Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 January 17

< January 16	January 18 >

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 speedy deleted --Aude (talk) 08:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poker legends

Contested PROD. Personal essay, rife with original research, POV and unencyclopedic language with no attempt whatsoever at referencing, categories or plain readability. Nothing of any value whatsoever. Please delete. role^player 23:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete An article about poker players might be useful if approached in the right way, but this is just random blabbering by some random guy and isn't even useful as a starting point for a real article. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 02:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - There is absolutely nothing encyclopedic about this page. First off, it's an essay, which we shouldn't have on here. Personally, I question whether any of this is even true. I watch poker occasionally and have never heard of any of the "Legends"; the only players I know are listed in the second sentence, and a couple of them are misspelled. Also, the last part looks like a personal attack. Giants2008 (17-14) 04:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the "legends" are WizardWithWords (talk · contribs) and his friends. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 04:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Likely a hoax made by bored kids. It's a mixture of Personal essay, short fiction and bragging. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 06:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete junk. JuJube (talk) 10:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Sounds like somebody who lost his money early in the game. If he's as good at cards as he is with words, I can understand. Mandsford (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I'm sure this AfD doesn't need my vote as it's a cast iron certainty to go but for what it's worth it's not encyclopedic, it's quite possibly a hoax, it's an essay, it's just not salvageable. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 21:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball that baby as utter silliness. Graymornings_(talk) 02:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This is obvious spam. Timneu22 (talk) 02:50, 19 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. Schuym1 (talk) 03:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bizz buzz

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. The main reliable sources that I can find are just instructions. It was previously nominated for deletion here, but in a big bundle nomination. Schuym1 (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (I have edited this article). IMO it is notable - I'm not sure what you consider sufficient to justify the notability, but it is a commonly played game, sometimes as a drinking game sometimes as mental exercise exercise. Surely if lots of websites refer to it by presenting the rules, that in itself is a form of notability. A couple of references to go with this comment:

Keep Given the first source cited by SGBailey, this is the subject of a published work, and so likely notable. This paired with other sources, such as those found in this google search: [1] indicate that this game is well reported accross MANY sources, all unrelated, and thus is likely not WP:NFT or other such made-up stuff. This appears to be a well reported, widely known game, and should probably be kept. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:10, 18 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 03:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Pandithar

One of several contentless articles created by same editor about minor Tamil Tiger figures. Flunks WP:BIO because not the subject of significant independent coverage from reliable sources; mentions in passing do not add up to notability no matter how often the adjective "notable" is used. Wasn't even notable enough to get a phony-baloney "Colonel" title. THF (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article has links from Tamil Tigers wikipedia page and shouldn't be deleted. Person mentioned in this article was a senior Tamil Tiger person. Please do not delete until agreed by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation members. -Iross1000 (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Keep - Notable high level commander of a very prominent militant organization, the Tamil Tigers. Also, this nomination is a horrible escapade in ignorance driven deletionism, seriously just look at the sheer stupidity of this series of nominations. "Captain" was the highest title in the LTTE before 1985, hence why he did not receive a "phony-baloney" title. A google search easily finds many sources establishing notability.Pectore^talk 23:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CIVIL/WP:AGF please. JuJube (talk) 10:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - @ Pectore: Then please add those sources to the article and assert notability. Just mentioning them here is not enough. I'm working on finding sources for these articles, but have been unsuccessful so far. Chamal ^talk 11:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 05:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP is not an obituary site for those killed in warfare —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasy jatere (talk • contribs)
Delete No evidence in the article of his having done anything notable other than being an officer. I agree with Chamal on the "just saying X is notable doesn't make him notable" point. I don't care what rank the individual held; my !vote won't change unless notability can be shown for something he did. If there's nothing more to say about him than what's there now (that he was an officer and that he was killed), there's no point having an article. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 08:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the side, a general comment about this whole set of AfDs: from what I have seen so far, some of the individuals are notable and some aren't. It's clear that the editors who created the article think they are all notable. But it would have helped the process a lot if you could have provided sources and information from the beginning asserting that notability (ie, what they have done in their capacity as officers), rather than expecting us to just know what makes a Tamil Tiger notable. A lot of these arguments could have been averted. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 08:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Punt to Sri-Lanken Reconciliation - they know what they're doing. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:35, 21 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 03:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel Kumarappa

One of several articles created by same editor about minor Tamil Tiger figures. Flunks WP:BIO because not the subject of significant independent coverage from reliable sources; mentions in passing do not add up to notability no matter how often the adjective "notable" is used. So unnotable that his name is unknown. Nothing here that isn't redundant with 1987_Mass_Suicide_of_Tamil_Tigers. THF (talk) 22:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. —Pectore^talk 23:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article has links from Tamil Tigers wikipedia page and shouldn't be deleted. Person mentioned in this article was a senior Tamil Tiger person. Please do not delete until agreed by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation members. -Iross1000 (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment - Another way out is to redirect the article to 1987_Mass_Suicide_of_Tamil_Tigers untill appropriare RS sources are found. Taprobanus (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 05:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the event for which he is relevant. Jasy jatere (talk) 17:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect at best, or delete, because of ONEEVENT. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 09:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the side, a general comment about this whole set of AfDs: from what I have seen so far, some of the individuals are notable and some aren't. It's clear that the editors who created the article think they are all notable. But it would have helped the process a lot if you could have provided sources and information from the beginning asserting that notability (ie, what they have done in their capacity as officers), rather than expecting us to just know what makes a Tamil Tiger notable. A lot of these arguments could have been averted. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 09:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn, all comments for keeping. Fram (talk) 14:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

K. Dharmarajah

One of several articles created by same editor about minor Tamil Tiger figures. Flunks WP:BIO because not the subject of significant independent coverage from reliable sources; mentions in passing do not add up to notability no matter how often the adjective "notable" is used. So unnotable that his name is unknown. Nothing here that isn't redundant with 1987_Mass_Suicide_of_Tamil_Tigers. THF (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm satisfied by Taprobanus's additions that this article satisfies WP:N, though it should be moved to Pulendran; cf. Abu Nidal, another nom de guerre of a terrorist where the main article is under the nom de guerre. I continue to have concerns about the following articles:

THF (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Untill appropriate RS sources are found, this should be redirected to 1987_Mass_Suicide_of_Tamil_Tigers. Taprobanus (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep I have updated the article, if people want to make it better then this should help. Also number of books are avialble too. Taprobanus (talk) 14:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article has links from Tamil Tigers wikipedia page and shouldn't be deleted. Person mentioned in this article was a senior Tamil Tiger person. Please do not delete until agreed by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation members. -Iross1000 (talk) 23:28, 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. Icewedge (talk) 07:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rai Uchiha

This is a fan-made anime character. No notability hits via Yahoo search (which I didn't honestly expect) and nothing to keep it for. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 22:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; the edit summary from the article's creation, by User:Rai Uchiha reads "Fan made Naruto Character". Baileypalblue (talk) 23:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete made by user who does not understand the purpose of Wikipedia. JuJube (talk) 10:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Clear speedy candidate--something made up one day? Politizer ^talk/_contribs 09:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe that reasons derived from WP:NOT fit the speedy guidelines. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 16:55, 19 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. Slow speedy, or snow. StarM 04:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of health topics (0-9)

There is now a new List of health topics and this sub-list, and those below, are no longer needed. See Talk:List_of_health_topics#Merge_proposal for more info

—G716 <^T·_C> 22:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <^T·_C> 22:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <^T·_C> 22:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If all valid/valuable links have been merged to the new list, no need for these pages anymore. Nice work. Cheers, Basie (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
speedy Delete as uncontroversial maintenance. DGG (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Userfy Without any context, I am not sure what this list is, but I am sure it has some use to the user at least. travb (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you even looked over the debate?! This isn't about deleting any information, just moving material around. What user would want this anyway? Themfromspace (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the disparity in the jumble of links I doubt that it is of any use. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~Delete this shouldn't have been brought to AfD. It's noncontroversial and doesn't involve the deletion of any material. Themfromspace (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A redirect would only be appropriate if it was a likely search string entered by a WP user. None of that article names up for AFD are likely to be used in search queries. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - True, true. Changed to delete, same rationale as for redirecting. Themfromspace (talk) 05:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, the list is apparently a strait dump from a website, the list has never been completed for all the letters, the list is predominately links that are not relevant or add to a cluttered list. Basically it is irretrievable as a decent encyclopaedic page. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete next time, perhaps this sort of thing should be prod-ded. SMSpivey (talk) 08:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above. Prod or speedy these uncontroversial deletes. -Atmoz (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyright violation: original source (http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/) is fully protected by copyright, so copying there index isn't a smart move. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. twirligig^{Leave one! ⋄ Check me out!} 19:14, 20 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 03:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel Akbar

One of several articles by the same author about a minor Tamil Tiger; the articles are devoid of biographical detail; cursory passing mentions of pseudo-position are not the "significant" coverage required for notability meriting separate article. This one doesn't even have the fellow's first name. THF (talk) 21:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Admiral Ackbar? (sorry, couldn't help it!) Politizer ^talk/_contribs 22:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Actually, Politzier's suggestion is a fair one, should this article be deleted, as this is a reasonable search term for those looking for the Star Wars character. No comment on the merits of this particular article as I lack sufficient knowledge to make an informed decision. 23skidoo (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What a ridiculously stupid idea. We can't make Wikipedia a mechanism for spoon-feeding people with bad memories. Admiral Ackbar and Colonel Akbar are two different entities altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pectore (talk • contribs)

I was joking. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 00:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article has links from Tamil Tigers wikipedia page and shouldn't be deleted. Person mentioned in this article was a senior Tamil Tiger person. Please do not delete until agreed by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation members. -Iross1000 (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep - Refer Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sri Lanka. -Iross1000 (talk) 00:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable high level commander of a very prominent militant organization, the Tamil Tigers. Also, this nomination is a horrible escapade in ignorance driven deletionism.Pectore^talk 22:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete notability not established in article Jasy jatere (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence in article of his having done anything important, other than hold a position in the LTTE. On a side note, I'm sad that people aren't totally laughing at my hilarious jokery above. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 09:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the side, a general comment about this whole set of AfDs: from what I have seen so far, some of the individuals are notable and some aren't. It's clear that the editors who created the article think they are all notable. But it would have helped the process a lot if you could have provided sources and information from the beginning asserting that notability (ie, what they have done in their capacity as officers), rather than expecting us to just know what makes a Tamil Tiger notable. A lot of these arguments could have been averted. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 09:12, 19 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 03:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel Sornam

One of several articles by the same author about a minor Tamil Tiger; the articles are devoid of biographical detail; cursory passing mentions of pseudo-position are not the "significant" coverage required for notability meriting separate article. This one doesn't even have the fellow's name. THF (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has links from Tamil Tigers and other wikipedia pages and shouldn't be deleted. Person mentioned in this article is a senior Tamil Tiger person. One more reference has been provided. Please do not delete until agreed by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation members. -Iross1000 (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
~~Keep~~ - Refer Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sri Lanka. -Iross1000 (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Note: above comment stricken because it was a second !vote by same user. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 09:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable high level commander of a very prominent militant organization, the Tamil Tigers. Also, this nomination is a horrible escapade in ignorance driven deletionism.Pectore^talk 22:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete, notability not established —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasy jatere (talk • contribs)
Delete Nothing said about anything the person has done, other than mentioning two jobs he has held. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 09:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the side, a general comment about this whole set of AfDs: from what I have seen so far, some of the individuals are notable and some aren't. It's clear that the editors who created the article think they are all notable. But it would have helped the process a lot if you could have provided sources and information from the beginning asserting that notability (ie, what they have done in their capacity as officers), rather than expecting us to just know what makes a Tamil Tiger notable. A lot of these arguments could have been averted. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 09:16, 19 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. — Aitias // discussion 11:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kandiah Ulaganathan

One of several articles by the same author about a minor Tamil Tiger; the articles are devoid of biographical detail; cursory passing mentions of pseudo-position are not the "significant" coverage required for notability meriting separate article. THF (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable high level commander of a very prominent militant organization, the Tamil Tigers. Also, this nomination is a horrible escapade in ignorance driven deletionism, considering a two-picosecond attempt at establishing notability shows that he was Number 2 in the LTTEPectore^talk 22:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article has links from Tamil Tigers wikipedia page and shouldn't be deleted. Person mentioned in this article was a senior Tamil Tiger person.

