information is so readily available on the internet as it is in the Western world, but unfortunately don't this week, and suspect a decision will be made one way or the other before I do have time next week. Snippets suggest there is more there - not all in English. If there is no consensus to keep (or not kept as no-consensus) I propose a merge to something similar to List of minor EastEnders characters (1985) with the short bio of players all on a Tibet national football team squad page, leaving perhaps a redirect on individual players articles such that if/when they become acceptably notable they can get their own page. Basically, if not kept then merge (per User:ChildofMidnight) as a better alternative to delete (last resort per User:Power.corrupts). --ClubOranje^Talk 12:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For any mathers related to this subject I suggest that you contact office@tibetansports.org. The manager of the Tibetan National Football Association Mr. Kalsang Dhondup will be able to assist you on all details regarding to Tibetan football. Mr. Dhondup have been involved along the TNFA since it was established in 2000. Personally I know many of the players since I have been the International Coordinator for TNFA since 2000 but Im not able to identify ALL of the players. Good luck. Michael Nybrandt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.173.241.122 (talk) 14:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Nybrandt is the Dane involved with the creation of the Tibetan team, as mentioned in my earlier posting. I phoned him today if he had received my mail. I will now mail this association and point them to this page, requesting any evidence, that could demonstrate fan-activity etc. and support claims of notability amongst Tibetans. My involvement will likely end here, as my interest in football is limited to the European Championship and the World Cup, specifically the finals, and only when Denmark plays. Power.corrupts (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are you going to submit? A phone conversation? I don't think that would be such a good citation to add to each player bio. No one has been against a list, just individual player bio pages. Govvy (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent this request:

Sirs, There is currently a discussion on the English Wikipedia concerning the so-called notability of players on the Tibetan national football team. Some people would like that Wikipedia has a page for each of the players. But this is only possible if the players are considered notable, i.e. that the players are celebrities that enjoy the support and affection of the general public.

On the Internet, there is very little or perhaps no information at all, that the team should be particularly popular amongst the general Tibetan people, or enjoy the affection and admiration of fans, similar to the interest that players of other national teams commonly enjoy. There are two possible explanations. 1) either the players are not celebrities, or 2) they are celebrities, but Tibetans use other channels of communication than the Internet.

I wonder if you could help resolve this issue. It would not help much that YOU state that they are celebrities. According to the policy of Wikipedia, you would have to point to independent third party sources, that demonstrate celebrity status; for instance circulation of posters with team members, cards with player details (picture, age, goals scored) or something of the like. It would also have to be verifiable, enabling others to check the validity of the information, this is another of Wikipedia's policies. Please see the discussion at (this page). Please do not reply to me, but post your reply at the webpage. Power.corrupts (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the national team's "international co-ordinator" hasn't heard of some of the players, that's hardly a ringing endorsement of their notability..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tamding Tsering. The rest I haven't looked at. Tsering is exactly the same as the Tenzin Tsering. None of the sources are particularly indepenent, all are trivial and none show he has actually played football. Fails Wp:N and WP:ATHLETE. Any of the rest which clearly fail the same criteria, should also be deleted. Those which may be less clearcut may need further detailed discussion. Peanut4 (talk) 02:00, 17 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 weighted the various comments. So comments citing things like inherent POV and existence of RS got extra weight, and arguments citing the age of the article or just saying delete were down-weighted. In the final examination, it seemed that the argument that the inclusion criterion on the list were impossible to determine to the point that it would not remain as an article. MBisanz ^talk 08:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of unusual personal names

Lists of "unusual" things are having mixed fortunes in the article namespace currently. Some have been deleted; reasons cited include that they are "unencyclopaedic", that "unusual" is in the eye of the beholder and thus contravenes our neutral point of view policy, that such lists are not verifiable, and that such a list amounts to original research. I have no opinion on this subject, other than our deletion decisions in this area should be consistent, and so I'm adopting a neutral stance. Note however that this deletion nomination seeks to establish community consensus for this article, not for others. Two previous deletion discussions (the two to the right plus Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of unusual personal names) have resulted in the article's retention. SP-KP (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There doesn't appear to have been a second nomination for this article; why is this the third? GlassCobra 19:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first nomination was a Vote for Deletion in the pre-AfD days. I agree that this is only the second AfD, but it's a fair point that this is in fact its third deletion discussion, I suppose. ~ mazca ^t|c 19:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as inherently POV. Stifle (talk) 19:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is inherently POV and could possibly be speedied for not asserting notability or significance Pstanton 19:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)

Keep There are quite possibly sources on these lists, and on the topic of names, out there that could add to this article and confirm that this is not original research.Critical Chris (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Unusual" is POV. I don't see what makes this list notable either. TJ Spyke 21:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonencyclopedic. Looie496 (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A nice thing for a userpage maybe, but intrinsically impossible to have a NPOV on. Collect (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Am I the only one of the opinion that this is indeed in the spirit of "sharing knowledge"? I found the list not only interesting, but potentially helpful in my current position. I move to retain. 67.83.85.236 (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. If this wasn't sourced I'd have voted to delete, but as it is, it seems OK with sourcing, although there needs to be either culling of unsourced names (per WP:BLP) or additional sources added for those that don't have any. The title of the article and the use of the word "unusual" needs a bit of examination as that comes off a bit OR'y. Maybe something like List of Notable People with Unconventional Personal Names or something like that. 23skidoo (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is what we look for when writing about a subject on Wikipedia-- verifiable sources to support the entries. The subject of names is notable enough that it has been addressed since the days of H.L. Mencken, if not before. Articles acknowledging that something has been described as "unusual" by others are not POV. While the subject may not appeal to everyone, an encyclopedic article about even an unusual topic should be kept. Mandsford (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have no idea what's supposed to qualify a name for this list. For example, why is Ransom Love listed? His name might be antiquated, but it has a respectable history. WillOakland (talk) 00:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete defining what constitutes an "unusual name" is nigh impossible. JuJube (talk) 01:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is sourced and it's simple to define what constitutes an "unusual name". If a reliable source deems it unusual, then it can go in the list. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 02:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - This is sourced and can serve as a placeholder for names without their own articles. 72.83.185.150 (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: This can be used with sources backing the inclusion/exclusion of each name. However, I was thinking that the content is valuable and sourced, and even if we don't want an article for "unusual personal names," and want to migrate these to separate pages, we need some place for names without their own articles. 72.83.185.150 (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unusual is in the eye of the beholder. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reliable sources don't have universal agreement on what is considered an "unusual name" - let alone a universal definition. --Madchester (talk) 01:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We don't need "universal agreement" on a topic in order to document it, otherwise we couldn't have articles on topics like Beauty, Terrorism, Pornography, or Christianity. NPOV only requires that we fairly document any controversy where it exists in reliable sources. However, I doubt there is much "controversy" surrounding what names are "unusual", that is, you will find few, if any, reliable sources saying something like "Creedence Clearwater Couto is not an unusual name for a person." Sure, unusual is in the eye of the beholder, but if the beholder is a reliable source, then we can document it. DHowell (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-- Article has been around since 2004 and is sourced, I trust the consensus of the editors over the years on what is considered an "unusual name". --J.Mundo (talk) 04:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many of the "Unusual Names" are well sited, so what's the problem? Besides, According to Jimmy Wales, isn't the purpose of Wikipedia for "the entire sum of all human knowledge to be available to anyone on the planet"? This list may be irrelevant, but its contents are not fictitious. Also, we all need a bit of humour in our lives, don't we? User: Anonymous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.61.249.178 (talk) 13:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. But it needs some serious cleaning-out, and constant vigilance to keep at bay the frequent additions of (a) names that some WP editor or other finds amusing and (b) tedious publicity-seeking minor "celebrities". Nothing should be included unless an external reliable source comments on the unusualness of the name. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 09:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 16 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 08:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Psychocinetic Art

Notability never established in first debate. JNW (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close- This was nominated what, last week? By the same nom? The decision of that was Merge. How about giving it some time for a merge discussion to actually happen instead of re-nominating it again?Umbralcorax (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For further clarification, the original debate was closed approx. 5 hours before this AFD was opened. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"If the merger is not completed promptly, this article might be re-nominated for deletion." I have done so, and will be happy to restate rationale on the merge discussion page. JNW (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5 Hours is not even close to being enough time for a proper merge discussion to take place. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has already taken place. It's the action that was needed! And that would have taken all of, oh, five minutes... Ty 00:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then by all means close this and allow for discussion re:merge. The best defense proposed in original debate was that "the article is of marginal interest"; at no time was significance established...what may be considered an appropriate length of time before re-nominating? JNW (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if the people on the page discuss it and refuse to merge, then the appropriate course is a third opinion. A "merge" closing is advice, not compulsion. If they do not discuss it but do nothing at all, then you can be bold and merge it yourself. DGG (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed this for discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts. JNW (talk) 19:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still of the opinion that delete is called for here...Modernist (talk) 19:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you are every bit as welcome to the opinion as those who may have said said keep, but the afd has to be closed somehow, and Stifle picked a good compromise close. I disagree with a good number of community decisions, both keeps and deletes, but that doesnt mean I try to do them all over the same day, or even the next. I wait for time to see if that consensus has changed. This 2nd nomination shows a certain degree of inappropriate impatience--it might prove counterproductive, because such apparent over-dedication to immediate removal indicates that perhaps there might be something to be said for the article after all, and might induce uninvolved editors to think about looking for enough material to reconstruct it properly. DGG (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, and my regrets if I have been too quick to renominate. From the onset I thought the article was constructed mostly on air. If my haste does indeed inspire a fruitful search for sources, then it can not be considered counterproductive, but will have yielded a productive outcome. JNW (talk) 19:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of creating a whole new AFD, the thing to do would have been to ask the closing admin to re-open and relist so that a consensus might emerge. That's what I would have done, instead of closing it. This produces a needless muddle. Having said that. This looks highly delete-able to me. Dloh cierekim 20:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I get more Google hits for "Psychocinetic Art" than Psychokinetic Art". While this is possibly a new thing, I don't believe that significant coverage exists to establish verifiability, let alone notability. Dloh cierekim 20:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to alert potential subject matter editors at Talk:Kinetic art#Merge proposal of Psychocinetic Art into Interactive art for merge assistance, a couple of hours before this renomination. I would expect it to take some time though, perhaps months. JNW's argument that his haste does indeed inspire a fruitful search for sources ignores opportunity costs. There are so many pages on Wiki in need of help, why should this freak and fringe topic attract priority over these other needy pages? (Note: I stand by my earlier keep, for healthy diversity). No, not convinced. Power.corrupts (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your earlier keep argument was: Agree with possible misspelled psychokinetic art, perhaps dual spelling is possible. Also problems with broken English. Found one reference: Duncan, Frederick S. (Spring, 1975). "Kinetic Art: On My Psychokinematic Objects". Leonardo. 8 (2). The MIT Press: 97–101. http://www.jstor.org/pss/1572950. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |year= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)CS1 maint: year (link). IMO the article is of marginal interest. But none of these issues provide sufficient reason for deletion. I would give the article the benefit of doubt and vote keep, at least for the moment. This is all speculation and guess work, which is not a proper foundation for keeping material. The one reference does not even say "psychokinetic art": it says "kinetic art" and "Psychokinematic Objects". The net result of your keep is WP:ILIKEIT. Ty 01:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article was created two weeks ago. Somebody whose native tongue is not English took the (noteworthy) effort to create it. There is nothing in the article that would lead me to assume lack of good faith. It also decribes actual artwork, unknown to me. The MIT search result above leads me to think that this type of art really may exist, perhaps in a different language, and in a different English spelling/category, what do I know. The article has many shortcomings, no doubt, so what should be done? Should we tag it as the mess it is and thereby put it on the endangered species list? Or should we PROD it and delete it, like a thief who comes a night. I would give it the benefit of doubt, and therefore, time, for it to improve. And no, I don't like it. Power.corrupts (talk) 08:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't 'psychokinetic art' the proper spelling? 67.83.85.236 (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment above. And if we are actually not voting, Delete per my comment above and Tyrenius below. Long time no see. Glad you're still around. Dloh cierekim 00:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Fails WP:V which is a non-negotiable policy for retention of material on wikipedia. Merge would be incorrect as it retains the term as a redirect, and there is no place for this or "psychokinetic art" either. Ty 00:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : "If you believe a page was wrongly deleted, or should have been deleted but wasn't, or a deletion discussion improperly closed, you should discuss this with the person who performed the deletion, or closed the debate, on their talk page. If this fails to resolve the issue, you can request review of the closure at Wikipedia:Deletion review.--J.Mundo (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. This is really not the way I would want to handle the situation. Has anyone contacted the closing admin? I will if not. Dloh cierekim 00