Please do not delete until agreed by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation members. -Iross1000 (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

the deletion process is independent of WP:SLR. While the members can participate, they do not have any special role in it Jasy jatere (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Refer Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sri Lanka. -Iross1000 (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- note: above comment stricken because user has already !voted]] Politizer ^talk/_contribs 09:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the thing about his being referred to as #2 seems to be valid, and establishes notability. But it will need lots of cleanup anyway; I've plastered it with cleanup tags in the meantime. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 09:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the side, a general comment about this whole set of AfDs: from what I have seen so far, some of the individuals are notable and some aren't. It's clear that the editors who created the article think they are all notable. But it would have helped the process a lot if you could have provided sources and information from the beginning asserting that notability (ie, what they have done in their capacity as officers), rather than expecting us to just know what makes a Tamil Tiger notable. A lot of these arguments could have been averted. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 09:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Politizer Taprobanus (talk) 13:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A source has been provided to establish he is the " No. 2 leader and intelligence chief", 1. --J.Mundo (talk) 02:37, 21 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 03:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Vasanthi Michael

One of several articles by the same author about a minor Tamil Tiger; the articles are devoid of biographical detail; cursory passing mentions of pseudo-position are not the "significant" coverage required for notability meriting separate article. THF (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable high level commander of a very prominent militant organization, the Tamil Tigers. Also, this nomination is a horrible escapade in ignorance driven deletionism.Pectore^talk 22:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article has links from Tamil Tigers wikipedia page and shouldn't be deleted. Person mentioned in this article was a senior Tamil Tiger person. Please do not delete until agreed by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation members. -Iross1000 (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

merge to Sothiya regiment, when that page is created. Otherwise, delete until that page is created. Jasy jatere (talk) 17:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete as per Jasy jatere's suggestion. Nothing worthy of an independent article here. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 09:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the side, a general comment about this whole set of AfDs: from what I have seen so far, some of the individuals are notable and some aren't. It's clear that the editors who created the article think they are all notable. But it would have helped the process a lot if you could have provided sources and information from the beginning asserting that notability (ie, what they have done in their capacity as officers), rather than expecting us to just know what makes a Tamil Tiger notable. A lot of these arguments could have been averted. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 09:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thambirasa Kuhasanthan

One of several articles by the same author about a minor Tamil Tiger; the articles are devoid of biographical detail; cursory passing mentions of pseudo-position are not the "significant" coverage required for notability meriting separate article. THF (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable high level commander of a very prominent militant organization, the Tamil Tigers. Also, this nomination is a horrible escapade in ignorance driven deletionism.Pectore^talk 22:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article has links from Tamil Tigers wikipedia page and shouldn't be deleted. Person mentioned in this article was a senior Tamil Tiger person. Please do not delete until agreed by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation members. -Iross1000 (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. —Pectore^talk 23:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

might be notable: from sundaytimes: "they ambushed and killed Thambirasa Kuhasanthan alias "Lt Col Nizam," LTTE's Military Intelligence Wing leader and the man responsible for all "suicide killer" attacks in the city." Not sure whether leaders of military intelligence wings are generally notable. If so. keep. Being the mastermind of suicide attacks might also confer notability. Jasy jatere (talk) 17:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand Looks like the person is notable, but you'll need to dig up more refs supporting it. Voting keep for now in the hopes that someone will do the leg work, find the refs, and improve the article to the point where it actually does assert the notability that probably can be asserted. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 09:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the side, a general comment about this whole set of AfDs: from what I have seen so far, some of the individuals are notable and some aren't. It's clear that the editors who created the article think they are all notable. But it would have helped the process a lot if you could have provided sources and information from the beginning asserting that notability (ie, what they have done in their capacity as officers), rather than expecting us to just know what makes a Tamil Tiger notable. A lot of these arguments could have been averted. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 09:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Sunday Times article seems to establish general notability for this subject claiming his was "responsible for all "suicide killer" attacks in the city". --J.Mundo (talk) 02:41, 21 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 03:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit (drinking game)

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. All the reliable sources that I can find are just instructions. In a previous AFD, an editor brought up that it was mentioned in a book. There is no way to find out how big the mention in the book was. The previous AFDs are here. Two of the three nominations had many articles nominated at the same time. Schuym1 (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like deliberate vandalism to me. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment without any sources to show notability and verifiability, I'm inclined to throw this one to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 21:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability, and is likely to be something someone made-up one day. Lugnuts (talk) 09:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could possibly redirect to Bullshit (game), which is a card game that is sometimes used as a drinking game, but otherwise it's pure hoaxage/made up/nonsense. Graymornings_(talk) 02:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I played some drinking game with this same name once several years ago, but the description in this article isn't it at all. Looks like something just made up, or a hoax article. KleenupKrew (talk) 04:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional merge with Drinking game if someone can find a refs for it. BUC (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was going to support deletion, but after a quick Google search, I found that the game does have some notability - examples of websites: [2] [3] [4] [5] - and many more... including at least one book: [6] and it looks like there may be more with further searching. That's enough to show it is verifiable & notable. The article has no sources and it needs them, but based on notability criteria it should not be deleted. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your sources do not show the same information shown in the article meaning that it is probably a different game, meaning that this one should indeed be deleted if it is so.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bullshit (game) is often used as a drinking game. This is not that game. This game I'd call something someone made up one day. JPG-GR (talk) 02:08, 22 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 00:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kasia Madera

WP:BIO. No assertion of independent notability. THF (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no verifiability per WP:BLP. Bearian (talk) 23:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would have thought that a news anchor for BBC News (or at least that is what the article claims) would be notable, but upon searching I am finding coverage by reliable sources extremely lacking. The three articles cited in the article all contain only extremely brief mentions. Icewedge (talk) 07:14, 21 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 03:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beauty Turner

Flunks WP:BIO. Prod removed because her death was in the Huffington Post, but the Huffington Post has lots of non-notable people in it, and besides, WP:NOTNEWS. Her claim to fame is that she edited the non-notable Resident Journal for the non-notable We the People Media and she ran the non-notable Beauty's Ghetto Bus Tours. There's nothing to write an encyclopedic article about, and there's a good reason this article is doomed to remain an orphan. THF (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article references a Chicago Tribune obituary which would indicate notability. A major daily doesn't put this type of article out for nobodies. A Sun Times columnist also wrote about her, as well as this ABC Chicago piece. -- Whpq (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Whpq. Power.corrupts (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I removed the prod. THF does not report my reasons accurately. Like Whpq, I pointed out obituaries in major newspapers as well as Huffington Post report. Supposedly "Non-notable" "claims to fame" were covered by NPR during her lifetime. Very bad prod, very bad nomination. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Again, WP:NOTNEWS. That something was on NPR simply means it was verifiable from a reliable source. WP:V and WP:RS are not the same as WP:N, otherwise we'd have one criterion, rather than three. THF (talk) 23:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sole basis for notability here is a single obituary in the local paper. If there is any basis for notability, it's not reflected in the article itself. TJRC (talk) 00:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - how can you say the single obit is the sole basis when there is the ABC Chicago piece I referred to earlier from Nov 2007 which precedes her death by a year? -- Whpq (talk) 03:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not in the article, there isn't. TJRC (talk) 05:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She is notable as a community activist, and that notability is established through the sources that have been found since the AFD started. -- Whpq (talk) 11:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed the two cited references, and stand by my characterization. They're both human-interest stories from local news media. Her death was newsworthy, although only on a local level; she is not notable as that term is used by Wikipedia. This is clear WP:NOTNEWS territory. TJRC (talk) 21:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTNEWS is to ensure that we have articles that are not a regurgitation of current events. The coverage in this instance is not just because she died, but because of her work while alive, and I disagree with this being clear NOTNEWS territory. -- Whpq (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Whpq, also for an obit in NBC Chicago and an interview about her work on NPR. Google News is filled with length mentions of this woman, clearly a keeper. Icewedge (talk) 02:21, 22 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 14:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Messiah at the Gates of Rome

Delete - Tells a religious story rather than reporting on the story. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Relates a traditional parable from the Talmud. How do you "report" on a parable? Collect (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Parable of the Good Samaritan--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I dunno, but someone has begun adding the Talmud to Wikisource. Perhaps the answer lies there. Rklear (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure description of the story without any description of its significance, etc. Wikipedia is not an annotated text. This is assuming the article is not improved by addition of sourced discussion of the meaning and relevance of the parable, its history, or other information that is useful in understanding it. JulesH (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep with {{notability}} tag or something for now. The article does need to be rewritten (for example, it should start "The Messiah at the Gates of Rome is a story that........") but could be a good article if someone can dig up sources about why it matters. I think for now we could do quick fixes to make it conform to regular article format, and then have several cleanup tags to see if the article gets improved. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 21:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the knowledge that it can be sourced further, for all the stories in the Talmud have been the subject of much later commentary; unfortunately I do not have the necessary skills to find hem myself, but others here do. DGG (talk) 01:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Messiah or Jewish messianism as a section. DGG, I'll bite. It is a pretty well-known story within Rabbinic circles and is important within Jewish tradition regarding good deeds causing the coming of the messiah. I however don't know why Jesus or Messiah son of Joseph are the "see also"... Valley2city 02:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose delete, weak reason by nominee, assuming it should be a real problem, it certainly should be fixable. Power.corrupts (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep strongly keep. This is a very important matter. The article needs to be expanded, not otherwise. Das Baz aka Erudil 17:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC) It is terribly wrong to want to delete information and to suppress knowledge. das Baz, aka Erudil 17:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment I would equally have suggested deletion if the article had contained the following text.

Now in the morning, when He was returning to the city, He became hungry. Seeing a lone fig tree by the road, He came to it and found nothing on it except leaves only; and He said to it, “No longer shall there ever be any fruit from you.” And at once the fig tree withered. Seeing this, the disciples were amazed and asked, “How did the fig tree wither all at once?” And Jesus answered and said to them, “Truly I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and cast into the sea,’ it will happen. And all things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive.”

Without explanation of why a story is notable, it belongs elsewhere.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite per Politzer. There's certainly a place on Wikipedia for articles about Talmud parables, but a mere restatement of one is not appropriate. Rklear (talk) 17:26, 21 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 03:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conservation Fallout: Nuclear Protest at Diablo Canyon

No evidence this is a notable book or meets the low bar of WP:BOOKS. Prod removed because the book garnered a single book review. Amazon.com Sales Rank: #1,389,356. THF (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are two book reviews referenced: The Historian, Volume 70, Number 3, Fall 2008, and Environmental History, April 2008. So the book meets WP:Notability (books) because "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself." Johnfos (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Book is listed in different academic libraries including Princeton, Columbia and Brown, 1. --J.Mundo (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How can that possibly be the notability standard? There are one million books in the Princeton University Library: is it your position that each of them merit a Wikipedia article? THF (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BK: Academic books "are often highly specialized, have small printing runs, and may only be available in specialized libraries and bookstores. For these reasons, the bulk of standards delineated previously for mainstream books are incompatible in the academic bailiwick." --J.Mundo (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) You didn't answer my question. 2) You left out the relevant part of that paragraph from WP:BK: "Again, common sense should prevail. In that case, notability should rely on whether it is published by an academic press,[8] how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media,[9] how influential the book is considered to be in its specialty area, or adjunct disciplines, and whether it is taught or required reading in a number of reputable educational institutions." This is an academic press, so, ok, we'll ignore the lack of sales and the fact that it is on remainder. What's your evidence for the relevant criterion other than its presence in a library with a million volumes? Saying that it's one of the million books Princeton put in its library is hardly evidence of notability. THF (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This book got in the list of 196 libraries, it seems notable to me. If the book meets the criteria for inclusion for Princeton, why not Wikipedia? --J.Mundo (talk) 00:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

speaking as a former librarian there, what one library buys is not the standard. Princeton buys as many books as it has money for; while not infinite, they will still not all be notable. DGG (talk) 01:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThe standard is what many libraries buy, and the about 200 academic libraries that have bought it would have bought it because 1/it is on an important subject of current itnerest 2/it is by a reliable academic press, 3/ it has at least three major book reviews, Righter, R. W. 2007. "Wills, Conservation Fallout: Nuclear Protest at Diablo Canyon". JOURNAL OF AMERICAN HISTORY -BLOOMINGTON-. 94, no. 1: 346, Herring, H. 2007. "John Wills, Conservation Fallout: Nuclear Protest at Diablo Canyon". ENVIRONMENT AND HISTORY. 13, no. 3: 363-365, and [http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/259648462&referer=brief_results

Wellock, Thomas. 2008. "Conservation Fallout: Nuclear Protest at Diablo Canyon - By John Wills". The Historian. 70, no. 3: 565-566]. That last point is enough to justify the article. Using amazon to judge the notability of academic books, either to show them notable or to show then non-notable, is not a good way of doing things; instead, try WorldCat. DGG (talk) 01:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Book published by the University of Nevada Press, which is a significant publisher. If this were self-published or from a non notable publisher I'd vote otherwise, but this is a keep. Personally I don't think individual books, songs, albums, minor Star Wars characters, South Park episodes, etc should even have their own articles, but that debate was already lost long ago, so keep. KleenupKrew (talk) 04:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's fascinating to me that we have finely detailed policies, and they're systematically ignored, even as they guarantee that the project becomes untenably unwieldly. THF (talk) 08:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per THF, not notable. Princeton Library is filled with millions of books, does each one deserve a Wikipedia article?WackoJacko (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, coverage in DGG's sources meets WP:GNG. The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 00:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia is not a link repository, and Wikipedia is not a directory. For the life of me, I don't understand why people think three book reviews creates notability for a widely-ignored book where there is no evidence it meets any of the other criteria for WP:BK. WP:GNG is necessary, not sufficient, and given the NOT violations, this doesn't even meet WP:GNG. THF (talk) 04:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People think three book reviews creates notability because it satisfies criteria 1 of WP:BK: The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself... This includes published works in all forms, such as...reviews. --MPerel 05:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable per DGG's rationale. --MPerel 04:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Three reviews meets criterion 1 of WP:BK, which asks for "one or more of the following criteria". Meeting all of the criteria is not required. Jfire (talk) 18:02, 21 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 03:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Fiske-Harrison

Found no "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Many hits on Google, but most are either articles by the subject, passing mentions, or his own account at various sites. --aktsu ^(t / c) 19:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Also note Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Fiskeharrison. --aktsu ^(t / c) 19:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment - He has participated in the notable (passed AFD) play The Pendulum - A Tragedy of 1900 Vienna, and I'm thinking the main argument against deletion will be his participation there, but I don't think that alone constitutes having "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions" (from WP:ENTERTAINER). --aktsu ^(t / c) 19:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right of course, you did more than participate - my mistake. AFD is not about the quality of the article, but if you're notable enough to have an article in the first place. Did some formatting on your entry, hope you don't mind. --aktsu ^(t / c) 20:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Absolute madness. Press all over the place. --Bigjimedge (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Bigjimedge would seem to be the editor mentioned Here Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 17:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note Please see below--Bigjimedge (talk) 12:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article reads more like a resume than an encyclopedia. That means that the subject is listing everything concievable that he did in an attempt to try to prove that he is notable, but notability isn't inherited from his projects. I fail to see independant third party sources describing him in detail. He can publish a million pages of stuff but unless a significant body of work is published about him, than he fails the notability guidelines. If for some reason the article is kept, it would have to be pruned and watched over, since it's pretty obvious that it's being used as a tool for promoting the subject. Themfromspace (talk) 06:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete It's such a shame that some people feel the need to create articles on themselves. I had a go at editing the article in a minor way yesterday but I do feel that there is insufficient independent third party sources currently available. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 13:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The requirements of WP:BIO for people in the entertainment field are quite strict, and I don't believe they are met. The article spending so much of its time on minor details of this person's life doesn't help the case. Here is what we expect for 'creative professionals':

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.EdJohnston (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re-edit & Important Comment I feel some responsibility for this situation as I said to Fh he should put up a page on his play and himself. This has led to this situation. He did not ask me to put up a page on his play, but when I said he should, he merely returned the statement. So I did. I have now completely re-written the page in his name, focussing on two points of notability - the play, and the essay on bullfighting which has been immensely controversial, although he notably has failed to mention that. I actually met him at the magazine for which it was written (no COI, I am not employed by them) and the editor said it was the most commented on article they have ever printed.

You are still editing with a conflict of interest because you know the subject personally. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be edited majorly by people who know the subjects. Editing with a COI is a very bad idea because its almost impossible to maintain a neutral point of view when you know the subject personally. This artile wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the conflict of interest. There is no doubt that this article promotes the subject as Wikipedia is a very popular website and any potential employer will see his resume here. In that way, this article is financially connected to him and having a person close to him create and edit it is against the spirit of WP:NPOV, a conflict of interest, and an overall bad idea. Themfromspace (talk) 12:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's there the claim 'most commented on article' came from, which I've deleted. dougweller (talk) 12:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't true. I have met the subject on one occasion, having prior to that seen the play and read the Prospect essay. If I do have a COI it's with my own conscience for causing this furore. NB The 'most commented on' was pointed out to me by the editor of Prospect, however, it is easy to establish by comparison. I cannot find a single entry with even close to 118 comments. --Bigjimedge (talk) 12:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However saying "Compare for yourself" puts it firmly in the realm of original research which isn't allowed on wikipedia. If you had a third party reference pointing this out, from a reliable source, then that would be acceptable. Even then 118 comments is very probably not notable in itself, it just shows a very slow blog. --Blowdart | ^talk 12:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having raised the obvious conflict of issues over at WP:COI and being accused of having some personal issue and not having the faintest idea what I'm talking about I've been staying out of this one, until I started looking at some of the references. The acting references do not prove notability. One had no mention of Fiske at all, and the rest are in passing mentions, his name in brackets beside the character name and no comments on his ability. The only notable thing appears to be his bullfighting essay, which has been reprinted in another newspaper and mentioned on a blog. Even then it doesn't met WP:BIO --Blowdart | ^talk 12:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - Note And of course having written, produced and acted in The Pendulum - A Tragedy of 1900 Vienna - it's reviews being on it's separate page. --Bigjimedge (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I've done no such thing. I removed one reference which did not mention you at all, removed references about your self penned play as they're already on the play's page and pointed out that the other acting references mention you as a cast member, but do not provide any comment on you beyond that. That's the nice thing about references, people can see for themselves. As for the removal of bits from The Pendulum - A Tragedy of 1900 Vienna, well posting the inside of the programme is not encyclopaedic to me and adds nothing to the article. But that's another discussion. As for it is necessary to provide the commentary yourself no it's not, not unless they are simple factual statements, as ever see WP:COI --Blowdart | ^talk 15:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking you have. Your comment suggests that there are no comments on the acting on *this* page, but you personally removed the only references from *this* page which commented on the acting, whether they remain elsewhere or not. NB you find no notability where Geordie Greig, David Goodhart and Michael Billington, among others, all have. --Bigjimedge (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists is not an excuse for non-deletion; the people you choose are notable for their positions of editors of major magazines. As it is I removed reference already in the play article, which is linked too from the person. There's no need to duplicate like this. This is rapidly descended into WP:TEAMWORK. I assume by *this* page you mean the article itself, rather than the deletion debate. I've left the "in passing" references more to demonstrate the weakness of them than anything else. And finally, please remember to sign your posts. --Blowdart | ^talk 17:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am only in this conversation because, as the instigator, I feel some responsibility. Thus WP:TEAMWORK is inapplicable. You also do not follow my point. I am not saying the subject is like the people mentioned, but that they have deemed him notable in their own work, where you have not.--Bigjimedge (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recap I have rewritten this article and believe its subject stands as notable because of his creation of and participation in the work The Pendulum - A Tragedy of 1900 Vienna in combination with his journalistic output which has resulted in the international controversy surrounding his essay for Prospect magazine on bullfighting. I have no COI, because, although I have met the subject on one occasion, briefly, he is certainly not friend, family or fellow community member. Nor have I been asked to perform this task, but rather suggested it myself, and as the various issues generated by your rules and regulations have become clear, have taken on the responsibility of execution - which is as it should be (and what I should have done from the first).--Bigjimedge (talk) 19:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment By international controversy I am guessing you mean that various blogs based in other countries discussed the article, which was on a controversial subject in any case, no matter what he wrote. His journalistic work still seems pretty minor, just a few articles. The only possible basis for notability seems his authorship of a play which had only a short run and 'mixed reviews'. dougweller (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant being reprinted in India and being interviewed on Al-Jazeera, alongside the dozen blogs around the world, yes. Obviously, this is not all his articles. This is not a personal site or repository for work.--Bigjimedge (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMHO, the subject does not meet notability standards based on WP:BIO, as he is neither well-known nor widely cited. The page doesn't contribute to Wikipedia's goals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TeeRebel (talk • contribs) 09:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've done a bit of formatting and clean-up and sources do indeed seem to have been added so this subject meets GNG if one combines the writing and acting bits. -- Banjeboi 03:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further info "In a web-exclusive review for Prospect this week, actor and writer Alexander Fiske-Harrison returns to the fertile topic of animal psychology and ethics that he explored in his much-noted essay for Prospect on bull-fighting (a piece which sparked one of the most in-depth discussions ever to feature on this blog)." from today's Prospect magazine website--Fiskeharrison (talk) 02:09, 22 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 03:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kanjivellam

Orphaned article consisting of a one-sentence definition of a cooking by-product (water drained from cooked rice) - otherwise non-notable Geoff ^T ^C 19:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did an extensive search of Internet sources, and significant book-based searches. There are only 80 hits at Google, and very few mentions of this "boiled rice-water" in any reliable source that I can find. Those that do happen to mention it never provide any more information than what is already in the article. Unless someone finds non-English-language sources, this does not meet our general notability guideline. Overall, I think that straight deletion is the right choice; it's possible that it could be redirected to Gruel ~~or transwikied to Wiktionary~~. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose transwiki to Wiktionary: It's not an English term, so it doesn't belong in the English Wiktionary. There doesn't appear to be a Wiktionary for Malayam. Transwikiing as a definition is therefore inappropriate. (There is a Malayam Wikipedia, but can't simply be copied into it (wrong language) and as a dicdef, it would probably have the same notability problem there. Besides, there is no information in this article that the average Malayam speaker does not already know.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - See below; it seems not to be the case that English Wiktionary is for English words only.--Kotniski (talk) 09:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a well known form of food as far as I know in Kerala. Wiki San Roze^†αLҝ 00:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to Gruel. Wiki San Roze^†αLҝ 20:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge/wiktionarize. The information seems accurate, potentially sourceable and potentially of use to someone searching for information in an encyclopedia. This is a good example of the phenomenon being discussed at WT:AFD at the moment (I'm only here, obviously, because this was chosen as a randon example in that discussion). Deletion should be the last resort, not the first. "I haven't heard of this" or "I can't find any sources in Google" is not a reason to rush to judgement and vote to delete something. Sources (not necessarily on the Internet) will be found on this, the article will be expanded, or possibly merged with another one - all in good time. Meanwhile we provide a snippet of information that someone might be looking for, thus making the encyclopedia that little bit better. If you must get rid of it, at least take it to wiktionary so the info is still reachable.--Kotniski (talk) 08:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI kanjivellam is not an English word, but used only in Malayalam. Are we going to make an entry of every word in other languages into Wikipedia? At best this can redirect to Gruel with a small section on kanjivellam. This is surely not something for an encyclopedia. Wiki San Roze^†αLҝ 16:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it has to be an entry (i.e. an article), but we must avoid this reflex of saying "this doesn't deserve an article, therefore the information presently here must simply be deleted." First we should look at ways of merging it with something else (like you suggest); if there is no article to merge it with now, there may be in the future. This word clearly is occasionally used in English, as Google shows, so it's not "just" a random foreign word. Wiktionary is perhaps the best place for it, but by voting simply "delete" you don't ensure even that.--Kotniski (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do see your point. Things like this certainly depends on the subject in question. For example, a while there was this article called Parisal. A parisal is a Tamil word for the type of coracle in Southern India. Then there was another article called Theppa was also made. Both mean the same, but in different languages. A merger was proposed and in the end we have this article Indian coracles where both Parisal and Theppa redirect to. Now to explain in context, both the words parisal (alternate spelling - parical) and theppa are used in some books and also in a few peer reviewed journals. If we are to have each of them seperate we will soon be redundatopedia. As I said I clearly see your point. There needs to be a clear guideline on what non-English words or terms be included in English language Wikipedia. I change my vote to redirect rather than delete. Wiki San Roze^†αLҝ 20:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kotniski, as you know full well, I did rather more than just count the number of Google hits. I also challenge your characterization of those pages, however: Half or more of them were Wikipedia mirrors or lists of alphabetic words. And there were only 80 hits in the first place.

But here's the problem for you: if you want to keep it, WP:BURDEN says that you've got to provide a reliable source. So where's your reliable source? Keeping an article for which we reasonably believe it to be impossible to find any reliable sources at all violates Wikipedia's policies. That's what that "last resort" language is all about: when you really can't, after a long search, actually find proof of notability, or even enough informal information to make the "article" longer than a two-sentence dictionary definition, then you're supposed to delete it, not hold it up as a WP:POINTy example of these horrible deletionist people that actually think articles should comply with the notability policy.

There is absolutely no reason to think that this word has any notability in English, or even that the idea has any notability that isn't already adequately covered at Gruel. A "merge" looks a heck of lot like a simple redirect to Gruel, since this word is just a foreign-language term for thin rice gruel made with water, and rice gruel made with water is already listed among the possibilities named in the first sentence of Gruel. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that none of us really know anything about this topic (apologies to anyone who does) and we are not in a position to assess whether "it's impossible to find a reliable source". Almost certainly there are reliable sources for this information somewhere, since your searching turned up informal sources that confirmed its accuracy (you even added to it on the basis of what you found, I think). And if we automatically deleted all information that wasn't explicitly sourced yet, we would lose about 95% of Wikipedia. But because this is a separate page rather than a statement within a page, people's minds go into destruction mode and they starting voting delete in big bold letters, without considering how to preserve the information. (English wiktionary isn't only for English words, surely?) Quote from Wiktionary: "This is the English Wiktionary: it aims to describe all words of all languages using definitions and descriptions in English" (my emphasis).--Kotniski (talk) 09:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't believe that the English Wikipedia wants Malayam words, but if you think so, then why haven't you created a page at Wiktionary for it? The closing admin has no responsibility to do any such thing: his/her sole responsibility is to delete this if it does not comply with the English Wikipedia's notability policies. (That's the only reason that admins close: non-admins can't delete articles.) If the decision is that an article meets the notability guideline, then the admin responsibility stops with merely noting that fact. Admins do not have a responsibility to implement your preference -- even if we had a consensus that this word met the notability requirements (which we do not, because it does not). Anything other than deleting the article is your job. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. --Geoff ^T ^C 22:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Malayalam word not used in any other language. Tintin 10:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read any of the above? By delete, do you mean move to wiktionary? Because if everyone just writes delete, an admin will just come along and delete it. If we write transwiki or something like that, then there's a hope that whoever closes this discussion will ensure that the information is moved to wiktionary or elsewhere before deleting it from this page. I hope everyone gets my (well originally not my) point about deletion being a last resort; this is really a continuation of the discussion at WT:AFD, it's not that I care greatly about this specific word, but it's the principle that matters.--Kotniski (talk) 10:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Had just glanced through it. After going through it, still don't have an opinion on moving to wiktionary, mainly because I have hardly ever visited wiktionary and know little about it. But I am a native speaker of Malayalam and my opinion was based on that. But on second thoughts, I am beginning to feel that Kanji should have an article on its own with Kanjivellam a redirect to it, or it could be a redirect to Congee#Indian which talks about the same thing.