58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well maybe not. The best option available would have been to send it to WP:DRV. This is probably going to turn into a can of worms. If this discussion stands, see my !vote. Otherwise, it's all moot. Dloh cierekim 01:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to contact the closing admin to ask for it to be re-opened, but this AfD happened first. Contacting the admin would have been the best thing, but JNW was obviously acting in good faith, and also within the criteria, albeit with a severe definition of "prompt". ~~Umbralcorax said there wasn't enough time for a merge, but he edited 4 hours after the close of the first AfD,[10] so he could have done it.~~ The problem is that a merge decision is made and then no one does the merge. As it's now in progress, I suggest we let it run. The first AfD was a bit threadbare, so at least there's a chance for a decent examination, now that more people are participating. Ty 01:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why should there be such an asymmetry in effort? Why should it be painless to nominate or vote for other people's work to be deleted, and on the other hand, obliging, if you vote keep or merge. I will only edit articles if I have some solid ground under my feet, i.e. read at least one book or peer reviewed article on the topic. For a number of reasons, including lack of subject matter knowledge (in fact, personal priorities may come in first) I would never edit this article - I still feel wholly entitled to voice an opinion of giving a new article the benefit of doubt. Power.corrupts (talk) 08:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since I wasn't involved in the first AFD, why would I have merged it? My comment was that this AFD was a bit premature given how quickly it came on the heels of the last one. Maybe I'm being a bit stuck on procedure, but it just seems a tad impatient to nominate something again if the discussed merge wasn't accomplished in 5 hours. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. A misreading - I thought you had previous involvement with the AfD/article. Comment struck. Ty 06:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, while noting that any consensus reached here is evidently only good for five hours, so enjoy it promptly. --Lockley (talk) 04:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is the first time I've ever renominated an article for deletion--I did not know quite how to do it, and was really surprised by the vigor of the ensuing discussion. That I renominated at all, let alone so soon after the first debate closed, underscored my belief that this was a very rare occurrence, that of a subject that failed basic notability standards, yet was being passed along to a merge procedure. I believed it merited further discussion. There was absolutely no intent to bollix up processes or cause difficulty, nor to offend any other contributors, administrators or otherwise, but rather a desire to revisit a basic Wikipedia guideline that I thought had been overlooked, before this continued. JNW (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot imagine that you have offended anybody, not me at least. Except for the haste issue, we are debating basic principles, that's not bad at all. Anyway, a motto of mine is that only those who do nothing at all, do nothing wrong. Regards, Power.corrupts (talk) 20:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Much appreciated, JNW (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence has been offered that the term "psychocinetic art" exists outside of WP & WP mirrors, let alone that it's a notable subject. Ewulp (talk) 04:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 16 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 (CSD G3). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4 point line

Duplicate article of Basketball court Imperat§ r^(Talk) 18:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a poorly formatted duplicate of existing material. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3. There is no 4 point line in basketball. -Atmoz (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. Livna-Maor (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G3) as pure vandalism via blatant misinformation. Complete and utter horseshit. MuZemike 19:54, 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} 05:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liskula Cohen

non-notable, WP:LIVE. Stepar0 (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The case may now have influence beyond the blog post and lawsuit.
Claburn, Thomas (2009-01-07). "Model's Lawsuit Against Google Prompts Malware Bloom". InformationWeek. United Business Media. The Liskula Cohen defamation case has translated into a marketing opportunity that is now preying on social networking manipulation.
If this meets the notability standard of WP:LIVE/WP:BLP, the article may require a rewrite to preserve "basic human dignity" (per WP:BLP). I'm not sure how to do that without preserving the blog link or explaining what the litigant was called in the blog. If the case goes to trial, it might make more sense to rename this article after the case, with a redirect; however, unless it sets a new precendent, the case itself may not be significant enough on its legal merits to warrant a freestanding article.
"Google and other blog-hosting providers have been sued in similar suits plenty of times before."[11]
/ edg ☺ ☭ 18:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This person is notable as a model (a former cover girl for major mags) regardless of all other controversy, and preserving her dignity may be achieved by stating something like: "In 2009 Cohen brought a lawsuit against Google Inc. for not releasing the name of an anonymous blogger who allegedly defamed her".--Kiwipat (talk) 05:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep Appears to arguably meet WP:BIO albeit barely. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as model on cover of major magazines and news development helps too. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 01:12, 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 01:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adbhai

nn website Stepar0 (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources except press releases; notability not established. Looie496 (talk) 21:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:WEB. Schuym1 (talk) 00:12, 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SongSeek

nn website Stepar0 (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Statistics show this site gets very little attention. Looie496 (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:WEB. Schuym1 (talk) 00:08, 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence B. Adisa

Minor bit role actor, no evidence of meeting WP:BIO, no reliable sources, prod removed by the subject himself Delete Secret ^account 17:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Most notable work to date is a film he wrote and produced which has negligible third-party coverage. And as the nominator said, issues of COI might be present too. ^LeaveSleaves 18:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO and no WP:RS. Plastikspork (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, minor actor. No significant roles. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 00:46, 17 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 13:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vroomtrap

nn website Stepar0 (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:WEB. Schuym1 (talk) 00:42, 13 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, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These facts (from websiteoutlook.com) suggest lack of notability: "Net Worth : $2211.9; Daily Pageview :344; Daily Ads Revenue : $3.03; Traffic Rank : 3190418" Jlg4104 (talk) 12:36, 17 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. Stifle (talk) 13:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simon English

Radio presenter on a local English language station in Valencia. Once worked on a programme on a campus radio that was nominated for (but did not win) a Student Radio award. I don't think that this is enough to pass WP:ENTERTAINER. Nancy ^talk 20:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst a full-time student worked on several radios shows and helped to create additional volunteer support at the UoN^[1]'s Radio station URN^[2]. Later co-host of a campus radio show, at Nottingham Trent University ^[3] which was nominated for a national Student Radio award. As Simon was an extremely popular and precocious Radio presenter to the city of Nottingham for several years, and is now pursuing his career abroad he is definitely more worthy of a Wikipedia entry than some more commercial Radio presenters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicMJX (talk • contribs) — NicMJX (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I hope he has a great career ahead, but he doesn't seem to meet the notability criteria yet. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:33, 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, Sandstein 17:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not yet notable enough, fails WP:ENTERTAINER. JBsupreme (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe he will warrant an article later, but not now. How many voices are needed for a consensus here? ~Amatulić (talk) 19:04, 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. MBisanz ^talk 08:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kush Pish

Unreferenced neologism for which I could find no sources. Even if it's true (which it may not be), it does not appear to be in widespread use or to have received any coverage. Bongo matic 16:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a dictionary definition for a non-English phrase. If the concept of disaffected youth in Morocco, desired, then a referenced article can be created, but what we have here is not the start of such an article. The phrase is not used in the English Language to refer to Morrocan youths, and this is the English language wikipedia. Note: I originally prodded this article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at will. This is not a dictionary, and the notability of the term in the English language has not been established. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 19:54, 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 A3 by PMDrive1061. Non-admin closure. Tevildo (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Portfolio defense

Delete nn neologism Mayalld (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I believe they are talking about http://www.portfoliodefense.com/ . This can be speedied CSD#A7(web) –Capricorn42 (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleting. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:24, 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) 18:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rimshot (broadcasting)

WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a dictionary — TheBilly^(Talk) 16:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article includes information beyond that of a simple dicdef. It needs citations, for sure, but they should not be hard to find for the type of information included here (mostly broadcast locations of example radio stations). The topic is notable and the article would be useful for anyone researching radio and/or television broadcasting. Does not seem to be a candidate for merging, so I think it should be kept and citations added. Amazinglarry (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Per Amazinglarry. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 12, 2009 @ 20:59
Very Strong Keep I found this to be a fascinating topic that, like anything, could use better sources. This is more than a dictionary denotation, it alludes to a phenomena in the radio/TV advertising business.Critical Chris (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found this in a quick search. It's hard to google as drums and basketball articles abound. But the article is far from a dictionary definition, and this oen article I found in a cursory search leads me to beleive that other sources are available to reference and build the article. -- Whpq (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this article's subject is notable and the topic is covered in far more depth that a mere dictionary definition. - Dravecky (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely Strong Keep per Amazinglarry. Willking1979 (talk) 16:24, 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 Withdrawn by Nominator Clearly I had misjudged this book Mayalld (talk) 12:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Murder in Samarkand

Delete non-notable book Mayalld (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable book.--EchetusXe (talk) 16:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This isn't just a guidebok or a cosy memoir. It's possible that the book itself is a WP:COAT and any notability it has itself is as a result of the murky political situation it describes. It's no work of great literature. However this isn't an issue for WP policy and notability for our purposes is served just as well by the situation it describes as it is by the prose used.

It is incidentally a very good read and worth it for an insight into the political immorality of Blair-era UK government. OTOH, this article is poor as it doesn't even explain why the book was written. That's editing work though, not deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: it's been extensively reviewed; is referenced in scholarly literature ([12]) Gonzonoir (talk) 17:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:I had been adding details to the book section of the Craig Murray wiki and realised that the book really took more space than fitted within the context of the paragraph on post-ambassadorial career. So I thought it deserved its own page anyway, but that page is all the more likely to be useful once the film comes out spurring further interest in the book...Malikbek (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per users above, notability clearly established. Livna-Maor (talk) 10:50, 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 Delete per A3 by PMDrive1061. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline of US dollar

Delete POV essay Mayalld (talk) 16:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleting as unsubstantive POV rant. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:26, 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 Withdrawn Mayalld (talk) 12:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Potteries derby

Delete POV essay on local football match Mayalld (talk) 16:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep non-POV article on 130 year old football rivalry.--EchetusXe (talk) 16:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be a documented, well known football rivalry. Pstanton 19:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)
Keep - Long established football rivalry. Livna-Maor (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - As per other users - Long established football rivalry with sources and NPOV. No reason whatsoever why this article should be even considered for deletion.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - to be fair the article wasn't as good as it is now when it was nominated.--EchetusXe (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Indeed, and therefore it needed tagging for improvement not deletion. There are plenty of articles that aren't of a decent standard. They all need improving! :) --♦Tangerines♦·Talk 22:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - the article needs some cleaning up (alternatively arguing that both Port Vale and Stoke have played in higher leagues historically is unclear, whereas just simply saying the actual numerical breakdowns would be much easier), but the subject is definitely notable. matt91486 (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - an endless amount of coverage so easily meets WP:N. Peanut4 (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as per all above and WP:SNOW. Lugnuts (talk) 08:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as one of the longest-standing derbies in world football. – Pee Jay 08:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is clear that despite the fact that this article will of necessity only ever contain indiscriminate lists of facts, and potentially POV commentary, there are large numbers of people with an interest in the subject that will always be sufficient to override purely policy based views of the article. As such, I withdraw the AfD Mayalld (talk) 12:46, 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 deleted by Orangemike as a blatant infringement of copyright (CSD:G12). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Chandler

Delete non notable biography Mayalld (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not particularly notable. Article currently tagged for copyviol. Peridon (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mt apologies for having tagged it db-bio after that had been declined already. Didn't visit History, which I mostly do. Peridon (talk) 16:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite: Subject is often quoted in the financial press, 1. --J.Mundo (talk) 16:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:49, 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 (WP:SNOW). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Threshold (online game)

I am nominating this created from scratch article for the same reasons that the previous one was deleted - Per WP:GNG, which calls for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The sources haven't changed, so there is no point me reinventing the wheel - here's the reasons that the sources were rejected by the nom in the last AFD:

TopMudSites: while this resembles a record chart, there is no way to look at the past performance of any given MUD, and thus there's no way to verify the claim of charting- not a reliable source.
TopMudSites game info page: these are all user- or owner- contributed, thus self-published and not reliable.
The Mud Journal: dead and not in the Internet Archive due to a robots.txt file. Thus, we cannot verify any claims from it.
Computer Games Magazine (November 2003): It's a "roundup" format article. In gaming literature, this is usually a piece running a few pages, covering ten or more games or topics, assigning one or two short paragraphs to each. It's very likely the quote makes up most of or all of the mention, in which case, it's not "significant coverage".
The Mud Connector review from 1999. After discussing it at Talk:Threshold (online game), it seems that this is not a reliable source. It's essentially self-published ; anyone can become a staff reviewer or request a review, and this is evidenced by the frequent change of reviewers over the years.

The only new source (which was written in response to the last AFD) is a blog post which can be found here. Is this guy notable in MUDs? yes? Is this notable coverage? no because it mentions threshold in passing while discussing the wider issue of wikipedia sourcing of muds. It's a blog about us not threshold - it's not significant coverage. Cameron Scott (talk) 14:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: THIS IS NOT THE ARTICLE THAT WAS DELETED IN THE PREVIOUS AFD - THIS WAS A NEW ARTICLE PUSHED INTO MAINSPACE WHILE THE DRV FOR THE OLD ARTICLE WAS ONGOING - THUS WE START FROM SCRATCH AND CONSIDER THIS ARTICLE ON IT'S MERITS NOT IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PREVIOUS AFD --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This inaccurately describes the sourcing of the article. At present the article has four sources that I would say are clearly reliable and independent. (The MUD Journal is not used as a source, and I share the dislike for TopMudSites as an indicator of notability, though I'm open to having my mind changed on it)

Richard Bartle's blog post, the express purpose of which was to state the importance of Threshold. This is significant coverage by any metric normally used.
The CGM article, which is indeed a roundup, but in this case a roundup of online games that they found worthy of particular praise. Thus it amounts to a brief but direct and non-trivial mention.
A Computer Games World article, which is a separate article, which also lists the game as one of the ten best text-based games on the Web.
The Mud Connector review, which is inaccurately described by Cameron above - yes, one can submit a game for review, but this is standard practice at publications that do reviews - I've worked on peer reviewed journals that accept review copies of books. I see no evidence on TMC that they review every game they're asked to review (in fact, they expressly say that they do not). And while they suggest that people interested in becoming a reviewer contact them, I see no evidence that "anyone" can become a staff reviewer. Yes, they've had significant turnover, but this can be found in any print magazine. This line of attack on the source is querrelous at best - the fact of the matter is, the site has been cited in multiple academic sources, singled out as a reliable source on MUDs by experts such as Bartle, and is clearly a reliable source for this topic.

This last point gets at my extreme concern about this AfD, and the treatment of this article, which is that those arguing for its deletion seem to be putting the cart before the horse - the programmatic attack on The Mud Connector is one of a line of extremely disingenuous attacks made on the sourcing of this article. In the previous AfD, a print source, CGM, was rejected by the closer because, being print, it was unverified - a ludicrous policy that has no basis in accepted practice. And previously, attempts to discredit Bartle's blog as a source because of (completely speculative) claims that he might have played Threshold, and thus wasn't independent were made. The sheer vicious dogmatism of the attacks on the sourcing here are some of the worst faith arguing for deletion I have ever seen.

In any case, I would point out that the quality and sourcing of this article have improved dramatically since the previous version was first nominated for AfD, and there is evidence of more sources that are being worked on on the talk page. But we are dealing with what is clearly a significant online game - in addition to Bartle, Scott Jennings and Raph Koster have both expressed bafflement at the deletion of the previous version (though their articles lacked details on the game and so were not terribly useful as sources). These are three of the top experts on online gaming in existence. If they say it is notable, they are right. (And I say this as someone who hadn't heard of the game prior to this kerfuffle - I have no dog in this fight).

The sources exist. The article is improving. And there is strong evidence that this is a significant topic. Deletion, in this case, would be insane. Given active efforts to improve the article, I do not understand why people would prefer to marshall absurd arguments against the sources and work to eviscerate content. How is actively undermining good faith and productive efforts to write content improving the encyclopedia?

All of which is to say, keep. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same sources that were rejected last time - only the blog is new. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're lying. When the article was last nominated, *only* the CGM source was present. The Bartle source, the GGW source, TopMudSites, and The Mud Connector are all new sources. Please get your facts straight before nominating articles for deletion. It really wastes people's time when they have to correct trivially checkable errors on your part. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no he's not. Every single source present was present at the time the debate was closed last time. As an adminstrator I should expect much better conduct out of you. At the time of nomination those sources were in the article but removed because there was concern about their reliability. They were brought up numerous times during the AfD, and when the AfD was closed every single one of those sources had been rejected as providing inadequate coverage to satisfy WP:N. The blog isn't even new, it was discussed and rejected as well during the previous AfD debate.--Crossmr (talk) 03:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be precise, the Computer Gaming World ref was added by User:Kallimina on 11 January 2009, following the DRV close. Bartle, TMS, TMC, and CGM/CGO were all provided at the AfD and edited into/out of the article while the AfD was open. One could make the argument that the AfD was too long and messy for anyone to bother to read it. Flatscan (talk) 04:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Other sources have already been refuted from previous AFD as not being significant, but the Richard Bartle's blog post is unfortunately not reliable since it was specifically made based on the last AFD - and thus is not independent of Wikipedia, and furthermore represents a conflict of interest and a possibly attempt to game the system (I am not aware if Bartle's a user or just a reader of WP). As such, the source has to be rejected from even being used (it is not reliable) and with the remaining sources, we still have the same issue from the previous AFD, lack of significant coverage. --MASEM 15:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Only the CGM source was, to my knowledge, dealt with in the previous AfD. Cameron is dead wrong about this assertion. Every other source is new. And our COI policies do not apply to exterior sources. Nor does "independent" apply to Wikipedia - independence, for WP:N, applies to the subject of the article. Bartle is thus not independent for Richard Bartle, MUD (the software he coded), and a few other things. With no evidence that Bartle is a Wikipedia user, the "gaming the system" argument seems thin at best. We ought not treat the outside world with open hostility. The fact of the matter is, if Richard Bartle takes time out of his day to declare that Threshold is an important game, that is something that should be taken seriously. Citing a mound of policy in an attempt to say otherwise is silly. We're not making a careful legal decision here - we're trying to decide if something is worth having an article on. When Bartle, Jennings, and Koster all say a MUD is important and worth having an article on, one needs a pretty persuasive reason why we wouldn't have one. Especially when it is sourced to multiple independent and reliable sources. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the Bartle article didn't have the timing and tone relating to the previous AFD, and thus could be considered "independent" of the discussion (not so much the source material), then I wouldn't have a problem; that, with the other sources being more in passing but at least there, shows something. But the Bartle article is extremely worrying - to that end, I have placed a request on the RS noticeboard (furthering the discussion) to see if there really is a problem with that source or not. If it proves out to be ok, consider that my issue is nullified and this becomes a keep. --MASEM 16:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Careful here. The independence of the source in the policy is a prohibition on being self-serving on the topic of the article, not complete independence from the wikipedia (although we probably wouldn't allow experts to go out, make a comment and then quote themselves!!!). We can and do have experts contributing to the wikipedia. In this particular case Bartle didn't write that particular MUD, and may be properly considered independent in the wikipedia, so his comments, as an expert, do confer notability.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to keep. The discussion at the RS noticeboard suggestions that I'm probably presuming too much here, and thus can assume that expert sources created by events prompted by WP are ok, thus showing no problem here. --MASEM 00:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Was there any time at all given between the creation of this new page and the motion to AfD? This seems increasingly irregular to me. Now we are looking at a Threshold article which is a non-promotional stub, with ever better referencing. The talk page notes that print sources are being gathered. I see a new online magazine reference, a blog from Richard Bartle. I see vast improvement in this version of the article than the original, so to me -- it would seem good faith to not immediately throw this one to the dogs. However, when you get down to the nitty-gritty, I think the referencing is more than sufficient already to claim notability for this stub article. Keep, keep, keep. Donathin (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If print sources with significant coverage ever do show up, a deletion review can be started. Schuym1 (talk) 03:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Adequate sourcing for a popular culture subject. Fred Talk 16:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep Per Phil Sandifer (talk · contribs). Richard Bartle's coverage (an expert in the field) and the CGM article make this base the threshold of notability for games. ~~--64.85.255.129 (talk) 16:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)~~ --Falcorian ^(talk) 16:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For god's sake. We have a bad image of nominating an article until deleted--look at most of the comments on the subject from those durn blogs. The sourcing is marginal, but it exists. The article was rewritten to expunge any sense of promotional language (and has been given loving care from some users). The comments about about Bartle being a "meatpuppet" or not reliable because he was pissed about the AfD need to be tossed out the window. Let's say we deleted an article on Laser cooling and Steven Chu wrote on his blog (maybe he has one!) that the subject was important enough to garner attention in an encyclopedia and we were foolish to delete it. Would we say "Steven Chu must be a meatpuppet" or his reliability must be compromised? Of course not. We would say that he is an expert in the field and we ought to take that opinion on board. Protonk (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Adequate sources, this Bartle guy's opinion seems to be expert and hence notable. The current position in the chart I have also verified, that I have verified it wouldn't change even if the chart went away- in the wikipedia notability is permanent.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The craze to delete articles is getting ridiculous. The article obviously meets the requirements for sourcing and the arguments against the sources seem like excuses which are not backed up by Wikipedia policy. It's still a bit stub-like, but that can be solved by letting people add more information--not deleting it entirely. Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Keep, and may it serve as an informal precedent for the future. May it at least have some effect on those who might nominate what are adequate articles on these subjects, to show that this is viewed in the Wikipedia community (and elsewhere) as being destructive. They could show their good faith by instead working to further improve, not delete, such articles. The true meaning, acknowledged consciously or not, of these nominations is that MUDs are inherently unimportant. Such was said about most forms of art: Shakespeare's plays, novels, films, comics. There's enough of an historical track record that we should learn from it and give encouragement to articles on new media form. DGG (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - two paragraphs actually is substantial (contrast "trivial"). No need to cut off our noses to spite our faces. Wily D 16:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe in using some common sense when applying our guidelines. There aren't that many MUDs with better sources, and MUDs are worthwhile subjects in my opinion anyway. Rl (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but still find fault on both sides of the discussion. The only reason this marginally passes for notability now is because of the ruckus caused by the meatpuppets who propagated the previous AFD, which seems to show that anyone can get their way if they troll and bully their way through (as also shown in the DRV). On the flipside, possibly a case of WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED, which serves to make editors look like dicks trying to game the system, as well. With that said, thanks to the editors who own the article who have improved it to a standard suitable for inclusion. MuZemike 17:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I also add 24 inches of snow within ten hours as another reason for keeping. Please note that, for good reason of preventing "deletion-craziness" from taking over, that the AFD system is built with a slant towards keeping articles, just as the American judicial system insists that defendants not be found guilty unless proven "beyond a shadow of a doubt." In addition, unlike the last AFD, there is a good reason to close this one early as guideline as well as WP:IAR allows for that - the same with WP:SNOW deletions. MuZemike 01:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Correction: The AFD system is supposed to be built with a slant toward keeping articles. Unfortunately, it doesn't always work that way. In this instance, the previous AfD showed an approximately even division between "keep" and "delete" (after excision of the SPA's and sockpuppets), yet it was closed as "delete". The requirement that "lack of consensus defaults to 'keep'" is not always honored. JamesMLane t c 03:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - AfDs are not heavily trafficked (most times) if articles could be kept by "piling on" almost every article could be kept by half a dozen interested parties who were not obviously sock puppets. People arguing keep and delete have to keep their argument in line with policy and guideline. Policies and guidelines are considered to have community wide consensus. If a closing admin feels the delete or keep side's argument is more in line with policy it gets that extra pile of community consensus. 10,20, or 30 editors on an AfD wouldn't remotely put a dent in that.--Crossmr (talk) 03:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources and content have continued to improve in the very small time period (2 days) since the article we re-enlisted for deletion. --Scandum (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Now more than adequately sourced Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, strongly, per most all above, and suggest a speedy keep. There does seem to be some misguided zeal to remove articles about Internet culture and fictional worlds, and in this particular case that zeal has led to results that have been justly noticed and criticized elsewhere. This never ought to have become an issue in the first instance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and snow close this per DGG, et al. This nom (even if it were well founded, which I do not think it is) is not exactly likely to be helping Wikipedia's reputation, per Protonk. C'mon guys. ++Lar: t/c 18:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP nomination is just plain destructive for no good reason at all. I'll note that merely the argument on the talk page over sourcing the "the game doesn't allow minors" is a crystal clear indication that the WikiLawyers bent on deleting the article don't have a whiff of common sense between them. Jlambert (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You feel that one of the 5 pillars of wikipedia, WP:V, should be ignored for this article? We don't use less than adequate sources just because adequate ones aren't available. I'll also point you to WP:AGF, and WP:NPA while we're at it.--Crossmr (talk) 03:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None of those links point to reliable sources. Jlambert (talk) 05:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V has a section on reliable sources. The other links are to remind you about the tone of your comment.--Crossmr (talk) 08:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again none of the links you posted above can be considered reliable. They point to an self-published open wiki by anonymous authors. There also seems to be an enormous amount of contention as to what they mean as evidenced by the last delete discussion. And "not having a whiff of common sense" is just an observation of a disability, not necessarily a personal attack. Jlambert (talk) 15:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources in the intro alone appear to be sufficient. Gamaliel (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think any speedy keep criteria are met here. One could say that this should be snow closed, but Cameron put some diligence and effort into the nomination and I would prefer to see it run longer than a day. Protonk (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Protonk stole my thunder here, given the unfortunate early closure of the earlier AfD, and the controversy that arose as a result, I think the better practice would be to let this AfD cycle through all time zones before any SNOW closes (and this does not qualify for speedy keep). On the merits of the nomination, this article provides what was lacking in the earlier incarnation. It may not be perfect; it doesn't have to be. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Let's not gut the database from the inside-out. Deleting this kind of article harms the encyclopedia and harms our reputation.
"Wikipedia has lost its way, and obscure, interesting content is constantly in jeopardy of disappearing." Hartman. M [13]
Catchpole (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I should add that articles shouldn't be kept solely because someone off-wiki bashes Wikipedia to a bloody pulp. In fact, it was this "bashing" that is causing notability of this game, hence my comment above. (Not that it excuses what I think is a flimsy nom this time around.) MuZemike 01:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you feel this subject is covered by that statement than you're admitting this is not a notable subject.--Crossmr (talk) 03:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and protect against it being turned into what the other article was. Also advise against a snowball close. Look what trouble happened the last time the AfD closed early. Themfromspace (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My understanding of WP:RS tells me that the sources are sufficient enough. I would also advise against snowball close and let this AfD run its course. DDDtriple3 (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has good sourcing now, which is more than one can say about a great many subjects around here, despite claims made by Cameron. Samson (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I never saw the deleted version, but based upon the sources now, I think it meets sourcing requirements. I strongly advise regulars to AFD read that blog Catchpole links to above. Not only is it one of the most strongly-worded critcisms I've seen of Wikipedia in awhile, I think it's an important reality check to see what sort of impact AFD and the rush to delete makes on the non-Wikipedia world. If the article cited was a lone wolf in the wilderness I'd see it as being just that, a lone wolf, but it's not. Incidentally, I believe we're into snowball keep territory now. 23skidoo (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The full history of the article is available. You can see the deleted version here: [14].--Crossmr (talk) 03:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm aware of that, however I do not take past versions of an article into account on AFD (unless vandalism occurs, of course) because it's the version currently up that's "on trial" and my understanding is this nomination is with regards to the new version. 23skidoo (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Someone linked to this blog post earlier in this discussion. The link seems to be dead; is there another site for this? seicer | talk | contribs 22:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looks like just a typo, correct link is this. Ismarc (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball Keep - Article seems to meet all sourcing criteria and we have an obviously overwhelming consensus here. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: sourcing for unconventional subjects will by definition be found in unconventional references. Furthermore the needless and divisive deleting of material certain editors seem to think to not be good enough for Wikipedia needs to stop --Martin Wisse (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not convinced of any significant coverage in sources independent of the subject.--Crossmr (talk) 03:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Schuym1 (talk) 03:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because a trivial mention in print (covered by WP:N as not conveying notability) a questionable review of unknown status, and a blog post generated specifically to try and generate notability for a subject don't cut it for me.--Crossmr (talk) 03:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for making your !vote clear. Schuym1 (talk) 03:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is exactly the problem. It doesn't cut it "for you" so naturally your gut reaction is to delete because it can't possibly cut it for anyone else either. This is exactly why non-experts shouldn't be judging the notability of anything, and is exactly why WP:N isn't a policy but a guideline. Samson (talk) 03:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - People should go by WP:N because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Schuym1 (talk) 03:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - And if you have a problem with how the notability guideline is, bring it up on the talk page of the guideline which I doubt that would change anything on the guideline because the reason why the guideline exists is because it is accepted by the majority of the community. Schuym1 (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:N is a guideline, not a pillar. If editors oppose it, unilaterally or on a case-by-case basis, it has no consensus and thus no meaning. On the other hand, WP:IGNORE is a pillar; local consensus can override global consensus unless it conflicts the five pillars. It has here. Estemi (talk) 04:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually WP:CONSENSUS which is a binding policy explicitly states that local consensus cannot outweigh global consensus. Things which are guidelines are only a step removed from policy, and have at least enough consensus to move it beyond essay.--Crossmr (talk) 04:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Well damn. WP:IGNORE and WP:CONEXCEPT, two official policies, are totally incompatible. You can break a rule to improve the encyclopedia, but you can't break a rule locally unless everyone decides to change the rule on a global level? I admit the policy seems to side with you here, but this boggles my mind. Estemi (talk) 05:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Actually, there are no binding policies. Consider our very first rule. Policies are things you're usually supposed to do, unless you have a good reason not to. (The "good" qualifier is probably not needed for guidelines). Wily D 16:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        And I might as well add another centimeter of snow. Keep per arguments made above and below. Estemi (talk) 04:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        It can only be a snow keep if the keep !voters say why something meets a guideline. AFD is not a vote. Schuym1 (talk) 05:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have to apply our notability standards pragmatically. The simple fact is that, when it comes to MUDs, the notability of even a notable subject isn't reflected in readily accessible media the way it would be in other fields. JamesMLane t c 03:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per the reason given in the nomination and per Crossmr. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 03:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-- The subject is notable per obvious consensus. (WP:SNOW) --J.Mundo (talk) 03:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources have been discussed and I have requested to individually cover each one on the talk page, however, this has not been done. Admin who closed the Deletion review said the sources seemed to establish notability.--Theblog (talk) 03:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some more sources (some may have been mentioned above) that discuss threshold & wikipedia, I'm not saying they are all reliable or even usable, but they should be individually vetted before deletion is considered. [15] [16] [17][18] [19] [20] [21] Off hand I'd say Koster and maybe massivley are RS, but it needs more investigation. --Theblog (talk) 04:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Please give a link to the deletion review so !voters can determine if that was the right thing for the admin to do. Schuym1 (talk) 04:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go: [22] --Theblog (talk) 04:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per all of the above. And here's to hoping this is the straw that broke the deletionists' back. -- Mvuijlst (talk) 10:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Assume good faith, please, and refrain from name-calling. MuZemike 22:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not seeing the name calling, actually. Could you propose a different wording that conveys the notion that this AfD might possibly be the thing that convinces certain editors (who count themselves among the deletionists) that they are misguided, and that deletionism at the cost of embarrassing the project is not a good approach, but that meets whatever standard that, in your estimation, the above wording failed? Because it is an important, and valid, point, that needs making. ++Lar: t/c 05:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think it's pretty clear from how some use it on-wiki that "deletionist" is rapidly becoming a pejorative term in the same manner as "chauvinist", and that furthermore its use here is intended as a polarizing term. But I digress; we are no longer talking about the deletion of this article, and therefore have stepped outside the scope of this deletion discussion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Adequately sourced, adequately notable. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of text-based MMORPGs (or some other broader article) and give brief coverage there. The sources provided are either significant but not reliable, or reliable but not significant. Marasmusine (talk) 13:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Notability guidelines speak of a presumption of notability, established by objective evidence such as substantial coverage in reliable sources. In specific topic areas, such as music and sport, there exist specialized guidelines which permit the use of less-substantial coverage to establish a presumption of notability. It remains unclear to me whether a lesser standard can or should be applied here. As to whether the recent media coverage passes WP:GNG, I remain skeptical but unsure as to where the line is drawn. However, it seems that at worst a redirect per Marasmusine should be the result. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks notable and well sourced to me. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Would appear those who have edited the article had created one that is adequately sourced. Good to get it expanded, but enough for an article. Icemotoboy (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources suggest marginal notability. Everyking (talk) 05:10, 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 08:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tankboy