Re WhatamIdoing's comment, if you search for kanji & kerala you'll have a lot of relevant hints. Tintin 12:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per User:Kotniski, I added reliable source (book) to article, some of the Google hits indicate that this rice water has "therapeutic" (ahem) qualities, so could be usefull elswhere in Wiki. I would say though it is pretentious to call the article a "food stub". Power.corrupts (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your 'reliable source' is a history book about a Catholic settlement in India, and the sole mention of the subject is in this phrase about an ascetic: "...he was satisfied with mere boiled rice-water (kanjivellam)." This really does not qualify as a reliable source for the purpose of this article, and it definitely does not demonstrate encyclopedic notability, which is what a subject must do to have an article at Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki no claim of notability or importance in Malayalam cuisine; belongs at Wiktionary. in response to the comment near the top about how this "doesn't belong on English Wiktionary"..... there is no English Wiktionary. Wiktionary is one project, holding as many languages as people want to put on it. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 23:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to be similar to congee. Bearian (talk) 23:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Similar to congee in the sense that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, or in the sense that Congee lists five references, three external links, and a WikiCookbook source, whereas a diligent search for reliable sources for Kanjivellam has produced zero sources that contain more information than a very brief dictionary definition (and only two [a press release and a history book that may qualify as self-published] that do even so much)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:39, 21 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 00:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

99.9 the beat

I don't see anything that indicates the site is notable enough to merit its own page. JaGa^talk 19:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tenative Delete - I can't find any mention of this in independent media which makes me think it isn't notable. But I also can't find any listener stats. If it has a large listener base I would think it would be notable. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable radio station. Schuym1 (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Total abuse of the radio station template. This isn't as notable as any other web stream of this kind. Nate • (chatter) 00:11, 18 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. CLoudy with a chance of SNOW. StarM 02:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enforcement of Dispute Resolution Outcomes

Chock full of original research and reads like it was written by a corporate middle-manager with too much time on his hands. Ironholds (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for same reason as one below. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 18:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research and could well be a copyvio. Stifle (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The creator claims the article(s) are part of work for her Masters degree. Ironholds (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to her at the article talk page with some mention of WP:NOT#OR. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 20:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a free host. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. See WP:IINFO.Simon Dodd (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No OR as it makes no claims not found in articles (needs cites). Tried to find unusual phrases on other sites - did not. Hence "copyvio" is rank speculation. It is an article in outline form, which suggests the author intends expansion at some point. This is supported by it being brand new. No attempt was made to initiate discussion on the talk page, nor any attempt to contact the author prior to listing for deletion. The new editor has, in fact, also entered articles which have a heading from "Wikiproject Law." Collect (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point you towards the discussion here which effectively pops your argument like a balloon. I'd say part of a Masters thesis comes under original research; last time I checked being checked by a professor does not constitute a peer review or anything approaching the type of professional approval necessary. Ironholds (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Again, this is original research. Oh, and the content is pure trash. Timneu22 (talk) 02:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those are speedy deletion criteria, though :). Ironholds (talk) 05:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Enforcement of the Mediated Agreement on what looks like a very similar article. (I'm assuming this is what Politizer refers to as "one below".) —David Eppstein (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Weak keep~~ Transfer to userspace for much needed improvement. I see no obvious OR. Unencyclopedic article structure (bullets) and unclear focus is a problem. Much text is about dispute resolution, and not the enforcement of the outcome, this sure needs definition. The dispute resolution page is itself flagged for need of an expert. Perhaps a merge could be the way forward? A lot of work has gone into this, is there no salvage value at all? ~~In reality, I may be on the weak delete side.~~ Power.corrupts (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of OR see this. Masters thesis/work is OR indeed. Ironholds (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just seen the next Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Enforcement of the Mediated Agreement, identical problems, but I see a lot of good intentions by the editor. Improve. Concerning OR, I see recitation of other peoples' work, but not obvious OR Power.corrupts (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reason as this. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 21:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article has no sources at all. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:51, 21 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 00:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Enforcement of the Mediated Agreement

An essay chock full of original research. Ironholds (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very poorly defined topic, no salvageable material. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 18:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NOT#OR. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 19:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom.Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a free host. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is in outline form -- not even one day old. No sign of OR, if anything it looks like lecture notes which would serve as an outline for an article. "No salvageable material" is a judgement which is not borne out unless that person asserts special expertise in the area. Author not contacted, nor any attempt apparent to improve the article. Collect (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, see here. For someone complaining about 'no attempt to contact the author prior to deletion' your reading around the subject seems noticeably lacking too. Ironholds (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. And it doesn't matter if the article isn't a day old. Depending on the quality, some articles are deleted within mere minutes of creation. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 23:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. What is this mess? It seems to be original research. Timneu22 (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment OR is not a reason to speedy. Declined, no harm in letting the AfD run. StarM 05:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enforcement of Dispute Resolution Outcomes for what looks like a very similar article. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transfer to userspace for much needed improvement Power.corrupts (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia isn't a place for essays. I agree with Ironholds, this is an even worse article than Nofal is. Nyttend (talk) 06:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ba'ath takes power in Syria and Iraq

The content is already covered in the articles on the Ba'ath Party and the histories of Iraq and Syria respectively. As a struggle for power not limited to one particular ___location and occurring at different times this will be next to impossible to write a decent combined article on. Ironholds (talk) 18:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The current title violates WP:NOTNEWS and, even if the article is moved, Ironholds' concerns still stand. Article doesn't appear to offer anything that isn't already present in the other articles, and since the title is inappropriate and not a likely search term there isn't any point in redirecting. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 18:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Nominator does not explain what policies this article violates. Politizer argues the title is bad, but that can be changed quickly with a page move to different name. Politizer seems to be suggesting a merge with another article. Policy is crystal clear: deletion should be the last resort

Policy: Deletion should be a last resort
WP:PRESERVE Policy "Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information." Wikipedia:Notability Guideline "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself." Wikipedia:Deletion Policy Decorum and politeness. Wikipedia urges any contributor to read the Wikipedia:Deletion policy before deleting or nominating an article for deletion. "When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." WP:INTROTODELETE "Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved." Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state "In most cases deletion of an article should be a last resort"

travb (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for using 'common language' rather than quoting TLAs; if you could cease being so patronising I'd be grateful. See, I'm using this thing called common sense. The article cannot be useful because the events it documented were separate and it is covered in far more detail in the articles related to the party and countries at hand (making it effectively a content fork). I don't quite know what the purpose of your second link is; the fact that the events happened and that reliable sources say they happened was never questioned. Recommend administrator explain the nominator's statement to Inclusionist. Ironholds (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to second Ironholds' comment about your being patronizing, Inclusionist. It's one thing to say speedy keep; it's another to say "speedy keep and please send someone to chide Ironholds for me."

And your blind regurgitating of a few policy titles doesn't really help to further the discussion. I don't see how you can accuse us of violating WP:PRESERVE because the information is already in other articles, as Ironholds has said—we won't be deleting anything that isn't already on WP. Liking WP:Deletion and saying we should read the deletion policy before nominating is just silly; of course we have read the deletion policy.

I've already said why I think the article isn't valuable; now can you say why you think it is? Politizer ^talk/_contribs 21:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Messages to the administrator are the norm, for example, if I clean up the article, I mention this to the nominator.

But since this is offensive, I happily refactored my comments. My apologies.

As for Politizer's more strong remarks, WP:PRESERVE "Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of removing, try to: move text within an article or to another article (existing or new)", this was not attempted. No efforts to improve the article was attempted. No efforts to find new sources, no efforts to merge, no efforts to talk to the creator, no efforts at all before the deletion. Deletion is the last resort. WP:INTROTODELETE, Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state

Wikipedia:Deletion#Reasons_for_deletion: Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to...Content forks (unless a merge or redirect is appropriate). A merge or redirect is appropriate.

Thank you.travb (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well the last one is a reason for a merge or redirect, not keep. Merge and/or redirect are not appropriate; the information is already contained in the other articles (merge) and this isn't a search-worthy term (redirect). Ironholds (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The connection of the two events is established here and not necessarily in the separate articles. The article on the party itself gives a single sentence to this. Argument that it will be a difficult article to flesh out is not a reason per se for deletion. Collect (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is a plea from the creator, a new editor (79 edits before creating this article), pasted here from his talk page:
Can you Please Let that article stay I really like it and its like making any other article, also it has perfect information if you want me to put that article any where else on a wikipedia page I'll DO IT! Please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohmygod766 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 17 January 2009.
travb (talk) 23:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reads as a short essay in its current form but it can be cleaned up. I'm sure sources are abundant as military takeovers are usually a pretty big deal. The page should be renamed to something more formal such as "1963 Ba'ath party coup d'etat". This doesn't violate WP:NOT#NEWS anymore than the article about the recent plane wreck. Themfromspace (talk) 00:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and give it a chance At this point, this is an excerpt , section 4, from the WP article Ba'ath Party, not yet expanded,w ith the title improved by Politizer to Ba'ath takeover of Syria and Iraq. If it doesn't get expanded there is no point in keeping it, but this was nominated for deletion 54 seconds after it was started, which is counterproductive & bitey. All this effort could meanwhile have led to some proper improvement into a suitable split-off detailed article. FWIW, a general statement that deletion is the last resort does not help defend an article as much as showing what alternatives there are. However, I would be perfectly willing to have done a speedy close as an inappropriate afd nomination just because of that 54 seconds. But perhaps the nominator might not have noticed it DGG (talk) 01:45, 18 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 03:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allan_Cox_(author)

Notability, page appears to have been written by a close associate who has written much of the material about said person that I could find via google, potential conflict of interest Reboot (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ and clean up junk: appears to have published enough things to be somewhat notable, if we can clean up the tone and undue weight created by the potentially COI editor. Might change this to a neutral if someone can show that there are no good independent refs to be had other than the ones written by this editor. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 18:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - - Changed to Neutral per below. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 19:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One question: how do you prove such a negative? I offer this: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&fkt=571&fsdt=3041&q=allan+cox&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq= and that there are none on the first 50 (my setting with customize google) except by him, blogs that begin with "I know Allan Cox" and hits to other folks with a similar name. Reboot (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's enough proof for me. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 19:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep NYT cites are sufficient for notability. "Your Inner CEO" is in Amazon top 350K ... so he is a real person with, IMHO, sufficient notability. Collect (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Collect, tag the the article {autobiography}, {cleanup} and the whole slew as per Reboot. Power.corrupts (talk) 21:00, 19 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 00:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kerbala when the skies wept blood

I can find no RS indicating notability for this video. Ghits reveal some download sites and plenty of Wiki mirrors. Perhaps it's a language thing, maybe an Arabic search would reveal something, but I cannot. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy It's impossible to establish notability or article potential, given the lack of content. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 18:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party notability. JamesBurns (talk) 01:33, 19 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 03:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rockin' Heaven