Concerns expressed over article tone and whether the subject, a very new TV series, is encyclopedic or notable. The article has already been CSDed, PRODed and finally speedily deleted. I've asked for its recreation so that it can at least go through a visible AfD process and some open debate. Bear in mind that those already concerned are worldwide and in many different time zones, so let's not act hastily here and remember some of us like to sleep during our local nighttimes.

The article has problems. These are fixable without deletion.

There are legitimate WP:COI concerns, but IMHO the creator, a new editor to Wikipedia, has behaved within the bounds of Good Faith and there is no reason to delete on that basis. Let's all be welcoming here and help them to learn how things operate before jumping down their throat.

The subject may not be notable to the project's standards. I have no opinion on this at this time and could be convinced either way. I welcome discussion of this, as it seems to be the only real bar to this article being added. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Andy has identified the main issues. It seems early days for the programme, so is it necessary to delete the page now and wait for its re-creation at a later date, when notability is clearer? Or can it be allowed to remain to be 'improved upon'... EdJogg (talk) 13:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The programme exists, has been broadcast and appears to be at a state where it's reasonable to discuss it. My only concern here is whether the audience exposed to it meets some criterion (defined where?) that distinguishes "notable broadcast TV" from "non-notable public-access late-night cable". As a non TV viewer, I don't know where that level rests. My worry is that fixable concerns about writing style have turned into an unwarranted impression of it as being less deserving than it ought to be (I think I was guilty of that myself). Andy Dingley (talk) 13:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is poorly written from the point of view of being an encyclopedia article (I tagged it with {{tone}}). The references provided are wanting not independent of the subject. I am not able to find any articles written about the show. However, based on the web site, it has enjoyed sufficient success to start filming a second season. Is notable? At this point, it doesn't meet the requirements for notability, but I can be persuaded otherwise by some reliable sources writing about the show. -- Whpq (talk) 13:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2 - If the outcome of this process is still 'delete', may I suggest that the content be moved to a user subpage to allow further work while the remaining issues are addressed? EdJogg (talk) 14:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 3 - Please note, everyone seems to assume that I am Charles Knight, who created the Tankboy series. But I am not. While I do also work in the film industry (semi-retired now), I know about Tankboy and his crew and they are a very cool bunch of lads. They are not into self glorification, self promotion or any of the typical western "I love myself" bullshit. Tankboy himself really does own military vehicles, machine guns and cannons and he owns them just because he loves military stuff. Apart from his TV show, he and his vehicles have appeared on many other TV shows in New Zealand (MTV and C4 in particular) and he has helped out on many fund raiser parades and live shows raising money for kids in need.

I worked under him once (eg he was my boss) when I worked on Power Rangers for a season and the guy is very passionate about film making and is one of the most experienced film makers in our country (New Zealand).

The Tankboy show is a very unique show in that it is the first reality show in the world ever, where the people in it, not only do their own stunts, but they set up their own pyrotechnics and use real military firearms and nothing is rehearsed. Tankboy actually shoots the show on his days off from his other film making commitments. I have asked his PA for more information and rights to use photos etc and its all coming. I did email the wiki commons with an email I received from them allowing me to use the pics but the photos seem to have been deleted anyway.

They are sending me the whole EPK for the show with hundreds of pics and more information.

I would like the chance to wikify it further and make it work for everyone. I also know once its up that others who know about the show will help improve it. Tankboy has a big following down in New Zealand and also strangely in Russia. And they have informed me that the show is going to be released in the US soon but can't say on which channel or when it will air.

I also know I am not a great writer, but that doen't stop anyone on wiki from jumping on and reformating the information to suit right?

If I could at least have 6 weeks to get it together and then if the wiki writers still think it sucks - delete away.

Cooltv (talk) 03:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 4

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1379033/ this will give you a bit of info about they guy (Tankboy himself). I also know he is working with Rob Tapart and Sam Raimi, producing the new series "Spartacus" for Starz. Cooltv (talk) 03:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. When I first looked at this while it had the PROD tag, I couldn't tell if it were self-promotion (either directly or indirectly) or not, and decided that in light of a few other things, that issue was irrelevant (and on my user page I state that I consider COI a disqualifying situation). It's clear that it's all in good faith, but it's already in desperate need of a rewrite per WP:MOS - it's written more in the form of a promotional blurb in some fan magazine (see Fanboy#Cast, which emphasizes the characters and de-emphasizes the actual actors). The program is described in promotional tone, without any citations from a reliable source that is independent of the production or distributor (I had to delete a piece of Myspace.com spamlinking, but the link was simply hyping a piece of puffery). The article asserts (without specifics) "worldwide distribution" but shows no evidence of third party coverage supporting that assertion. It doesn't even indicate whether the program is being syndicated or if a national broadcast network is airing it (if so, where? If so, what is the response - critical or viewership?) We have nothing to indicate that it's even made it to air yet. Major suggestion: userfy the article (move to userspace) so writing can be upgraded, the proper structure be put in place, evidence of independent media coverage be found... and the program gains traction in the marketplace. Then... and only then... should there be an article about this series in article space. B.Wind (talk) 04:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userify I've no problem with this article being part of Wikipedia, but it clearly had problems and needs work. Userifying it, fixing it and then moving it back afterwards would give time for this. Othwerwise it's likely to see some, but not enough, improvement and rapidly find itself tagged or AfDed again. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't like the current attempts at getting Tankboy wikified, rather than delete it could someone move it to my user space as mentioned above. I'm not sure how this is done, yet (but I will someday soon). I will in future create all new pages in user space first as recommended (forgive me as I did not know the process). I have been updating some other pages (also as recommended) so I'm starting to get the hang of things. Thanks for everyones help and advice so far.

Cooltv (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tankboy Article Revamped - I have wikified the article, both in terms of tone, layout and additional ref links. I had pictures and their logo officially uploaded by the copy write owners Tankboy Global. In the wrong section at this time but I will make sure it is rectified on Monday. I believe I have sufficiently covered all areas that were grounds for deletion. I have other articles that I want to add to that exist on wikipedia, so hopefully I can go about that now, although as more information come to hand I will update this one. But I know, once our summer holidays are over and people down this part of the world return home that others will contribute, expanding on what I have started.

Cooltv (talk) 21:34, 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, Stifle (talk) 13:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While there are enough delete !votes to close this discussion as a delete, I would like to relist for a further discussion since the article has been significantly changed during the AFD. Note that an admin may close it at any time; it does not necessarily have to wait a further five days. Stifle (talk) 13:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The revamped article has more references, but I still don't see the significant coverage about the show that would put it above the notability bar. My opinion still remains as deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 13:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I tried cleaning up the article as well, but I think it simply doesn't meet notability guidelines. It may be recreated when it becomes notable. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 15:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's notable in that it is the first of a new genre, Destruction TV. The show is so extreme that a lot of TV channels are too scared to air it, afraid of possible lawsuits from copycat acts by teenagers. These guys really blow the f*&k out of things. Its my favorite TV show and I don't even fit the shows demographic audience (male teenagers). Cooltv (talk) 03:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- unfortunately, that claim for notability can only be made after other programmes have been made in the same form, to create the 'genre'. At present, the most you can say is that it doesn't have a close match with any existing genre -- but even then it is almost certainly a crossover between two or more well-established genres, isn't it? There still aren't the references to support its notability claims, as the IMDB entry is almost empty (and who can create these, anyway?) and none of the others counts as a reliable source for supporting notability claims. If to be deleted, the page should be moved to user space until the notability can be addressed. EdJogg (talk) 12:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some clarification might be useful. It's not "notable" (in WP's sense) as the first of a new genre. It couldn't possibly be, by its definition. It might be "interesting" as such, a non-WP commentator might describe that as "notable", but this is different from the WP:N sense we need here. So if the article subject is notable, that has to be through WP:N (which I think can be met). Demonstrate significant coverage of this program through mention in multiple, independent reliable sources.

Then add good, interesting, and encyclopedic text to the article to make it a good one. So far I'm still seeing too much "crazy! chick!!" and not enough "Tankboy's BMP weighs 99tons. When thoroughly crushed, a car finishes up around 12" thick. Engines are removed first to give a thinner final pancake, and there's a starter ramp at the back (or we use Rover SD1s) because BMP ground clearance isn't enough to take a car in one bite from the ground". Andy Dingley (talk) 12:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Based on that though, most of the New Zealand TV shows listed on wikipedia would not comply and should be deleted. None of the TV shows made by South Pacific Pictures are at all notable and only two movies they have ever made are notable, "Once Were Warriors" and "Whale Rider". Yet "Siones Wedding", a failure of a film is listed? Having worked for the company for 15 years, I am pretty knowledgeable on their shows. So this is very confusing. I originally wrote the Tankboy article from a fans point of view (mine), which turned out to be wrong, so I have looked at many other wiki articles and rewrote it more encyclopedic, copying the formatting style of other articles. Also, I thought I had removed all the "crazy chick" like bits. I can write the tank crushing type stuff, but then is this not more fan like type information as I was originally doing (that I thought was wrong)? Interestingly, on that topic, what is different about these guys is that they do not remove the engines from the cars they crush, they drive the cars around and jump out of them just before the tank (BMP1) runs them over, no ramps, no rehearsals. They even drag cars (with someone in them still trying to drive away), and then pulverize them or blow them up etc. No ramps, no safety gear, no rehearsals and quite often in front of a live audience! And not just cars, they drive off and buy caravans and they just drive right through them, no mods, no weakening of the structure. They use the BMP because it has the angular front and it just glides over anything and as it goes over, its weight just crushes. They have built canons and fired logs through cars, they built a flame thrower and then put one of the crew in a burn suit and chased them with the flame thrower - I laughed so much I had sore ribs the next day. MTV in New Zealand has now played a selection of the series (although I saw more in Russia when I was there a few weeks ago), so I record the episodes off air and play back the crushing sequences, frame by frame. Just amazing. Maybe Tankboy is notable as a New Zealand show on Wikipedia? Ok - back on topic. If you feel you have to delete the Tankboy item, then do so. It was my first attempt at a wiki article and they seemed the easiest for me as their office is in the same studio complex as I am currently working, so I figured its easy to get info from them anytime. I have been updating a number of NZ actor and TV show items on wiki and there are more that I intend to update. I was planning on doing an article on Spartacus (the new TV show for Starz) but am a little hesitant as it will probably meet the same demise. Maybe someone else could start one on Spartacus and I can add to it - any takers? I am an old sound recordist who has worked on many New Zealand TV shows and I know a lot about them. So I thought it would be good to put this knowledge to good use somewhere and wikipedia seemed like the right place. Maybe I am too old? Cooltv (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and send to WP:CLEANUP to have format issues addressed per MOS. As a New Zealand production that has aired 13 episodes has enough coverage to meet WP:N. It should be a matter for cleanup and not deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - providing google search results isn't helpful. Can you point out which of those results represent reliable sources? -- Whpq (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it is required that I explictly show the specific examples toward notability that I came accross, I will be happy to do so. I need to head out to an outside project at the moment, so will comply in about 5 hours. Thank you, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my first impression after doing a Google search. Apparently there is a band called "Tankboy" and also a bloger by that name. Their news pervades the web. There are other links, but none are much more than trivial mentions. The series has a devout fanbase, but apparently has not gotten decent press coverage. Pity. Anyone able to search New Zealand sources? I withdraw my keep. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found the best way to find info on them was to google "Tankboy TV" and "New Zealand" or "Tankboy" and "New Zealand", with the Tankboy TV search giving the best results. They are on IMDB which is a reliable source. Unfortunately most press media in NZ is still on paper. While some press here does get on the web, it does not stay up long. The internet is not quite as big here as in most other western countries, a large percentage of our rural populations still have to access the internet via a dial up modem as their only option. Cooltv Cooltv (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About IMDb (see: Wikipedia:Citing IMDb)... it is generally accepted reliable for WP:Verification of certain informations on released films and shows, but does not in and of itself confer any notability. I might suggest that working through a local library, you may be able to find such reviews or articles. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing Admin: If the consensus is for a delete, I ask that the article be userfied to a workspace of author User:Cooltv, as suggested by User:Andy Dingley above so that it may continue to be improved. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage by independent reliable sources that could be used to verify the information in the article or establish the notability of the show. Guest9999 (talk) 12:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant 3rd party coverage WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 02:37, 17 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 (G4). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hotness (album)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Rihanna's upcoming forth studio album

This is the sixth AfD I know for this album, under various names: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. All previous arguments apply, there is no source in the article that hasn't been discussed before. The only thing we know is that Rihanna expects to "definitely release" an album in 2009, and that Chris Brown said in an interview that he was writing for the album. There is no source for the title, PROD was declined.
Still fails WP:V, WP:MUSIC#Albums and WP:CRYSTAL. Amalthea 13:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as repost.—Kww(talk) 13:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete alone for not only, as the article puts it, "The title of album is still unknown", but the double mention of rumour. Plus the above of course. --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T_# :) 16:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's just unsourced speculation. Dawn Bard (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete By G4 as this article is a recreation of deleted material Pstanton 19:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)
Speedy delete G4 - just changing the title of the article to "Hotness" when it still says "The title of album is still unknown" does not alter the fact that this is the same rumour-based fluff that has already been deleted FIVE times. JohnCD (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ... and don't forget the at least a dozen times when it was speedied. I didn't consider this one a recreation since it appeared to have grown at this place. That might have been wrong though since it was pretty much replaced in this revision – might actually have been a proper G4. --Amalthea 21:08, 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. MBisanz ^talk 08:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alon Miasnikov

AfDs for this article:

Fails WP:N. He was asked a couple of questions for an article on Ynet about Israeli Heavy metal music, but I don't think that confers notability. The other sources are self published. I have already listed it once, but there must have been a Twinkle malfunction. Nudve (talk) 12:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE A previous AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alon Miasnikov was made but never transcluded to the deletion log. It has been closed as keep for procedural reasons. This current AfD should be considered the 'first' time the community has discussed this article. Protonk (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of third-party reliable sources to justify notability. ^LeaveSleaves 17:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient 3rd party sources. JamesBurns (talk) 07:07, 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. MBisanz ^talk 08:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SunniPath

Delete non notable religious organisation, being promoted by an author with WP:COI Mayalld (talk) 11:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SunniPath is a notable religious institute with over 5000 students and over 1 million monthly users. You can check Alexa to find stats about them. You may also search google to find about the Organization and its wide usage in both Academic and general user circle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imran570 (talk • contribs) 2009-01-12 11:58:53
- Size is not any part of our criteria for deciding whether something should have an article. Sources are. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 14:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Organization does seem to be notable. There are a lot of ghits, but I couldn't find any from reliable sources. But the organization has been noted by many websites and seems to regarded highly by Muslim communities. Chamal ^talk 13:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources don't seem particularly credible, and I wonder if the author has a COI. Pstanton 19:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)

Keep: A google search on Wikipedia shows that 91 articles referred to SunniPath. SunniPath on Wikipedia. A search on Alexa shows that 329 sites including Answers.com, wikipedia, and many other notable site used SunniPath as reference. SunniPath in Alexa ^talk 6:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep - Per Chamal N. Livna-Maor (talk) 10:47, 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 (WP:SNOW). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Crittenden-Cavendish

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

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

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

The result was keep. The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 05:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Pendulum - A Tragedy of 1900 Vienna

Non-notable play. Had a short run, is no longer running. Was speedied previously when obviously created by the writer and leading man. The recreated version was full of cherry picked review quotes leaving out critical sections. I've trimmed it back so it's not an obvious puff piece any more, but I still can't see any real notability. Blowdart | ^talk 09:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep All three references constitute significant coverage of the topic in reliable sources, thus satisfying WP:GNG beyond any doubt. Skomorokh 22:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ah but it doesn't meet WP:Fict: a work of fiction must be of particular cultural or historical significance which requires significant external sourcing for the work itself, well beyond the basic threshold of the general notability guideline.. Reviews aren't significant, considering people are paid to review everything in the west end and nothing asserts particular cultural significance that I could find. --Blowdart | ^talk 23:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, FICT is not a Wikipedia guideline. WP:GNG is. Even then, the portion of FICT that precedes your excerpted quote reads "Per the general notability guideline, a topic is presumed notable for a standalone article if it is the subject of non-trivial coverage by reliable and independent sources. However, some articles on fictional subjects may not meet the general notability guideline. These articles should meet three conditions:". Skomorokh 23:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You accuse the article authors of using selective quotations, but your quotation from WP:FICT is outrageously selective. By starting from the middle of a sentence you made it appear as if it applies to complete works of fiction such as this subject, missing out "To justify articles on individual elements...". This article is about a complete work of fiction, not an individual element. And where in any guideline does in say that reviews are not significant? As long as they are from independent reliable sources they are just as valid for showing notability as any other type of article. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this article sourcing two national newspapers (I see you have greatly reduced the quotations from them), two national magazines (one of which you have removed - Tatler), a national theatrical paper of great note in the UK (The Stage - quotes from which have been entirely removed) and the London free newspaper of greatest relevance (West End Extra - quotes from which you have removed). Of these, ONLY The Stage reviews all plays, and Michael Billington at The Guardian, who gave the play three-stars - is THE foremost critic in the country. NB This is the same number of stars as Billington gave Michael Frayn's last play Afterlife, ENB The Pendulum also got the same number of stars in the Sunday Times as that play. Perhaps my selection of quotes was too positive - I saw the play twice and happened to love it. When I recently met the author at a magazine's Christmas drinks for which he writes I asked him why it had no Wikipedia entry and told him to put one up. I later received an email from him saying he had, but after a conflict of interest had been pointed out, he had deleted his own entry and you had deleted the article on the play. I am afraid that what you have left as quotations are simply not representative of the general press, let alone the play itself. People were actually sobbing in that audience on the second night I went. Yours, James Egerton (james.egerton@yahoo.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigjimedge (talk • contribs) 10:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I couldn't find the stage review; I'm glad someone else has, and still haven't found the West End Extra on line at all. You were indeed, to my mind, very selective in the quotes, only using the positive and not anything negative - which were not representative either. The play author did indeed create an article for the play, himself, and his company, two of which were deleted on notability grounds. --Blowdart | ^talk 11:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have lengthened the Billington quote and added a link for his wiki page, as he deserves. I added the stage quote in its chronological place. I lengthened the time out quote to give the balance of the article, and added the Prospect link for their little piece on it. West End Extra is published by the Camden New Journal, but appears to have no online page. First Act's interview with the author is online, but probably does not merit inclusion. The conde naste publication Tatler does, but they do not publish online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigjimedge (talk • contribs) 13:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the link to Prospect because it's just recycling other reviews and the blog author states clearly he hasn't actually been to see the play. --Blowdart | ^talk 14:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability has been shown in the usual way, by significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep any play that opens in a regular professional theater and is reviewed by the mainstream media is notable. The length of run, the quality, the possible COI of the article--all of these are irrelevant factors. DGG (talk) 04:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it meets notability requirements. Rosiestep (talk) 21:27, 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 01:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lost for Words (2009 film)

Apparently fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. and WP:NFF. IMDb says: "Status: Unknown, Comments: Delayed." JohnCD (talk) 11:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there's any chance of confirmation, this could be merged into the article on the director to put it in perspective. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NFF. Schuym1 (talk) 00:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NFF. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 00:52, 17 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 (WP:SNOW). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wizard of Oz on television

AfDs for this article:

Mostly non-notable trivia, with significant amounts of OR and V problems. The article is not completely devoid of quality, but it is not improbable that much of this could be merged to the parent article, to the latter's benefit. As it is, a complete and comprehensive broadcast history of a film is arguably not a notable topic in its own right, and relies upon a presumption of inherited notability. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If a merge is "not improbable" and "to the benefit" of the parent article, than that course should be looked into first. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy or merge if properly sourced could make a nice essay. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Broadcasts of Wizard of Oz and Gone with the Wind (for which a similar article should be made if one hasn't already been) are both notable milestones in the history of American television, with Oz for decades ranking among the year's top programs whenever shown. Today broadcasts of Oz aren't such a big deal, but they used to be. Notability does not expire, and that includes sub-topics of a main. 23skidoo (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was prepared to dislike this article, but it is well-sourced and addresses the impact of the annual telecasts on 20th century American culture. I agree with skidoo that it is a milestone in American television history. Mandsford (talk) 23:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP thank you very much. ReverendLogos (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. The notability of the subject is established by the Time article [23], the Glenn Collins 1991 NYT article, and the Fricke/Scarfone/Stillman book, which discuss the impact of Wizard of Oz broadcasts on the television industry and vice versa. Those reliable sources establish the notability of the subject; therefore an article needs to exist on the topic, therefore merge is not an appropriate option. The lead has some synthesis and some insufficiently sourced claims, but the body looks reasonably good; in any case, minor OR and verifiability problems are not dealt with through deletion. This article needs some editing, but it has come a long way since its last AfD in April 2007. Baileypalblue (talk) 07:12, 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 (WP:SNOW). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wizard of Oz book to film comparison