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Rockin' Heaven

Unnotable manga series. Unlicensed and no significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Fails WP:BK and WP:MOS-AM#Notability. Only minor not of notability is that its last volume was #12 on the Oricon comic rating,[7] but no other volumes placed and it has no other news coverage or other accolades/reviews. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the writer has previously published a bestseller, then the work is notable from being created by him. I believe that is what the rules state. Also, what manga review sites are considered legitimate references? Because I see it listed all over the place, and its sold on Amazon. Dream Focus (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. See WP:BK, nor is she is a bestselling writer. Also, it is NOT sold on Amazon. The links you posted on the article's talk page are not Amazon listings, but seller's marketplace listings for the German edition. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep and clean up. It's written like a fan site now, but with all the junk removed it could at least be an ok stub. But I'm not too attached; it seems that the manga's actual author hasn't "previously published a bestseller," but collaborated with someone else who did, so it might not be very notable. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 18:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails WP:NOTE and WP:BK. Simply being sold on Amazon does not make a manga notable. Being written and illustrated by a manga creator who previously worked on another notable manga doesn't make the first manga notable via inheritance. There is nothing in the notability guidelines about making it on a bestsellers list. --Farix (Talk) 20:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not via inheritence, but via common sense. Not covering all the work of a notable person would make their article incomplete. Besides, WP:NOTINHERITED wasn't written for this purpose. It was written to avoid bios on people who shared a stage with a notable person or were present at a notable event without actually doing something themselves. Actually literally it refers to people with family connections. (Besides, sometimes notability can be inherited. WP:MUSIC: "a band is notable if it has a notable member". And we define notability in all sorts of ways coverage in reliable sources, having won notable competitions. We don't see those as inheriting either.) - Mgm|^(talk) 23:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we cover all works of a notable person. On the article about that person. Merge to Mayu Sakai. Doceirias (talk) 07:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's increasing looking like there is no evidence that the manga creator is notable either. --Farix (Talk) 13:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Article asserts it has been licensed by Tokyopop in Europe (I assume that's Tokyopop Germany) and Planet Manga in Italy. The two-licensors guideline of WP:MOS-AM#Notability has been disputed, but if verified, the series passes that. Secondarily, I note that any series that survives to 8 volumes worth of chapters has more than a little popularity going for it -- girls can be even more vicious in the publisher's feedback than boys -- and popularity like that usually translates into notability, in sources in the language of origin. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both are confirmed. Tokyopop Germany has released six volumes so far.[8] Planet Manga's site also confirms the license, with 3 volumes out and 2 due in 09.[9] However, as noted, the MOS-AM notability addition has been disputed as invalid and, if that's the only sign of notability, I think for now, at best it should be userfied somewhere.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:MOS-AM#Notability #6. 76.116.247.15 (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither a manual of style or a WikiProject can establish notability criterion outside of the notability guidelines. --Farix (Talk) 21:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that per consensus at the project, it has now been agreed that the MoS Notability is invalid. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(speedy) Keep Uh, yeah. This is an ongoing series with eight published volumes and notable names behind it, along with a multinational release. Joke nomination? - Norse Am Legend (talk) 00:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't a "joke" nomination. Being an on-going series is irrelevant (as is its length). Nor is the author particularly notable (despite the articles a fan created for her gushing about her everywhere). In truth, she isn't notable at all. Four verified series, most 2 volume ones, none licensed for English release, and no significant coverage in reliable sources either. Again see both WP:BK and WP:N. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being licensed for English release is not a criterion for anything. Being licensed in Germany and Italy is good enough as notability is not language specific. Something which is notable in one language is notable period. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No where in the notability guidelines does it state that being published in other languages makes a work notable. --Farix (Talk) 03:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but wouldn't basic logic an common sense dictate that nobody would waste time and money licensing, translating, and publishing a "non-notable" work, let alone, MULTIPLE companies in multiple languages? If the notability guidelines don't cover it, I say WP:IAR. 76.116.247.15 (talk) 02:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The argument about the lack of notability is weak, when two other foreign language Wikipedia have an article about the subject. --J.Mundo (talk) 03:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS On top of that, the standards for inclusion in foreign language Wikis does not transfer over to the English language Wikipedia. --Farix (Talk) 03:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is available in multiple countries and multiple Wikis, I'm sure we can find a criteria for inclusion. --J.Mundo (talk) 07:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the existance on other Wikis is completely irrelevant. Most other wikis, quite frankly, do not have tough inclusion guidelines and, as many have fewer editors than this one, far more bad content is overlooked. Again, significant coverage in reliable third party sources is needed, not a handful of fans of the author making pages in wikis that anyone can edit (there is a reason no wiki is a reliable source, including our own). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Edit Userfy (see below) for the sake that it is publisher in a third country Marvel Panini France publishes it My position is to prevent a English speaking centered bias. Things likes i don't care, it's not published in English. is WP:BIAS --KrebMarkt 16:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC) Edit The publisher belong to the same holding than the italian publisher but the french translation had to done & paid for.--KrebMarkt 16:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That don't exempt the article to bring reliable sources & citation. In that context, reliable sources are criticals. --KrebMarkt 16:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, where in any of the notability guidelines, and why doesn't that being published in other countries is a criterion for notability? And why does WP:BK leave the publications in other countries out of its criteria? Instead of pointing to an actual notability guideline, all you've been dong is making things up and calling it a notability criterion. --Farix (Talk) 17:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : I have now information about an upcoming release in Spain, the Panini holding is striking again see here : Panini releasing it in Spain ? That would bring the languages coverage from german, italian, french to spanish. Userfy is probably the best solution until a publisher decide to release it in english. A keep can't be hold due to the difficulty to provide reliable sources & references and counter checking them. An outright delete can be perceive as people pouting because it's not available legally in their favorite language english.--KrebMarkt 14:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep If it has been published in at least three countries (besides Japan), I think we should give it the benefit of the doubt that it's likely there are at least some reviews of it out there.--Cattus ^talk 18:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then go find them. Simply using publications/translations in other countries/languages is a horrible standard in determining notability. --Farix (Talk) 18:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The series has been published professionally in three languages by an established mangaka. How many graphic novels can you find that share that scope of availability and influence? Estemi (talk) 19:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a few, actually, particularly actually notable manga which may be published in some 10 languages, including English, and have plenty of coverage in reliable sources, rather than just being a bare blip in even ANN. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't use the existence of several publications as a standard. I just used a bit of common sense, that if several publications exist, reviews must exist too. The multiple publications being an indication that reviews - which I did use as a standart - probably exist. --Cattus ^talk 20:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comment just above. Estemi (talk) 19:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this results in a keep result, I'm going to take that over to WP:BK to see if being published in multiple languages and/or countries should be included in the criteria, since that is the reasoning used by all those arguing for keep. --Farix (Talk) 20:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think publishing companies around the world pick up a series if it isn't successful? That's not how things are done. If it isn't selling well in one nation, it won't be picked up by publishing countries in others. Dream Focus (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's notability guidelines are not bases on sales, but on coverage by reliable sources independent of the subject. --Farix (Talk) 20:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Actually, yes, they would. From actual discussions with people in the manga industry, they don't look at what other countries are doing as they have different audience make ups. They look purely at the work and its reception in Japan. Also, it would seem to be pretty telling that Tokyopop Germany licensed the title, but not the main Tokyopop company for release in either North American nor the United Kingdom). Obviously only one thought it was worth publishing. And, agian, you don't know the series was successful. There isn't even sign it was that successful in Japan, and publishing companies do gamble based on their overall sales. There are actually several series licensed by English publishers that were practically unknown in Japan. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've found what seems to be a review in German.[10] Can't tell if the site can be considered a reliable source.--Cattus ^talk 20:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The last volume published was actually volume 8, and it was printed last November. I've actually been working on the article from behind the scenes (although I wasn't logged in, haha) and gave information on the vomic. I've read nearly the entire series so I think I can extend the plot summary a bit more. If we can't keep the characters section, can we at least keep the vomic cast information? I thought that was very resourceful. (Also, for some reason, when I Google the article, the article remains the same before everyone made those heavy edits. Is it a cookie problem?) Blackarcadia (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree with Collectonian's heavy editing of that article, you can click history, and then click undo next to her name. You can also make a character page for that article, named List of Rockin' Heaven characters, and put the information there. Some people like short articles with as little information as possible, others like them long and detailed. It all depends on who is around at the time to edit and post about it. Dream Focus (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not encourage other editors to do inappropriate actions like that. Creating a character list for an article already under deletion discussion is beyond inappropriate, and extremely excessive. It will just be redirected or deleted. Not every series gets a separate character list nor should the be created automatically or out of a bad attempt to present inappropriate content. The character information was properly merged into the plot because it was repetitive. Also "Some people like short articles with as little information as possible, others like them long and detailed. It all depends on who is around at the time to edit and post about it." this is blatantly false. There is a Manual of style for anime/manga articles which we follow, along with other guidelines (those ones you have been dismissing all over the place), such as WP:SUMMARY, WP:WAF, and WP:PLOT that provide clear guidance on what is and is not appropriate content for an article. It has nothing to do with people liking short articles or long articles. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read the manual of style. I'm sure we can figure something out with the characters without having to reinstate the plot. Maybe we can shorten the plot section a little, and include more character depth on some of the characters (i.e. remove the part about Akira being uneasy with her friendship with Sawa). I just want to try this because later on in the series, each character has their own "complexes", so to say (i.e. Tsubaki's protectiveness of Ran is because he is in love with him), and there are some extra stories that include more background behind the characters (i.e. there's an extra story about all the characters at age 5). Shall I try something...? Blackarcadia (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I'll wait until whether it has been decided that we'll actually keep the article. Call me if we decide to keep it. :D Blackarcadia (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a complete article with everything you want and desire in it, check out the wikia. Its owned by wikipedia, but they have ad banners to pay for everything, and you can make as many pages and upload as many images as you want. http://gantz.wikia.com/wiki/Gantz_Wiki See how detailed everything is there? After she mass deleted stuff on the Gantz page, which I still disagree with since you can't understand the series without more information than that, I just put it all over on the Gantz wikia, and added things even. Anyone can adopt a wikia. I'll help you out if you decide to get one. Since most people are voting to keep this article, I assume it'll be kept. Just strip down what you consider to be the bare minimum necessary for each character. Maybe check out the Inuyasha page, and see how they do things. If you have enough main characters, you can make a seperate page for it. Think about how many issues the character has been in, and how crucial they are to the series. Dream Focus (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but even if we have a characters listing, I'll admit it'll probably end up small. There are a lot of main characters, but they are not in-depth as much as the characters from InuYasha are. Ogawa doesn't get a lot of development, and it just seems that out of the core group, the most notable would be Ran, Sawa, Tsubaki, and Akira. Sugishita, Taguchi, and Kido would come up a near second. I've been keeping up with Japanese and Chinese RAWs (and making out stuff with my mediocre language skizzles) so I'm willing to help out with this article. We should wait a little bit more and see what the others say though. (Eh, if this article gets deleted I'll probably just create a fan site because I adore this series~) Blackarcadia (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will reply on your talk page, as this is not really the place for this discussion. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is precisely series like this that I think that WP:BK should have a criterion along the lines of "has been translated, or licensed for translation, into N languages". As an IP above put it, "wouldn't basic logic an common sense dictate that nobody would waste time and money licensing, translating, and publishing a "non-notable" work, let alone, MULTIPLE companies in multiple languages?" This is along the lines of the WP:BK criterion of winning an award or the WP:MUSIC criterion of having a song chart or the WP:POLITICIAN criterion of having held a sufficiently high office: it's not these event per se that make the subject notable, but that these are markers that can make us pretty confident that more material is out there, even if we don't have it in hand at the moment. Which goes in hand with the official policy that we don't have to have everything in hand yet. That we do not (yet) have such a requirement means that I'm likely to be discounted by the closing admin as not supported by guidelines, but so be it. Lasting as long as it has in Japan and several other publishers putting their money where their mouth is sufficiently indicates a level of notability that I'm confident that eventually this series can be shown to meet WP:BK #1. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:03, 21 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 03:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nagatachou Strawberry

Unnotable manga series. Unlicensed and no significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Fails WP:BK and WP:MOS-AM#Notability. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Licensed in Germany and it appears to be in Chinese as well, though I can't make out the publisher. Aside from those hints, though, I'm not finding much to indicate, let alone demonstrate, notability -- not even much buzz in the scanlation boards. I'm inclined to delete but will hold off !voting pending more research. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:MOS-AM#Notability #6. 76.116.247.15 (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither a manual of style or a WikiProject can establish notability criterion outside of the notability guidelines. --Farix (Talk) 13:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It was number 3 on the top 20 list for sales, for a major sales outlet. http://manlymanga.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/tokyopops-weekly-top-20-40-44/ Seems successful in Germany, but nothing out in English yet. Dream Focus (talk) 20:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a blog, not a reliable source with no actual source claimed. Also, that is purely Tokyopop sales figures, which doesn't really speak to actual reception in Germany, just within their group of products (which isn't really that much)-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It list its sources just fine. And the sales from one of the largest manga outlets in the world, is notable. According to their wikipedia article, Tokyopop is huge. Dream Focus (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't and it is a blog. Clearly failing WP:RS. And yes, Tokyopop is huge, Tokyopop Germany is not (hence it not having its own article). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:36, 18 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 03:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Major Mano

Non-notable Tamil Tiger, article devoid of biographical detail; cursory passing mentions of pseudo-position do not add up to notability meriting separate article. THF (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nominator has said everything that needs to be said. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 19:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to be notable as he was a key player in: Long Range Reconnaissance Patrol operations and is also mentioned in: Sunday Times Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extra Comment - also mentioned in The Nation (Thailand) on June 14, 2005, Tuesday Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: He was actually killed by the LRRP, not a key player in it. I'm not sure if getting killed by a particular military organization makes you notable. Chamal ^talk 10:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep, or possibly merge - 'Devoid of biographical detail' is not a reason for deletion. He does hold a position from what I can see: Even a quick Google search shows up notability. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment. if you search wioth -wikipedia, your hits get a lot less.Jasy jatere (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article has links from Tamil Tigers wikipedia page and shouldn't be deleted. Person mentioned in this article was a senior Tamil Tiger person. Please do not delete until agreed by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation members. Refer Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sri Lanka. -Iross1000 (talk) 00:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Keep - "I am too lazy to look something up" isnt a valid reason for deletion.Pectore^talk 22:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I've looked it up. The passing mentions in the press does not add up to notability, which is an objective Wikipedia standard. Please stop your personal attacks. THF (talk) 00:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made no personal attacks, but I did summarize your rationale for deletion in a somewhat blunt manner.Pectore^talk 02:44, 18 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 03:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irasaiah Ilanthirayan

Non-notable Tamil Tiger, article devoid of biographical detail; cursory passing mentions of pseudo-position do not add up to notability meriting separate article. THF (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for same reason as above entry. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 19:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable high level commander of a very prominent militant organization, the Tamil Tigers. Also, this nomination is a horrible escapade in ignorance driven deletionism.Pectore^talk 22:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article has links from Tamil Tigers wikipedia page and shouldn't be deleted. Person mentioned in this article is a senior Tamil Tiger person. Please do not delete until agreed by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation members. NYTimes ref has been provided. -Iross1000 (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

definitely keep. II is the spokesperson of the LTTE and probably among the top 5 tigers as far as media presence is concerned. had 11500 google hits on 18.1.2009 Jasy jatere (talk) 17:37, 18 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, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sourced, notable, even important. --Mr Accountable (talk) 00:55, 22 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 11:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Sovereignty Party

I have done Google and Google News searches for "national sovereignty party" -russia -welsh -wales -canada -afghanistan -wiki -poland -brazil -turkish -turkey -croatia, (there are lots of "National Sovereignty Parties" around the world!) and have looked at every single hit generated. There is no evidence whatsoever of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. The author of the page should identify some grounds for inclusion prior to recreating the article next time. Bongo matic 17:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't find the name of their 2000 presidential candidate covered anywhere; appears non-notable. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 17:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Why not speedy as a non-notable org? Ironholds (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure if non-notability is blatant and uncontroversial enough for speedy...but I definitely still endorse deletion through AfD. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 18:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedied once, recreated, hence AfD. Bongomatic 23:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, I didn't notice that. In that case, it could have been speedied as "recreation of deleted material," but that's moot now, it looks pretty likely to be deleted anyway. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 19:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, G4 explicitly excludes articles that were deleted via {{prod}}> and speedy. See WP:CSD. While the original criterion still applies, so it remains eligible for speedy again, I wanted to do an AfD discussion so G4 can be used in future cases of recreation. Bongo matic 23:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Thanks for pointing that out; I had never noticed that about G4 before. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 00:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This party did not compete in the 2000 presidential election except possibly in the most half-hearted way. They did not make the presidential ballot in even one state. See this issue of Ballot Access News for evidence against their participation. In fact, the article does not assert that the party has ever had a candidate appear on any ballot, much less received any mainstream news coverage. More likely this party was probably the alter ego of its non-notable candidate's non-notable write-in campaign. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Who? KleenupKrew (talk) 04:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per User:Bongomatic and User:Metropolitan90. Power.corrupts (talk) 21:05, 19 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 - would make a fine article if it expanded its text to include sociological ...things Xavexgoem (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Averting

Dictionary definition. Unexpandable. Graymornings_(talk) 17:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete could have been speedied with {{db-transwiki}} ? Politizer ^talk/_contribs 17:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps averting should be moved to the wikipedia dictionary?WiktionarySmallman12q (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as dicdef; already in wiktionary as present participle of the established word "avert." JohnCD (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll copy the contents over to wiktionary. Then the article may be deleted.Smallman12q (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really anything to copy that isn't already there. This article makes the claim that it's a sociology term, but doesn't give it any definition from the sociology register, just gives a generic dictionary definition. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 18:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article can be deleted. It is a sociological term, but it is of such broad scope, that it can apply to nearly any field.Smallman12q (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to retract my last statement. Rather than delete the article, it should be made into a redirect.Smallman12q (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A cross-wiki redirect to wikt:avert? I don't think that's necessary; I don't see why anyone would search for this term on WP anyway. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 19:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe a redirect would be best as wikipedia has no article on avert(The article on Avert is for the "AIDS Education and Research Trust" which has nothing to do with avert. Also, could someone userfy this for me. Thanks!Smallman12q (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't think there's much point, as most people wouldn't look up "avert" on Wikipedia looking for a dictionary definition; they would go to Wikt or to a dictionary website.

As for userfying, you can just copy the entire text (from the edit window, so you get the formatting as well) into User:Smallman12q/Averting or User:Smallman12q/Avert. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 21:34, 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Negro Project

This is an smear page insinuating that birth control advocate Margaret Sanger wanted to exterminate the Negro population, discredited information repeatedly removed from the Margaret Sanger article. See Talk:Margaret Sanger#Negro_Project for background. Delete this POV fork as WP:CSD#G10 and create redirect to Margaret Sanger. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ If there is anything worth writing on this, the title should be something like "Negro Project conspiracy theory" or who-knows-what. This article appears to present speculation as fact, and it probably can't be appropriately cleaned up as long as the creator is disrupting the process. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 17:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Week keep and expand Changing my vote, sinice Graymornins' edits seem to have improved it. I think this "keep" is contingent, though, on someone watching the article carefully for at least a couple days and defending it from potential attempts to change it back to an attack page. It's also contingent on someone improving the article...right now it's not very useful, but the comment below suggests that a decent article could be written on this topic. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 18:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Considering the tendentiousness of the editors who add this information, watching for "at least a couple days" will not be sufficient. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Negro Project conspiracy theory and fix POV. (see below) This seems to be a notable conspiracy theory - Concerned Women for America have commented on it, NPR has done a story on it, as have the Washington Times, the New York Sun, and several other reliable news sources. What's wrong with this article isn't notability - it's blatant POV and disruptive editing by the article's originator, which shouldn't be a cause for deletion. It may be an attack page now, but I'm sure we can fix it. Graymornings_(talk) 17:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the page to Negro Project conspiracy theory, removed the POV material, and added one citation. I'm currently trying to find more info - if anyone can find non-proponents of the theory that have provided commentary, that'd be helpful. Also helpful would be names of chief proponents/groups behind this theory, views of historians, and any word on Planned Parenthood's response. Graymornings_(talk) 18:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This may be WP:OR. None of the above-cited sources refer to this as a "conspiracy theory"—we seem to have discovered one. Can any oft-repeated smear be added to Wikipedia as long as conspiracy theory is appended to the title? If so, the gates of WP:FRINGE WP:FORK may swing open. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not appear to represent any significant research into the project. MFNickster (talk) 18:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This remains so even after Graymornings' revisions. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We might be able to find more info on the topic, but even after researching, it's hard to find non-POV sources. I'm not sure I or anyone could make this article into more than a stub without it being POV. If (and only if) no more info is forthcoming, I support deletion but a short mention in the Margaret Sanger article. Otherwise (that is, if we can find good sources and expand), keep but monitor for POV edits. Graymornings_(talk) 19:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - One citation is not enough to be notable. Needs a lot more sources and documentation. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per user:Graymornings - but watch closely as candidate for relisting.Simon Dodd (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the sources found by Graymornings. Edward321 (talk) 04:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge to Eugenics and also potentially Abortion. -- this appears to be important enough to the area of Eugenics to keep, but possibly not strong enough to be its own article. -- Guroadrunner (talk) 11:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Altogether unsatisfactory sourcing. This needs a good published source. I listening to the NPR, & its an accusation by someone being interviewed, without evidence given. If there is something here, we need something much more substantial to show it. DGG (talk) 17:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources are available to expand the article, 1, 2, 3, 4. --J.Mundo (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per J.Mundo's Google books search results to expand article. Power.corrupts (talk) 21:13, 19 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 03:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shamota Tala Rinpoche

Cross-wiki spam, no sources, does not meet WP:BIO — NickK (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete No Google hits anywhere other than WP projects and one Facebook page. No sources given to make me confident that there is offline coverage. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 17:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The machine-generated translation to german is also about to be deleted. Shamota Tala is either completely unknown, or does not exist at all. No sources could be provided in the german discussion. Delete this article. --Theghaz (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The same in Ukrainian, Polish, Danish and many other languages. In almost all Wikipedias the machine translation of this article is either deleted, or nominated for deletion, or marked as requiring immediate improvement — NickK (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Czech article was deleted as a machine translation hoax. --Mercy (talk) 11:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax, delete: Apart from no sources, I find it questionable that a person who "authored many books in Tibetan which have been translated into English, and more recently books in English", has no hits on google (including world wide bookstores), except this on wikipedia and user-created facebook group. Very likely a hoax.--Siru108 (talk) 08:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a student of Lama Shamota Tala Rinpoche, I am understandably sad to see this go, but I can see the reasons are genuine, and that in it's current state it is not suitable for Wikipedia. It is therefore with regret that I also say we should delete this article. Peter Robinson Scott (talk) 13:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete The article fails to show notability. Hekerui (talk) 16:33, 18 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 00:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Abuse

Non-notable label, doesn't even meet the low bar created by WP:MUSIC. THF (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of notability. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 17:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient notability WP:CORP. JamesBurns (talk) 01:18, 19 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 03:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J Scanlon

Does not meet WP:BIO notability requirements; also WP:COI (page created by subject). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete I started a debate team at my high school and my friend started a chess club at my university...that doesn't mean we should have articles. An article on the school's Rugby program might be appropriate (although probably not, if it's just at the club or IM level), but not about the program's non-notable founder. As an aside, the article appears to have lots of PEACOCK terms...that alone wouldn't justify deletion, but the article already has enough problems and this is just one more. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 17:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject may be influential in his circle, but isn't notable by WP standards. Dayewalker (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Founder of a non-notable team. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 01:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. Valley2city 02:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KeepThere are 40 people at Lewis University who's lives are directly changed because of this kid. There are several hundred others at Lewis Univerity and Local high schools who are indirectly affected by what this kid has done. Kids who may change their mind and go to lewis over some other school because of his contribution. Thats just in illinois. There are hundreds of kids who are learning flag rugby from this kid as he goes school to school whos lives will be changed when they start playing because he came to their school and showed them how- kids who otherwise might sit at home and play video games but now will go out and play and live better, healthier, and more fulfilling lives. I wrote this article about him because he has made such a contribution- Wikipedia thinks its an autobiography- its not- I wrote it because of the difference he has made. I know for a fact he is helping several schools in illinois and florida and has shown them outlines of how to budget their potential college rugby clubs. He helped indirectly in starting a high school rugby team in illinois at a school near his. This kid has changed more lives than the majority of people on wikipedia and just because you've never heard of him, doesnt mean he's not important. Maybe you just hadnt heard of him because nobody wanted to listen. Well I want people to listen and know about what he's doing because he has never asked for anything and he is certainly more important than all these dirty politicians on here and murderers and all this. He has made a positive difference in the world and takes no credit for it himself. People should know about him and then maybe this world would be a better place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelJScanlon (talk • contribs) 10:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand where you're coming from, there are six billion other people on Earth who have just as compelling a life story, each in their own way. Wikipedia relies on verifiability and notability to decide whose life stories get into the encyclopedia. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 10:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per MichaelJScanlon. x_x JuJube (talk) 10:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Keep~~This is not about the life story- this is about the overall impact. Many people may have stories, but how many of them can help others. How many are as influential. The point that you are all missing is how important this kid is. He is not important in your everyday lives, but his is well known in the rugby world which is a field of over 2 million people in the US alone and 500 million worldwide. He is not known world wide but is well known in USA Rugby. USA Rugby does not concern any of you unfortunately and thus you wouldnt be expected to know this kid, but we all do. Don't let your ignorance of who he is disallow others from knowing and i mean ignorance as in lack of knowledge and not with any negative intent. He is important nationwide. He is like a young politician for the game and i hate to use politician because politicians are usually not people i tend to associate with but he is a nationwide well known ambassador. Like i said don't let the fact that you are uninvolved with USA Rugby deter you- he is extremely important. JuJube- i only wrote this article and thus signed up with the kids name because i didnt know how it worked at the time- im not too great with technology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelJScanlon (talk • contribs) 13:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - User has already voted. — neuro^(talk) 14:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia, that is, no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject given nor found. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - MichaelJScanlon, you're going to get nowhere without appealing to established policies and guidelines here. That's just how it is. J L G 4 1 0 4 04:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sorry, may be a very worthy person but not notable by Wikipedia's standard, and Wikipedia isn't here to help him become famous. JohnCD (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - User:MichaelJScanlon, if you are really not Michael J. Scanlon, you should certainly not be using his name as your username: see WP:CHU for how to request a change. JohnCD (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really hope it's not Scanlon, because if it is, the level of self-promotion and speaks very poorly of him. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 04:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not michael scanlon I am Matt Kelly- one of his former coaches and an administrative member of the chicago area rugby football union. I am an old timer and dont know much about computers and used his name because i only joined to write this artice and simply dont know what im doing but I wrote it because of the impact he has made in our community and in all of USA Rugby nationwide now. He has been highly influential and if you cant recognize that than its just simply arrogant of you guys. And I followed the link to change my username and i dont understand- i cant figure the damn thing out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelJScanlon (talk • contribs) 02:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 00:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DENIP

This article was previously WP:PRODded, and I was considering a speedy A7 at first, but this article doesn't clearly fall into any of the categories and even if it clearly did, I probably would not have due to the iws. However, upon closer inspection, I can't find reliable sources that would make this holiday notable, and the iws seem to be direct translations, all made by one user. I suggest this article, which lacks reliable sources, be deleted as not notable. Maxim_(talk) 16:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've linked to this at WikiProject Spain to see if any Wikipedians in Spain can offer info on whether or not the holiday is notable over there. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 17:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I was leaning toward deleting it but these two links led me to support keeping it. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm inclined to agree, pending more input. In any case, it should probably be moved to School Day of Non-violence and Peace if kept. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 17:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I support the move. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. And endorse Politizer move suggestion. THF (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aside: if this does survive AfD and someone with access to appropriate sources can write a paltry 1500 characters within about a week, it would make for a good January 30 DYK. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 19:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Notable event covered by the Spanish media, 1. I will try to add sources to the article, but my English is not that good for a DYK. --J.Mundo (talk) 20:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Gracias J.Mundo. No worries, others can deal with that. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Question. J.Mundo, not questioning your judgement, but why can't I find it in El País, what I consider the gold standard? "Día Escolar de la No Violencia y la Paz" in http://www.elpais.com/archivo/buscando.html, search 1976-2009, todo el artículo, qualquier formato etc. Your news hits would otherwise seem to be spread over the entire Spanish peninsula: Galicia, Toledo, Mediteráneo, and not just Catalan-Valencian. The ref by Collect [11] below says that the City Hall of Madrid is involved, then why not in El País. Power.corrupts (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since J.Mundo says it's notable in Spain. I've moved the article as I suggested above. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 21:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but only if someone can do good translations of the slew of cites available including [12]. Collect (talk) 21:53, 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.