Take your pick: OR, V, and POV. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR. Stifle (talk) 13:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because there is original research with some of the interpretations (saying the book was "undeniably darker and more violent", for example) while other comparisons are indiscriminate in saying this character/object existed in this medium, but not in that medium (per MOS:FILM#Adaptations). An article needs to be built on reliable, secondary sources. If there is any attempt to add new content, merge it to the 1939 film article to show how it is different from its source material. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. Once cited it would be a nice essay. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a valid topic, but a classic book and a classic film deserve better than this. There have been so many studies of both the 1900 book and the 1939 film that there's no reason to do this as pure original research. I think that many of us have had the same experience when we first read L. Frank Baum-- "Hey, that wasn't in the movie." . Mandsford (talk) 23:53, 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. G3, blatant misinformation. Studios and producers do not buy rights to books that have not yet been written (2010) and if the film is to be released in 2011 it fails all guidelines set for films. Mgm|^(talk) 11:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Treasure (2011 film)

Probable hoax. Creating editor has no edits before or since; book is written by "unknown author"; no Google hits for anything vaguely resembling this; would in all likelihood fail WP:NFF in any case. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:18, 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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 08:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Etiquette of Pakistani dining

Delete Wikipedia is not a HOW TO guide Mayalld (talk) 08:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But either WikiBooks or WikiSource is. transwiki. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete? Per A5 then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs) 19:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Encyclopedic subject, that the tone of the article requires editing is the only real problem with this article. Problems that can be fixed via editing should be fixed, rather than the article deleted, per WP:DELETION. For an example of how it could be once it has seen appropriate editor attention, see Etiquette of Indian dining. JulesH (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but wikify. The execution is unencyclopedic, but the topic is not. Estemi (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JulesH

Comment: upon further research, I found table manners#Pakistani table manners, which is where the text for this article was copied from. I still say keep, though, on the model of table manners#Indian table manners and Etiquette of Indian dining. Jazz Man 18:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete how-to guide. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Take a look at the article now that I have rewritten it. Estemi and JulesH are right. This was never a how-to issue, other than perhaps the issue of editors not knowing 'how-to' rewrite an article. Anarchangel (talk) 01:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Usually how-to rewrite an article involves the use of verifiable reliable sources of which this article is devoid. There is no indication that this etiquette article is even true or reflective of norms - like describing all the fluffery of "High Tea" at Harrods or Agatha Christie's well-spun words about the English breakfast and extrapolating them as the Etiquette of English dining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concede your point that I added no citations, that the article is unfinished, and that therefore it is not in itself an example of how to rewrite an article.

You have not addressed my main point. Your reason for deletion, and the reason of others here, was that the article was a how-to article. I have shown that it was not irretrievably so, and no longer is. Anarchangel (talk) 02:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Encyclopaedic topic, needs refs though and some rewording. Pahari Sahib 11:14, 16 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 (WP:SNOW). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very special episode

Original research and not much else, not unlike what's going on here. Unless some sources can be added, this article should go. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL (talk) 08:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources do about the minimum to establish notability - needing more inline sourcing is not the same as being original research. Valid encyclopaedic topic. WilyD 16:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What sources? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Could use some cleanup and a trimming, but there are plenty of references to the concept. See [24], [25], [26], etc. Zagalejo^^^ 20:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources found by Zagalejo amount to nothing more than a DICTDEF. Anything on top of that is unverified original research. Themfromspace (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The sources provide enough commentary and examples of the "genre" to let us go beyond a dicdef. There are more sources out there: [27], [28], [29], etc. Zagalejo^^^ 01:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then how about actually adding the sources to the article? Like I said, if valid sources are added, the article should stay. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 03:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Add sources" how? I've placed a few more external links into the article, but if you're expecting a thorough cleanup, you're going to have to be patient. I haven't actually read through the entire article yet, so I don't have a clear idea what can stay and what should go. (Of course, you're free to tinker with the article yourself. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, after all.) Zagalejo^^^ 06:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How should you add sources? Look here for help. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 08:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the mechanics of adding sources, but I can't just plop a few footnotes into the article and make all the problems disappear. Some rewriting will surely be necessary, to ensure that the exact wording in the article is supported by the sources. "Adding sources" is not always as easy as it sounds. It will take some time and thought. Zagalejo^^^ 17:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Zagalejo. JuJube (talk) 01:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a notable topic, especially in the United States. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's so notable, where are the sources? In fact, there used to be an entire article called List of very special episodes, which got deleted because it was made up of original research. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 03:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has some external links, and there are many additional sources which can be used in the article. (See this Google Books search for evidence.) The insufficient sourcing can be resolved through normal editing. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Sources found by Zagalejo are more than comprehensive enough to build a reasonable article. To characterize them as "nothing more than a dictdef" is grossly misleading. First source has several sentences giving a brief description and a list of common attributes of shows in this genre; I can't see the content of the second source, so can't comment; third source is an 11-page article giving in-depth examples and discussion of the genre... I really don't need to go on. Those sources are enough to keep by themselves, yet there are three more to use: A NYT feature, among others. Clearly a very notable subject. JulesH (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, suggesting that the sources need to go into the article now to prevent deletion is a gross misrepresentation of policy; WP:DELETION states that if an article can be fixed by editing, it should not be deleted. Now we know the sources exist, we know it can be fixed. End of problem. JulesH (talk) 21:43, 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 (WP:SNOW). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Meinster

Delete no evidence that he actually meet notability criteria. All GHITS appear to be incidental mentions, rather than him being the primary focus of the source, as required for notability. Mayalld (talk) 08:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator subject is not notable. JBsupreme (talk) 08:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 19:53, 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 (WP:SNOW). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Camp 22 (band)

a and suppsedly created a new genre of Hip-Hop called “Crank Music”. Never heard, see no evidence. Xuz (talk) 07:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-I searched Google and sure enough, there're some links that, uh...link to Camp 22. There are quite a number of links that refer to the band, which seems to be notable enough pass WP:N. However, the article does not seem to have any active authors working on it. If there're no further updates to the article, I say we delete it. Cheers, Zacharycrimsonwolf 12:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Occasional references found by google do not demonstrate notability. - 7 bubyon >t 16:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable group WP:BAND. JamesBurns (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 delete (WP:SNOW). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Farris

Fails WP:BIO. I have looked for reliable, third-party sources that would establish notability and found none. Previous WP:PROD nomination was removed[30] by the main author, who also appears to be the subject. Yilloslime (t) 06:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Author is self-published, as far as I can tell (one of his books is listed on Amazon, published by Diskus Publishing--"Disk Us," i.e., send us the disk), and no hits are generated on Google or Google News. Google Scholar has one hit for this Jim Farris, but the topic is e-books and focuses on Stephen King. No notability that I can find. Drmies (talk) 06:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Self-published (he is the sole author published by White Gryphon Publishing) & no independent sources to establish notability. Looie496 (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 00:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just a correction: I am NOT 'self-published.' White Gryphon is NEW, that's why they only have me at the moment. And as I have explained before, if you want to delete the article, just get it speedy-deleted, it's really not an issue to me. I've been changing publishers and doing ghost-writing for the last few months. Ghost writing is pretty lucrative, but you don't get publishing credits for it, so I'm falling off the "google radar", as it were. Six months from now, things could be different, and someone might start the article again. Either way, it's not an issue to me - if you want it gone, go ahead and speedy it. Xaa (talk) 20:36, 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 (WP:SNOW). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IROC (hip-hop artist)

This article about a rapper does contain a fair amount of information and claims of notability... but no actual references to support any of it. All the references cited are links to his myspace and Facebook, and the author has repeatedly added a protection tag to the page despite the fact that no protection has been added for it. There is not a whole lot under WP:MUSIC that this article fulfills, thus unless reliable sources are added to support this artist's notability, it should be deleted. TheLetterM (talk) 05:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources and I can't imagine any emerging. Estemi (talk) 05:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to meet any of the 12 criteria of WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 07:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, despite being a well-written article. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL (talk) 08:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is nothing reliable about this fool. JBsupreme (talk) 08:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Fool"? Is that really necessary? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL (talk) 17:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As said before, well written but unfortantely it is non notable with poor references. Andy (talk) 10:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing else to say really. Chamal ^talk 13:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep iROC is one of the fastest emerging artists in Charlotte's music scene. The article is important in chronicling his growth and inevitable fame. Roc19892005 (talk) 14:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And you haven't added a single reliable source that shows it. Might I add that editing an article about yourself constitutes a serious conflict of interest. TheLetterM (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Music coverage in Charlotte is minimal and that further expresses the need for such pages as this. And the article is not about myself. I am not iROC. Roc19892005 (talk) 14:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Really? Then why does clicking on your username redirect to the article? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because I originally created the page under my username not knowing how to create a page from scratch. I'm new to this wikipedia thing. Roc19892005 (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Uh huh. (*sarcastic nodding*) You just happen to know how to inappropriately use the protection template for your own benefit? Anyway, like the nominator said, the fact that the only references that can be found are to your--oops; I mean, his MySpace and Facebook profiles proves that the article doesn't pass WP:MUSIC. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 08:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. Just a note: the creator of this article has just been indefinitely blocked. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of reliable sources to inherit notability. DiverseMentality 08:07, 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 Deleted - G7 by admin Skier Dude (talk · contribs) (Non-admin closure). Matt (Talk) 05:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mahesh Mhatre

Non-encyclopedic content. Wikipedia isn't the place to post your resume. Matt (Talk) 04:56, 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 (WP:SNOW). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-genesis

Delete I tagged this page for speedy as "nonsense" before realizing that didn't quite fit without an explanation. As somebody has pointed out on the talk page, "genesis" is not a "suffix"; it is a Classical Greek cognate. Wikipedia is also not a dictionary. This page lists "examples" that are actually either examples of Greek prefixes or full Greek words (i.e. abiogenesis) attached to "genesis". CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 04:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DICT. I'm curious about why it would qualify for WP:NONSENSE, however. Estemi (talk) 05:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Mostly because it's rather non-sensical to call "genesis" (which is a word) a "suffix". CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 10:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please familiarize yourself with what Wikipedia:patent nonsense actually is, and is not. Clearly, since you disputed its accuracy, you were able to make sense of the article. Uncle G (talk) 14:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Um...yes, that's why I removed the speedy tag and AFDed it instead... CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 02:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a definition. Drmies (talk) 06:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page isn't just a definition, because of the list of examples. For the reasons outlined by CaveatLector above (i.e. that genesis is not a suffix), however, said list of examples is essentially an indiscriminate list of information. I can't imagine anyone wanting to search for a list of words that include "genesis" within them. JulesH (talk) 08:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:DICT. JBsupreme (talk) 08:41, 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, nomination withdrawn. (NAC) --J.Mundo (talk) 04:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candy Rain (film)

Delete. Um...patent nonsense or just an advert for a NN film? CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 04:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Keep This doesn't work as WP:NONSENSE; it has a subject that you can understand well enough (though sidebar data spilling into the opening is a problem). Nor does it read like an advertisement. I fetched the zh article and linked it; my Chinese isn't very hot, so I can't establish notability, but I will say that the Chinese title (花吃了那女孩) yields a ton of search hits, and most of the actors (主演) have their own articles with decent amounts of content and (also linked) work history. Obviously this article needs work, but at first glance I think it deserves to exist. Estemi (talk) 04:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I checked via a google search before moving this article to its new ___location from the original Chinese title and there does appear to be quite a lot about this film, although it is mostly in Chinese. It is certainly not nonsense, and I didn't read it as being too advert-y either, otherwise I would have tagged it for speedy. I agree with Estemi, it needs cleanup, but that's not a reason to delete it. -- role^player 10:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's been mentioned a lot in Chinese media, I'll withdraw the nomination then, but I'll ask somebody familiar with the film or with Chinese cinema to cleanup the article and make sure it gets de-orphaned. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 02:37, 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) 05:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lambda Archives

Prod disagreed with. The organization has been around for a while, but aside from that it has no real claims to notability or links to reviews by reliable sources. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 03:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is one of the most prominent LGBT organisations in California. Three minutes on Google turns up more than enough prominent media coverage: [31], [32], [33], [34], [35]. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Extreme KEEP. Certainly the article could be tagged for sources, but extreme notability is found with even the most cursory of searches. The organization has been around for over 20 years, for gosh sakes. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am unsure what is going on, but:

"Your search - Lambda Archives - did not match any documents."