School Day of Non-violence and Peace (DENIP)

By Harold J. Greenberg (Majorca Daily Bulletin, Palma de Mallorca, January, 18, 1990)

The "School Day of Non-violence and Peace" is held on January 30 every year, on the anniversary of the martyrdom in 1948 of Mahatma Gandhi, the great apostle of non-violence.

It will be celebrated, as always, in Majorca. The intiative for this "School Day of Non-violence and Peace" originated in Spain.

In Majorca, it was Llorenç Vidal in 1964 who founded the School Day. He now lives in Cádiz. He was influenced by Lanza del Vasto, a direct disciple of Gandhi. Del Vasto visited Majorca about 15 years ago, and his book "Le Retour aux Origines" ("Return to the Sources"), had an inmediate influence.

The basic message of the "School Day of Non-violence and Peace" states: "Universal Love, Non-violence and Peace. Universal Love is better than egoism. Non-violence is better than violence. Peace is better than war". Non-violence is the attitude of renouncing killing and inflicting pain on all breings in thought, word and action.

The "School Day of Non-violence and Peace" is a non-governmental, international and pioneering initiative of Pacificatory Education in which educational centres of all standards and of all the countries are invited to participate.

It is a practical activity which has neither official programming nor structural lines of action, because the message is one which maintains a permanent nucleus of basic aspects, and permits the free application of each educational centre according to its particular manner.

Professor Eulogio Díaz del Corral has written: "The 'School Day of Non-violence and Peace' was founded in Spain in 1964, when neither in Spain nor abroad did a similar initiative exist. It was maintained through hell and high water in very difficult circumstances, and it is considered the most important pioneering experience of Pacificatory Education of our time, as well as a dynamic nocleus of its promotion at a national and international level".

The "School Day of Non-violence and Peace" is a seed which is planted and cultivated in the hearts of the students. It is a bright, new and positive way of looking at the word and preparing for the future.

Harold J. Greenberg (Majorca Daily Bulletin, Palma de Mallorca, January, 18, 1990)

--Ayounali (talk) 21:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See too *Llorenç Vidal: Fundamentos teóricos del "Día Escolar de la No-violencia y la Paz" (DENIP), Educación XXI, revista de la Facultad de Educación de la Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia, Madrid, núm. 6 En espagnol

--Ayounali (talk) 16:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was IAR speedy delete both, as it is obvious the author's intent was promotional--something which can't be tolerated on Wikipedia. Author also blocked. Blueboy 96 18:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How to prevent mold

Wikipedia is not a how-to manual. « ₣M₣ » 15:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete unless wikibooks (or some other sister wiki) wants it. Hut 8.5 15:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete ridiculous how-to and attempt by one user to get people to visit his blog (original version had links to personal blog and requests for comment there). This should have been speedied. Barring that, it should have been prodded (the only person who contested the prod was the article's own author, who has repeatedly ignored attempts to explain policy to him). I have already advised the user that he is welcome to contribute at wikiHow or Knol, but the user has ignored these messages and instead continued to create more how-to pages on WP. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 15:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Totally rediculous article. Fails almost every policy in the book. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 16:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook. --Allen3 ^talk 16:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. The comment "also if you have any questions about mold leave a comment and i will get to it as soon as i can.....thank you for reading the blog" at the end has tones of WP:OWN in it. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Crack out the WP:SNOW and delete it. Explicit 'how to' article. JulesH (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I recall that there was a few days previous a similar article on getting rid of mold, presumably by the same author, who apparently intends to continue indefinitely. I do not recall how it was deleted by prod or speedy, but it was removed. There is unfortunately no speedy rationale for this; an additional article, "Preventing mold" was speedied as G4, recreation, which was not a correct speedy, but I understand the temptation. However, if it continues, the obvious intent here is to disrupt Wikipedia, & I intend to delete future similar attempts as vandalism. I am also prepared to block the user, if there is another such article, and I have warned him accordingly. His user page might well be an MfD candidate as well. For the moment, this would be an appropriate SNOW DELETE. DGG (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Bongo matic 17:43, 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 03:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of RCTI personallities

Indiscriminate list of information, misspelled title: WP:INDISCRIMINATE Davidelit (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for slightly different reasons than nom. It's not totally indiscriminate (although I agree there are no clear inclusion criteria for what makes a person in RCTI an "RCTI personality"), and a misspelled title isn't a deletable offense. But almost all the entries here are non-notable, and the lack of inclusion criteria is troublesome. Endorse deletion. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 17:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list contains 5 blue-linked names and 32 red-linked. Not in itself a deletion reason, but there is no indication as to individual notability and no inclusion criterion except for the vague definition as "anchor". No indication as to whether the list is exhaustive or merely selected. (Miss-spelling is not a deletion reason) --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 19:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. There is too much wrong with this article to mention. Timneu22 (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep or userfy As per Politizer, we don't delete articles because they have misspellings in their titles. Also as per Politizer, it is not an indiscriminate list. Since this station is in Indonesia, it is probably difficult to find sources for every person, but even if the people on the list are not notable, the station itself is notable. In addition, there are similar lists on wikipedia: NBC_evening_news_anchors, ABC_evening_news_anchors. Finally there was no effort to clean up the article first in violation of policy, policy dictates that deletion is the last resort.

Policy: Deletion should be a last resort
WP:PRESERVE Policy "Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information." WP:Notability Guideline "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself." WP:BEFORE Before nominating an article for deletion. If it's not already, Tag the article with any noted problems...Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted...When nominating an article for deletion due to sourcing concerns, a good-faith attempt should be made to confirm that such sources aren't likely to exist...If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. WP:Deletion Policy Wikipedia urges any contributor to read the Wikipedia:Deletion policy before deleting or nominating an article for deletion. "When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." WP:INTROTODELETE "Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved." Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state "In most cases deletion of an article should be a last resort"

travb (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

why don't you actually read the comments before posting— I didn't say the article should be deleted because of the misspelling, so don't put those words in my mouth. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 21:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was agreeing with you Politizer, that is what "as per" means. I disagree with the other reasons you want to delete this article. travb (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry then; I was under the impression that you were responding to me (I must have been thinking "as for" rather than "as per"). Nevertheless, I still believe your edits at the last two AfDs where you've posted have been POINTy and I object to what you're doing; I think this should be kept to the AfD talk page until that discussion has been resolved, because right now it gives the impression that you're just spreading a crusade to various AfDs and interrupting the process to further your point. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 22:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the apology. I apologize for any misunderstandings myself, and not explaining myself better. I personally feel that Articles for Deletion are the most disruptive part of wikipedia, and this is support by a lot of facts. I would be happy to explain why on my talk page. travb (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and Keep. Anchors for a network are notable; everyone connected with them--that;s another matter. "Deletion is the last resort" is pretty basic policy around here. We can argue whether something is at that point, though; most bad articles are improvable to a certain degree, but not all are worth it. DGG (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List violates WP:IINFO, and WP:N. I would have suggested a merge but the notable personalities are already mentioned in the main article. If these people were known for something as a whole, then the list would mean something and probably warrant independant coverage, but these people aren't noteworthy as a whole. And before I'm accused of not doing my research, none of my searches have turned up anything. Themfromspace (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Indonesia project has been prone to red links lists for s considerable time. The big problem there is never any follow up - it is something that comes up at the project noticeboard - lists are created with imposing amounts of red links - in the time I have been on th eproject I have never seen adequate followup to actually provide valid articles to red links in lists created in the project. Playing things with policy shows little or no understanding of the major WP Indonesia issue Satu Suro 08:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: listcruft, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 01:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per DGG. I consider it harsh and somewhat derogatory to label it "listcruft, non-notable", in particular when such lists exist for US anchors. I left a note at the Indonesian community portal: id:Pembicaraan Portal:Komunitas, requesting their opinion on who is notable there. Power.corrupts (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment unfortunately misguided - this article is in the english wikipedia WP Indonesia ___domain - to ask editors at an id ___location is missing the point completely. Too many lists are created in english wikipedia WP Indonesia that are started as lists of red links and have never been followed up. 'Harshness' is hardly a point to take issue with - when it is continued addition of lists with little or no addition or follow up - it is simply that lists are created and nothing happens. Satu Suro 10:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

we will not encourage the addition of information here by discouraging their attempts to add it, even if inadequate. anyone here with the ability to do so can attempt to make use of the information in the articles there. While the enWP covers the world, it is hardly surprising that other language WPs cover their language areas better. To ask people working them who may know english well enough (looking at some of the user pages there, very many of them do) to help out in the coverage of their topics here hardly seems misguided. DGG (talk) 06:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - those people are consider as notable on Indonesian so they have individual articles on id.wikipedia. But I don't know how notable they are internationally. Borgx (talk) 00:49, 22 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 03:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jacek Papla

previously added CSD, author removed tag (nb. no warning notice left), brief google search reveals only foreign results, not a lot indicating notability. Olly¹⁵⁰ 15:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. In the future, though, if an author removes a speedy tag you can just revert, since it's basically vandalism. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 17:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 22:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note Full name seems to be "Jacek Włodzimierz Papla" or "Włodzimierz Jacek Papla" Speedy probably not appropriate here, though of course the author shouldn't remove it.John Z (talk) 01:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I gave a response to Politizer's comment above there on his talk page but just to clarify on this page to other users, I didn't warn Caxus as he was a new user and was probably unaware of Wikipedia policy on deletion and templates and chose instead to give him some links to page creation advice etc. Just to clear that. Thanks Olly¹⁵⁰ 14:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO.--Eric Yurken (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. His university profile says that he is the deputy director of the Fine Art Institute of the University of Zielona Góra and president of a regional association of artists, and that he has had "kilkanaście" (from 11 to 19 inclusive) individual exhibitions and participated in "tens" of important exhibitions in Poland and abroad. None of the exhibitions are identified. His most valued prize is apparently the Stanisław Wyspiański prize for young artists. Make of that what you will. I couldn't find any other sources apart from passing name checks of his participation in exhibitions, most of which seem to be in his home region of Wielkopolska. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I did a quick copy-edit. I think the number of shows to his credit speaks for itself. --Poeticbent talk 02:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am totally new user in Wikipedia, although I have been using for a long time, it seem that a man who has been dedicating all his life to what he loves the most, even though he is not famous, not being worthy to be in Wikipedia. Lot of famous artist wasn’t when they were still alive.

I thought this was a free space when we could share free information. I am trying to scan pieces of his art, so hopefully if you don't delete it I will be able to put them here. It would nice to share some of his art work in here.