Let me see if I can figure out what is going on. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 04:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, this goes beyond this one search, and applies to all my google searches. I'm not sure what is going on, but I'm going to switch to Yahoo :( in the meantime. Feel free to close this AfD, as I see that Yahoo is giving me notability hits. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 04:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - notable per Ecoleetage's sources. @NuclearWarfare Try here. Matt (Talk) 05:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting. I can get stuff via your link, but not through this one. Firefox might be the problem then.
- Nom has been withdrawn; this can be speedy kept. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 05:12, 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. per WP:SNOW Mgm|^(talk) 11:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

101st Academy Awards

Anything beyond next years Awards show is completely unnecesary. What kind of information can be gathered on an award show that will not air, or have anything to award for another 20 years? Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 03:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with this it is just giving general information for that ceremonies and there are many other pages on wikipedia that are way out in the future and where there is not much information on it either and when information is announced one does not need to make a new page about it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbruchs (talk • contribs) 03:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

101st Academy Awards and all of the following articles that were recently created currently violate WP:CRYSTAL since they essentially provide no new information beyond what is already on the Academy Award article:

Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all from the 83rd to the 101st. Pure crystal balling and way too early for most (an awards show 19 years in the future? We don't know if they will even exist in 2028). Not sure about the 2009 awards. TJ Spyke 03:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete everything from 82nd Academy Awards onwards. While a narrow reading of WP:CRYSTAL's "the event is notable and almost certain to take place" clause might support them, they are completely unsourced and contain zero useful, verifiable content. --Stormie (talk) 03:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:VERIFIABLE and WP:CRYSTAL. There's a very real possibility that there will be no 101st Academy Awards, and if there is it may well not be at the Kodak Theater. Pburka (talk) 04:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And the winner is...not this article. Delete. Murky WP:CRYSTAL crystal ball gazing. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Articles are gazing too far into the future. Matt (Talk) 05:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete...it's snowing. Drmies (talk) 06:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:CRYSTAL. Just knowing what year an award ceremony will take place in is not enough to justify the creation of an encyclopedia article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 83rd through 101st. The 82nd one can stay, since it relates to the current year. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SNOW. JBsupreme (talk) 08:42, 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 01:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Grehan

fails WP:CREATIVE. nothing in Google news search. Michellecrisp (talk) 02:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative KeepSeems notable, turns up a few results on Google and the book also turns up results. Needs references though. Andy (talk) 10:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Virtually any author and any book will get a few ghits, as these do. The book, though, does not seem to be notable per WP:BK, and I don't think its publication gives much notability to its authors. (This, of course, could change pretty easily, and the book might become popular. Then an article would be reasonable and appropriate.)
Delete One book that appears to be vanity-published and that's it. Looie496 (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:CREATIVE. Writer of a single non-notable book. His career prior to writing the book also does not show any signs of notability. ^LeaveSleaves 17:06, 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. MBisanz ^talk 08:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick McGee

Notable for only one event, his death. Cunard (talk) 02:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, 1E applies. JBsupreme (talk) 02:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Stephen Lawrence and James Byrd are only known for their deaths. Apparently those articles should be deleted.--Comradesandalio (talk) 02:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Cunard (talk) 03:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, but if similar stuff exists and isn't deleted for a good reason (rather than being forgotten but actually deleteable), that reason might also rub off on this article too. In this case I'd say the lack of verifiable info on this case might distinguish it from the other murders mentioned. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think a very valid difference is that the other two were racially motivated; that's a big deal and makes the case go beyond simple murder. The murder of Byrd gave rise to the Texas James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Act; the upshot of the Lawrence murder was that the Met was found "institutionally racist." These murders were much bigger than just the one event. Drmies (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:ONEEVENT, "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted". Matt (Talk) 05:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about an article on the murder then? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--as cruel as it may sound, this was not a notable death. Drmies (talk) 06:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've added Murder of Patrick McGee to this AfD. Cunard (talk) 08:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Patrick McGee and Murder of Patrick McGee. A murder with no additional impact beyond the immediate individuals involved, is not really a suitable topic for an article, in my opinion. Tim Ross (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I suspect, given the edit history of the author, that this article was created to call attention to racially motivated crimes against whites. However the only sources that indicate that this might have been a racially motivated crime are blogs and political activist groups such as the BNP. It would not surprise me if it was indeed true that the original Times story did mention this information, but that it was later deleted. But I don't think we can keep the information in the article, and without it, the article is reduced to a skeleton. I would like to know if the author would be interested in improving the article but without the reference to the perpetrator's possibly being Asian and/or a Muslim. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 17:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The BNP being a notable although extreme source, we can quote their opinion on the case as long as we are sure to indicate that it is just opinion. Something like this would be appropriate, I think: "In a statement issued on 17 December, the British National Party decried the lack of national media coverage of the crime, and alleged that the Daily Mail had removed from its coverage a statement that the susect arrested was of Filipino origin." JulesH (talk) 10:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, you're right. Hence the strange reference to 'Filipino'--between the lines, the author probably suspects a conspiracy. Thanks for pointing this out. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, I should really read the article histories more often. Drmies (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Patrick McGee. Weak keep Murder of Patrick McGee. A murder case that prompted a statement by a major (albeit extremist) political party is probably notable. News coverage in all the major sources (e.g. [36]) can be used to expand the article. JulesH (talk) 10:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 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.

Furry friends

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

The result was Delete per A3 no meaningful or substantive content. Skier Dude (talk) 03:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic personal essay about caring for cats. Cunard (talk) 01:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nonsense. --Ezeu (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page is not nonsense and should not be speedied for that criterion. The article is coherent and the subject (cats) is easily understood. Cunard (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete- Unencyclopedic ttonyb1 (talk) 01:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Furry delete. ewwww. JBsupreme (talk) 02:38, 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 delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beak Street (Manhattan)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Beak Street (Manhattan) (2nd nomination)

Very small road in northern Manhattan (only one block long) that has no inherent notability. Was previously nominated for deletion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/79th Street (Manhattan); the result was "keep", but this road is nowhere near as major as all the others in that group. Schzmo (talk) 01:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Ezeu (talk) 01:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, for now. Even 1 block streets can be notable and being in "northern Manhattan" is not a valid reason to delete an article.--Oakshade (talk) 02:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JBsupreme (talk) 08:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article already has one source that isn't a random database and the text implies it might have historical significance. Perhaps we should ask CORNELIUSSEON if there's any chance of expansion. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- We cannot have an article on every street in every city in every country in the world. This is (as far as the article goes) a NN street, and the article must be deleted unless substantial notable information can be provided on it. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and comment immediately above. --Triadian (talk) 23:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep there are sources from which we might be able to add history. Nowhere near as major is not a criteria for deletion last time I checked. Weak because I'm not going to have a ton of time to work on this. StarM 01:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a travel guide, and the article fails to demonstrate how or why this street could possibly be conceived as "notable" within the context of an encyclopedia. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:50, 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 (WP:SNOW). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The emoticons of avatars

Unencyclopedic personal essay about websites and relationships. I did a Google search to see if this article was a copyright violation but the Google search came up negative. Cunard (talk) 01:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to be original research. ttonyb1 (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete essay, probably for school. JJL (talk) 01:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yes, it looks like a school essay. The title is not especially encyclopedic, so it wouldn't be useful to redirect. FreplySpang 01:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research is expressly prohibited here. JBsupreme (talk) 02:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, gently, as original research. I don't see any criteria for speedy deletion that this appears to meet, though. But comparing YouTube to the Roman forum makes you wonder what kind of amateur videos the Romans would like. And the author has obviously done a fair amount of research in writing this paper, and ought to be encouraged and steered to more encyclopedic subjects. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it is original research, it is not article worthy without at least one more notable source to back it up. Appears to be one person's unique philosophy, which is not encyclopedia. 67.83.85.236 (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete But first make sure the author is aware and understands why, a great deal of work has obviously gone into all this writing. Pstanton 22:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)
Delete not an article. JuJube (talk) 01:31, 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. because nom was withdrawn. situation that caused the nom no longer applies which invalidates the only remaining delete opinion. Mgm|^(talk) 18:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Lozano

15 year old soccer player who has not played any professional games yet, and has not received significant mledia attention otherwise (he has been mentioned a few times, but not with any details about him). 36 distinct Google hits[37] are an indicator of his current lack of notability. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Fram (talk) 08:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 12:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - according to ESPN soccernet, Lozano has not yet played in the CONCACAF Champions League, and I can find no sources to indicate he has played in the Honduran top flight (which may or may not be fully professional). Recreate when and if he passes WP:ATHLETE. Jogurney (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He made his league debut ([38]) on Sunday, so now the question is whether the Honduran top flight is a fully-pro league (or whether the article meets WP:N). Jogurney (talk) 14:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Its full title is the Liga Nacional de Fútbol Profesional de Honduras, which would suggest it is fully pro..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Meets WP:ATHLETE and WP:N. Lozano plays for C.D. Olimpia, a team of the Liga Nacional de Fútbol de Honduras, "the first and highest division of football in Honduras." The subject has been described as the "promise of the new Honduran soccer"1 and his style has been compared to Carlo Costly. He already has playing time, considering he started with the team this month.2--Jmundo (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That link has Lozano playing against a 2nd division side (Liberal) presumably in a friendly or cup match. Has he played in the league yet? Jogurney (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Olympia will start the first game of the season against Vida on January 11th. 1. This newspaper headline says that Lozano will be a starter .--Jmundo (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 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) 00:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

update--On January 10th, Olimpia formally announced that Anthony Lozano was in the roster, 1. Another source from January 8th says that he will make history in the league as the youngest player to start, 2 --J.Mundo (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw: youngest player ever to play in the top league of a decent-sized country (not Andorra or some such) is enough for me, no matter if the league is fully professional or semi-professional (but it does look to be fully professional). I can't close the AfD as withdrawn since there are valid "delete" opinions, but these were based on an earlier situation (as was my nomination). Fram (talk) 14:43, 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 08:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spaceships of Eve Online

I play EVE, but something akin to this article already exists over at http://www.eve-wiki.net/index.php?title=Ships. Given that this is purely in-universe stuff with little if any outside notability, I think this page should be deleted and a reference pointing people to the EVEWiki link included in the article's main page. TallNapoleon (talk) 11:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tend to agree with TallNapoleon's reasoning. While the article's information is correct and while it may help some readers, this kind of ship listing is not necessary to fully understand the topic Eve Online. Both the Eve Online and the Gameplay of Eve Online articles have sufficient details about ships. I think deleting this article doesn't take anything away that's required for readers to "get" Eve.
-- Aexus (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SMERGE to Gameplay of Eve Online. WP:VGSCOPE is a good metric for this: items and objects in video games are usually not subject of enough critical commentary to be good encyclopedia subjects. Protonk (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikia - It may be accurate, but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. SharkD (talk) 04:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer keeping, because it's a well-written article on a subject matter that is notable. It's niche, and if articles like it have been deleted in the past I won't raise a huge stink, but I don't see any need for it to be deleted. If it is deleted though, be sure to replace it with a link to one of the Eve-specific wikis, so that the information isn't lost off Wikipedia. Alsadius (talk) 22:51, 11 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) 00:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and SharkD; it belongs on an Eve Online-specific Wiki, not Wikipedia. Xihr 00:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Couldn't you say that about any article more or less, that you can find the information elsewhere other than wikipedia? Accumet8000 01:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The problem is that this article lacks real world notability, and is very, very similar to the one I provided. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If we agree Eve Online is a notable encyclopedic subject, information about its mechanics is also important. Both Eve Online and Gameplay of Eve Online are already quite large; even a selective merge of this data would unfocus and unbalance. At present the AFD is focused, balanced, and is a subtopic in an obviously notable larger one, with sources apparently available if poorly used. Estemi (talk) 04:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That it's notable neither means everything about it is also notable, nor does it mean that everything about it is encyclopedic. Xihr 07:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - A larger point is that there is no need for us to reinvent the wheel, as we can just link to the eve-wiki page from the mechanics section. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agreed. A game-specific Wiki is far better suited to this sort of thing. Xihr 05:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's gameguide cruft and provides little useful encyclopedic information to readers. SharkD (talk) 09:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This stuff does not belong on Wikipedia. Looie496 (talk) 22:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep that it is covered elsewhere does not mean it is unsuitable for coverage here. I would expect most notable subject to be covered elsewhere--and I would hope that a fan wiki would cover it in a good deal more detail--I would expect an article on e3ach individual ship. The amount here is arguably appropriate. DGG (talk) 04:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - excessive fictional information per WP:WAF, and no indication that this is subject is notable independently from the game. The ships can be briefly discussed in the parent article. Marasmusine (talk) 17:13, 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. Stifle (talk) 13:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dub From Atlantis

I can find no trustworthy sources whatsoever that establish the notability of this subject, only press releases. I'm sure it exists; I'm not sure it's noteworthy. Drmies (talk) 05:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: insufficient 3rd party notability. JamesBurns (talk) 07:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (but open to argument). This is a genuine event (I'm local) and there are probably references to be had for looking. It's not Gatecrasher or even Blowpop though. What's our acceptable criteria for how major an event like this has to be before becoming regarded as notable? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage, I reckon. Drmies (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:25, 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, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Boston (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of sources to establish notability. Looie496 (talk) 22:07, 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} 05:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nikmat HaTraktor

Tagged for speedy and defended. This is a procedural nomination seeking input from the wider community. --VS ^talk 11:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 12:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant mentions on the web of the band. But there is certain amount of confusion in terms of actual title. Different instances include "Nikmat Hatractor" ([39]) or even it's English translation "The Tractor's Revenge" ([40]). In fact I find no mentions in news search for the current title. ^LeaveSleaves 19:01, 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) 00:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - substantial coverage in reliable sources. As usual Wily D 12:40, 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Cording

Tagged for speedy but in my humble opinion requires further input from members of the community with an interest in this type of article. I offer no opinion as to keep or delete. --VS ^talk 11:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 12:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 11 Ghits for '"Rob Cording" actor', one of which is a review on the website of a local magazine. Notability not quite established. Rklear (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There does seem to be enough available to expand and properly source the article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was searching the wrong Rob Cording actor... not the English actor. My bad. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That listing shows every Ghit that includes the words "Rob", "Cording", and "actor" somewhere in the article, not necessarily together. Of the first 50 hits, only one besides the Wikipedia article mentions this guy, and that's the same one I linked above. There's still nothing beyond that to establish notability. Rklear (talk) 01:53, 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) 00:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Boston (talk) 01:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable actor, basically a vanity page. Proxy User (talk) 01:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, farewell vanity page!! Bon voyage!! JBsupreme (talk) 02:38, 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gil Matos

Bio of a sportswriter/television presenter. Sources are his employer's website and one article in the local Boston paper. Perhaps not quite a speedy A7 candidate, but not notable to the standard of WP:ENTERTAINER: "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following... Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment". Possible COI - author is Arayabe (talk · contribs) who seems to be an SPA writing a string of articles about Boston Latino TV and its employees. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Schuym1 (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:14, 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) 00:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Boston (talk) 01:14, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evelyn Reyes

Bio of a television producer/host. Sources are employer's website, Linkedin, and an on-line magazine. One of a string of articles about Boston Latino TV and its employees written by an SPA author, Arayabe (talk · contribs). Perhaps not quite a speedy A7 candidate, but not notable to the standard of WP:ENTERTAINER: "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following... Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment". Delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into main Boston Latino TV article. Two Boston Globe hits -- [41] and [42] -- but not significant enough (i.e. a profile or more than a few paragraphs or quotes) to justify an article, at least for now. Flowanda | Talk 21:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:14, 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) 00:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:BIO. The sources mentioned above are beyond the scope of "passing mention" or "directory listing". --Oakshade (talk) 05:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Notable Latina leader of Boston, meets WP:N. --J.Mundo (talk) 05:21, 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. MBisanz ^talk 08:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doxia

A sub-project of a project; not notable. Ironholds (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia has numerous useful articles on Apache Software Foundation projects. There is precedent for including subprojects as well; see Apache Ivy. It would be purely arbitrary to exclude Doxia under the rationale given. Lucky Bottlecap (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tagged this in hopes of it being fixed. Bearian (talk) 17:16, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete where is the non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties? JBsupreme (talk) 08:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of notability. --Blowdart | ^talk 11:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added two print references which I believe are sufficient for inclusion. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a non-notable defunct project -- no apparent development after 2007 and nothing but an alpha then. Looie496 (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is active as a component of Apache Maven though not as an independent subproject. Lucky Bottlecap (talk) 13:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per refs by Morven. The project seems to be notable from its variety of uses. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:41, 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. Stifle (talk) 13:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cricdb

Delete. Not notable. // Cachedio (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no assertion of notability and non-notable as far as I can tell. Fails WP:WEB. I checked some random player profile pages eg. and they don't appear to have been updated since June 2007, so not a reliable source. –Moondyne 00:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Gandygatt (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note:Not transcluded at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 January 7 until this point in the discussion. See this discussion for details. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:39, 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, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Boston (talk) 01:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as non-notable, failing WP:WEB, and furthermore not really all that reliable, either. JBsupreme (talk) 02:39, 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. Stifle (talk) 13:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Real Estate Wiki

Wiki with no notable coverage either in article or in searches for sources meeting WP:RS. Both references in article are from press releases and technewsworld article only mentions the wiki in passing. Flowanda | Talk 03:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:27, 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, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Clearly Non-notable. Xihr 00:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources anywhere. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Boston (talk) 01:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Inman News story + this ecommerce times story go far enough to establish notability, by being reliable, nontrivial sources. Wily D 12:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete [43] is mostly about the real estate wiki on Wikia; the only mention of The Real Estate Wiki is a link in the second paragraph, a trivial mention. [44] is a press release, and not a third-party source. [45] is a news announcement about the launching of the website. It's a pay site, but the first 2 paragraphs read like a press release. No third-party, non-trivial, reliable sources found. -Atmoz (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful site with a substantial amount of info; a Wikipedia article is justified in spite of weak external coverage. Looie496 (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak external coverage is a reason for a Delete Secret ^account 22:33, 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. Stifle (talk) 13:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4th Wall Theatre, Inc.

Contested PROD. A couple links have been added since PRODing, but from small-town newspapers. Questionable notability, as well as COI/spam issues, looking at the names of the two main article contributors. GlassCobra 01:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Perhaps this should be improved. I don't whether to say "keep" or "delete" at this point. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^T ^C 03:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Major trim, merge, and redirect to Bloomfield, New Jersey.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Bloomfield, NJ is the town that this theatre company resides in. Merging it with the town article may not be the best solution as they are only one portion of the town (much like other theatre organizations listed on Wikipedia who have seperate articles than the town they are in.)This group has been in existence for over ten years and is a vital part of the community. 05:32, 2 January 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by GregAGoldston (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep and Strong Rewrite Notability is, admittedly, marginable -- but I think a solid rewrite could bring forth an adequate entry. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:32, 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, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notability is now shown, but clean up. Boston (talk) 01:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources are adequate, subject is worthwhile. Wily D 12:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:ORG. Has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. -Atmoz (talk) 17:54, 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 01:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Sereda

Marginal figure who does not pass any of our notability guidelines for biographies. Just because you testify before congress, plant trees, make house documentary films, and appear on Coast to Coast does not make you notable. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Despite appearing in and creating various works, he isn't the "subject of published secondary source material" Theymos (talk) 04:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I created this article to replace a copyvio one so I don't have much stake in it either way. I do think being interviewed on a nationally syndicated helps to establish notability, it may not be enough on it's own. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 09:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 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) 00:25, 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, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it fails WP:BIO. Xihr 00:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and convert the external links to inline citations. He looks like he has the miimal number of reliable sources with the interview. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in the article comes close to establishing notability. Looie496 (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The radio show is the only thing in the article that makes for any kind of plausible claim of notability, but I don't think it's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:22, 16 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FidoNet Star Wars Echo

Appears not to meet WP:WEB. Notable participants != notable forum. Article is sourced to one external fan site; the rest is sourced to the site itself. No indication the site is notable. --EEMIV (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and tag for better sourcing. While well-written, article has been largely unchanged since 2005, when WP had more of a "Hitchhiker's Guide" feel to it. Article was not tagged prior to prod and afd, so there wasn't much of a window to bring this up to 2009 notability standards. Though if we can't get consensus for that, I wouldn't be opposed to a transwiki. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think Theforce.net may actually meet WP:RS. I found the same ref myself in a Google News archive search. It isn't a "fan site" in the sense the term is generally used on WP. It may focus on Star Wars, but it does have a staff and I don't see how this is different from any other specialist news site. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:42, 3 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) 00:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wookiepedia and delete. This is fandom history. Shii (tock) 23:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:32, 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, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a List of FidoNet echos 76.66.198.171 (talk) 06:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You'd need to provide evidence that any other echos are notable (let alone this one) Shii (tock) 20:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think this was a suggestion made in jest. --EEMIV (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak kepp Marginally interesting bit of internet history. Looie496 (talk) 21:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "It's interesting" doesn't carry much water without citations to reliable sources and assertion/substantiation of notability. --EEMIV (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Tag for better citations. Kallimina (talk) 05:14, 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Hogarty

Delete. Notability not established. Reaching #32 in Ireland is not consistent with WP:ATHLETE. WWGB (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 04:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The complete career section is a copyvio of the one inline citation link. ww2censor (talk) 04:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have edited the article to include results and achievments. He was the head-figure of the Irish Chess Union (The main chess organisation in Ireland). He was also the youngest chairperson in history. His death attracted widespread media attention - he was on the front page of several national newspapers and was the first item on most Irish news programmes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jam-Fly (talk • contribs) 15:35, 4 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) 00:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found some better sources from national news: 1 2 3. Hogarty seems to be quite well-known in the Irish chess world. I say keep but rewrite to fix the tone and add refs. I'd be willing to do it if we decide to keep the article. Graymornings_(talk) 00:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The chess.com article Graymornings lists is not exactly the most reliable of sources since anyone can post articles there, but the other references and the fact he was the youngest chairperson of a notable organisation and received significant staff-written obituaries upon his death indicate he's notable. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Newer sources by Graymornings that are about his death and 1 win at the schools championship really still don't make him notable enough. ww2censor (talk) 18:13, 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, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Directing the Irish Chess Union is not notable enough. SyG (talk) 20:28, 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 delete. Stifle (talk) 13:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drivers Incorporated

Similar information to NightRiders, Incorporated. Searches provide no significant coverage or any evidence of notability or support of info or claims in article. Previous CSD was removed. Flowanda | Talk 00:31, 2 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 00:09, 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, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete fails WP:CORP. nothing in Google news search. Michellecrisp (talk) 02:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No info except corporate web site, which does not establish notability. Looie496 (talk) 21:48, 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 (WP:SNOW); redirected to Anti-Americanism. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Americanophobia

Neologism, backed by only by a blog post. Protocop (talk) 03:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence that this neologism has any currency. --Stormie (talk) 03:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the word, we have a wiktionary article. For the concept, we have Anti-Americanism. Estemi (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are several results on Google News, so although the word is not frequently used it is more than a neologism. Some of these suggest it is not exactly the same as Anti-Americanism, however I don't know if the definitions have changed recently. As the article is unsourced and gives no more information than a dictionary definition, I suggest a redirect to wikt:Americanophobia. —Snigbrook 14:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Anti-Americanism, just to keep it within Wikipedia. MuZemike 20:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - original research. Although there is no doubt the concept of irrational hatred of the US and its citizens exists, the term used here is a neologism and the content is entirely unsourced, save for a weblog that the article seems to be directed at pushing traffic to. I don't see the need for a redirect as there is little evidence that the term is in current use. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:33, 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) 18:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prevalence of tobacco usage

This article is essentially duplication of incomplete articles this was designed to supplement. The lead and "Prevalence" section are all duplications of the "Prevalence" section in Health effects of tobacco; and the ranks section is essentially an incomplete duplication of the information already found in the two world maps provided. It may be fundamentally possible to create this article as a spin off at a future date, however at its current state it acts mainly as a distractor in the context of the articles it was written to supplement. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I believe the subject of the article is extremely useful and notable. All large topics have subarticles, and the six paragraph summary in Health effects of tobacco is not sufficient (nor should it be expanded and detract from the main topic of that article). Of course the AFD needs to be expanded, but the text copied and pasted is GPL licensed and serves as a springboard for an eventually complete article. Estemi (talk) 05:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's synthesis, too. Stifle (talk) 13:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the article reads somewhat non neutrally to me, and seems to assume the validity of public-healthist viewpoints, the article seems like a worthy topic, independent of the article on health effects of tobacco, and seems well referenced. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although the topic could use more content, I always favor letting articles "gestate" that seem to have a bright future rather than destroying anything that may have some overlap with another article. Some good editting will solve these issues without deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.85.236 (talk) 22:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, the points I enumerated are no longer valid in that it has been substantially expanded. Synthesis is certainly an issue, and the remedy would probably to be the delete the sentences beginning with "for example" among other things. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the AFD template to the page, the nominator forgot (I wasn't even aware it was here until the user tipped me off). - Epson291 (talk) 04:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This is a valid enycolpedic topic, well referenced, and the article already contains substaintial information different from Health effects of tobacco#Prevalence. Nominator has said above that his/her original points for deletion are no longer valid. (Full discolure, I am a recent editor). Epson291 (talk) 04:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Epson291. Perfectly valid, verifiable article, with loads of good sources, and useful for college and high school students doing reseach on this important topic. Please tag any issues and fix it or move on. Bearian (talk) 18:10, 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) 18:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wicca music

Notability concerns with the scope of the article as it stands. There's some view that there could be a notable article on "Wicca music", but the current article is instead a narrow vanity page that's limited to a single country and a handful of bands, themselves of doubtful notability. The same issues were raised in the past, but not addressed. There seems no possibility of a better article emerging from this, so unfortunately deletion seems like the best option. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some links re. past history: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wicca rock, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Themis music Andy Dingley (talk) 15:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: and improve article. While the article has probelems, it seems like there is some notability to the music of the religion. Toddst1 (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while the article undoubtably has some problems, they're not cause for deletion, but editing. Wily D 16:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs much improvement, though. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and verifiable subject. As others have noted, it needs cleanup, but that's not a criteria for deletion. -Atmoz (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute that this article demonstrates notability, to WP:N. There are two references that might be used to demonstrate notability of the genre (Webradio & e-music, the others being specific to either Wicca, or to Themis) but both of these are still only in relation to the single band Themis. That's insufficiently distinct to count as plural sources, or as "independent of the subject" in relation to a new genre. This article, as it stands, is a vanity piece for a single band, not an article demonstrating the genre. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:19, 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.

[1] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Nottingham

[2] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_Radio_Nottingham

[3] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nottingham_Trent_University

[1]

[2]

[3]