I apologies for deleting that tag, didn’t know what I was doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caxus (talk • contribs) 15:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for making the article to look a lot nicer, and thank you for adding some more information, I hope you could consider to keep this article, I am trying to finish it this week. added by caxus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caxus (talk • contribs) 15:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per User:Poeticbent. I would say though that the nominee's comment that Google "reveals only foreign results, not a lot indicating notability" is a bad argument for deletion. Power.corrupts (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While I haven't yet had the time to review the article, the comment about "foreign results", which I've not noticed before, is a very sad example of WP:BIAS. I sincerely hope, in good faith, that Olly will reconsider his logic and avoid such an argument in the future. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is the reason I brought it here. I don't read polish and I was probably a bit hasty in the initial csd, but I decided I better prod because there is bound to someone who can do better than me in this. Once again, I will conceed that the argument wasn't very well thought through. Basically, what I meant was that there is nothing completely and absolutely solid that I can be sure this article is notable. I've learnt my lesson about argument writing now please can we just vote on the article Olly¹⁵⁰ 02:35, 21 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 11:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jarrett Brown

Related AFDs
Jarrett Brown - Reed Williams -
Dorrell Jalloh

Another non-notable WVU Mountaineer. (See Brandon Hogan, Darryl Bryant, Jock Sanders, and more — the article's creator has a habit of creating articles for WVU athletes of borderline notability.) This guy, while he plays two sports, isn't notable. My gosh, the INTRO says he is a backup. And his basketball stats? 1.0 points per game. The article should be deleted. Timneu22 (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete this and related articles. (Feel free to copy my !vote.) Doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE, which is already a pretty low bar. THF (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete This isn't the place for writing biographies of your buddies. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 17:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being all-state is not enough to satisfy WP:ATHLETE. Blueboy 96 18:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 18 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. Original research. Sandstein 23:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Life in infinium

Wikipedia does not publish original research; this is not verifiable from independent reliable sources. The articles are by Ramssiss (talk · contribs), the author of the theory they describe; the book referred to does not appear to have been published, see Google Books Amazon, and a search for Infinium finds nothing relevant. JohnCD (talk) 14:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero results for Google web, news, books and scholar searches, and that's for both the protologism title and the book the article draws from. Moreover, the book is not to be found in any library anywhere in the world per Worldcat. Thus, this does indeed appear to be unverifiable, original research. For whatever COI value you take from it, the creator confirms through statements on his user page that the book is his own writing. --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep you're welcome to a free E-Copy of the book or you may find it at the link provided in the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramssiss (talk • contribs)

Delete both. Even if the subject were notable, these articles would be deletable as essays/promotion for the associated book Mathematical Properties of Infinium. Baileypalblue (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Single unpublished source. Related article has been flagged: R function. Novangelis (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A clause in the policy allows for non-published and self-published scientific articles as well as thei sources to be included See below Verifiability.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramssiss (talk • contribs)

Strong delete all three: Pseudoscience by someone tooting his own horn. If the creator wants this to be on WP, he'll have to publish his book and hope that it generates a following. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 17:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Again, there is a clause for non-published/Self-published articles in Wikipedia Verifiability. You are however welcome to start a following if you feel the need to.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramssiss (talk • contribs)

Delete - classic example of original research. Scog (talk) 17:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no clause against original research if it meets the Wikipedia criteria of Verifiability.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramssiss (talk • contribs)

Actually, there is - see WP:NOR. Note that this is a separate issue from that of verifiability; even if material is verifiable, if it is not discussed in any reliable sources, it should not be included in Wikipedia. If you want this to be kept, you'll have to find some reliable, independent sources that discuss it. Scog (talk) 09:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete probably was more appropriate. Timneu22 (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Closing admin should note also the existence of the following redirects to these articles created by the same user: Life in Infinium and Rfuntcion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find any evidence that the book described exists. Searches for the author's name only turn up stories about somebody of that name being arrested for sending threatening mail. JulesH (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes you can. A free E-Copy is even Available.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramssiss (talk • contribs)

Delete all. Unverifiable original research. -Atmoz (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You're welcome to try the R Function on any number you can think of divided by any prime you want if that's verification enough for you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramssiss (talk • contribs)

Keep. I can access the book's home page at MPOI Home —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramssiss (talk • contribs) 13:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (R Function) The page does not involve any original research violation and there is no clause about a need for search results in yahoo or google in the policy as the objection suggests. The Book in which the findings are published is available on the internet and though this is not a clause in the cited rule of the objection (five pillars of wikipedia), it can be acquired if that remedies to the objection. The site is: [13] RFunction Homepage In addition, as far as Scientitic formulae are concerned, it isn't enough to cite WIKI policy to delete an article, you have to demonstrate that the formula displayed is wrong. In this case you have to mathematically prove that it is since it is a math formula. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramssiss (talk • contribs) 13:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Non-notable promotional pseudoscience. Tim Ross (talk) 16:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable promotional pseudoscience. Tim Ross (talk) 16:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not sure what you mean by pseudoscience. the formulae for both the R function and the theory of infinium are provided in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramssiss (talk • contribs)

Strong Keep I have to address the COI clause that everybody thinks applies here for some reason.

Here is what it says on the COI

Conflict of interest often presents itself in the form of self-promotion, including advertising links, personal website links, personal or semi-personal photos, or other material that appears to promote the private or commercial interests of the editor, or their associates.
Examples of these types of material include:

1. Links that appear to promote products by pointing to obscure or not particularly relevant commercial sites (commercial links).

2. Links that appear to promote otherwise obscure individuals by pointing to their personal pages.

3. Biographical material that does not significantly add to the clarity or quality of the article.

The R function and infinium articles are not advertising links, or personal web site links, semi-personal photos or any of the above. They're simply scientific theories set forth as described in the books (the links to which are provided). And the R function is provided with proof I might add to those who understand Math. The content is CLEARLY not COI material and deleting it won't do more than deprive the public of access to it. I value editor input, they keep the articles sharp and the writer from straying off course. But all of this seems like repetitive COI that nobody can show applies. I'm for editing but not for keeping some trigger happy editors from getting riled up. Sorry guys, I think the articles should stay, until someone can disprove the R function or point a scientific flaw in the theory of infinium. When so, I'm all ears. Ramssiss (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MORE INFO AVAILABLE If it'llhelp matters any, I'm willing to provide an E-Copy to anyone willing to read it, just to address the pseudo-science part. It also will help some people form a opinion rather than a baseless attack on the article or its author.

Ramssiss (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Mr Ramssiss, please read Wikipedia's key, non-optional, policy on Verifiability, which includes:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source;
Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy;
(because anyone can pay to have a book published) ...it is usually not acceptable in Wikipedia to cite self-published books.

and, from the policy No Original Research:

If no reliable third-party sources can be found on an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about the topic.

Links to your own web-sites do not count as "reliable, third-party published sources."

JohnCD (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on Comment I read it again at your request. It clearly says:

Self-published work is acceptable to use in some circumstances, with limitations. For example, material may sometimes be cited which is self-published by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. For example, a reliable self-published source on a given subject is likely to have been cited on that subject as authoritative by a reliable source.
Self-published work by non-experts may also be used in limited circumstances, as described below.

The opertative word in what you quoted being "USUALLY" not always! After that it adds

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject of the article; it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reason to doubt its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources;

If you can point to where my articles are against what I just quoted in YOUR SOURCE, then I'd be closer to agreeing with you. But for now, I'm afraid you're quoting what should make you give up your deletion Request, John. In addition, the sources were provided in the form of a website that provides the contents of the book as well as other info for those looking for verifiability (even if anyone can put up a website). For those needing more than that, a free E-Copy of the book was made avaiblable. It doesn't get much more verifiable than that and the source doesn't get anymore reliable than the text itself. Finally the only the ground you may have in contesting (not deleting) the article is if "there is reason to doubt its authenticity" which makes me revert to what I said earlier. You're welcome to point a flaw in the theory of infinium or disprove the R function, at which point I'll be obliged to change or omit whatever you can prove. This is science authorship after all, and you need more than misquotations to make a point. I'm sure an editor like yourself can agree. Ramssiss (talk) 23:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Staunch Keep on Comment Someone objected to there being redirects for "Rfunction" and "Life in infinium". "Rfunction" is kin in search to R Function, and "Life in infinium" is life in infinium. I'm not sure what Timneu22 is objecting to on this one nor why he thinks speedy delete is more appropriate than Delete!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramssiss (talk • contribs)

Delete Rfunction? Rhubarb more likely. Peridon (talk) 23:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep again Bon Appetit on your Rhubarb. If you feel like doing some Number Theory afterwards, you can read the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramssiss (talk • contribs) 23:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The guidelines you cite all argue for deletion. The burden of proof lies with you. Unless you can demonstrate that this is an exception, the thing to do would be whatever is done usually — in this case, delete. The self-published work is not from an "established expert... whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". The articles also fail on notability, because "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." There is no requirement to show that a formula is wrong to delete it. While it is true that 3+4=7, it does not merit an article.

You point out the requirement that "the article is not based primarily on such sources", but since it is wholly based on a single self-published source, you have argued for delete.

As for your claim that the R function link is not advertising, why is there a link called "Purchase"? Novangelis (talk) 23:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on Comment I'm afraid you're misreading the clauses. Here they are again:

Self-published work is acceptable to use in some circumstances, with limitations...

and

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves...

There is no "burden of proof" as you seem to have gathered. The only proof involved is if you can find one against the theories cited in the material. This again makes me revert to what I said earlier "You're welcome to point a flaw in the theory of infinium or disprove the R function, at which point I'll be obliged to change or omit whatever you can prove. This is science authorship after all, and you need more than misquotations to make a point. I'm sure an editor like yourself can agree." Besides, both theories were scientifically proven and you're welcome to the article you've taken issue with to verify them numerically if you haven't done that yet. As for why is there a link on the article. Well humorously enough, there's a link there because people were complaining that there wasn't one (unlike you). The purchase only points you to outlets like Amazon and such.you can't purchase the book on the site as you should have seen.

Then there's the curious statement that the article is about "3+4=7". I think even the guy who mistook it for Rhubarb knows that it is pretty faraway from that!

Finally and as I said many times before I value editorial input. But I need to stress that the discussion forum is not a venue to level personal attacks on people or articles you dislike or for users to play cat and mouse games with authors by coming up with side issues all the time (like you're doing Novangelis). I addressed all of your issues convincingly and in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Being wrong happens. Now get on with life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramssiss (talk • contribs) 00:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Look at the reviews of the book on its own website. Need I say more? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 14:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Yes you do. you can start by telling us why you're opting for delete and if you really wanna impress us you can point to what's wrong with the theory of infinium or the R function.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramssiss (talk • contribs)

Comment Err, I think I'm missing something there. Are there any reviews on that page? Or are they like the Emperor's clothes, only visible to the worthy?

Peridon (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could be me. I'm getting nothing on the 'Author' or 'Media' pages either. All the others work. Peridon (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the absence of reviews is RH's point. JohnCD (talk) 22:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I could be wrong, but I make it 10 Keeps either unsigned or signed by or for the apparent author. Is that a record? Peridon (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could be! What's your issue with the articles again?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramssiss (talk • contribs)

Reply Total lack of notability. Classical pseudoscience with no peer review. Total lack of third party sources. Total lack of relevant relevant publication experience by the author of a self-published work. Original research. Spam.Novangelis (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply A single line from WP:NOR sums it up: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about the topic." JohnCD (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Ramssiss, I want to clear up one thing. You may have been led astray by some of the comments directly or tangentially referring to the worth of the material by describing it as pseudoscience and otherwise commenting on its intrinsic merit. You keep arguing the material's value and asking us to disprove it in some manner, in the absence of which it should be kept. You're missing the point, though I don't blame you for that. But let me clarify that issue. If Wikipedia was somehow a going concern in 1905, and some patent clerk named Albert Einstein tried to first publish a scientific theory on a wikipedia page entitled "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies," we would rightfully be arguing to delete that article because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source, only publishing material already the subject of reliable independent secondary sources. We do not announce new things here. That is not the role of an encyclopedia. That paper would be original research if attempted to be published here, would properly be deleted, and this would be so even in hindsight, today, when that paper's place in the history of science was fully known.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

E-COPY Here are the E-Copies of the mathematical Properties of infinium and the R function and Number Theory. Pls Keep in mind that this is coyrighted material provided for the purpose of this discussion and for critique (not for sharing). This should put the valid issues of pseudoscience and existence of the material to rest. As for the invalid ones, I think I've quoted this from the terms of Verifiability some three times now from when I was discussing it with JohnCD and Novangelis. People should read it before adding a comment that has already been voiced. Here they are again:

Self-published work is acceptable to use in some circumstances, with limitations. For example, material may sometimes be cited which is self-published by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. For example, a reliable self-published source on a given subject is likely to have been cited on that subject as authoritative by a reliable source. Self-published work by non-experts may also be used in limited circumstances, as described below.

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject of the article; it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reason to doubt its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources;

And again John you keep reading just what you want in the sources you quote. In your source WP:OR you should have read: This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramssiss (talk • contribs) 23:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About Fuhghettaboutit's comment. I get your point everybit and I appreciate it a bunch. But I strongly disagree with it. You seem to be of the opinion that new material is not allowed on Wikipedia regardless of its quality or validity. And you are just wrong on that point. Here again are the policy quotes:

Self-published work is acceptable to use in some circumstances, with limitations. For example, material may sometimes be cited which is self-published by an ....

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, ....

This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia,... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramssiss (talk • contribs) 23:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Ramssiss but you are not parsing or contextualizing any of those policy quotes. They go exactly against your position and you're rationalizing them into something they don't mean at all. The first has to do with verifying information in an article, not notability of the topic itself, and it is an exception to the rule, with threshold requirements listed, which you do not meet—you are not an established expert; your work has not been published by reliable third-party sources; the second is also not about notability but about inclusion of information and is also expressly an exception to the rule with threshold requirements listed, which you do not meet—the material is irrelevant to your notability and it is exactly unduly self-serving (it begs the question; you are trying to show your own notability by reference to your own work's existence); the third is as stark as can be, and you have to cut it short and use pretzel logic to avoid what it actually says: "If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our neutrality policy." All the section means is that authors with specialized knowledge whose works are reliable third party sources in relation to the topic at hand, can carefully cite their own works.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All = Not notable, not verifiable. Perhaps if it some day gets the cultural penetration that Time Cube has gotten, it will deserve a mention. Note to the closing admin: You probably already noticed this, but Ramssiss has "voted" keep about a dozen times in this discussion, mostly unsigned comments. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 03:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Comment = Fuhghettaboutit, the policies I cited mean absolutely none of what you said. In fact they mean exactly opposite of what you claim because you'd have to try hard to believe that:

Self-published work is acceptable... Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information... This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their ...

mean as opposed to what they say as (in your own words): we would rightfully be arguing to delete that article because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source, only publishing material already the subject of reliable independent secondary sources. We do not announce new things here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramssiss (talk • contribs)

Keep All = Cottonmouth, the material is notable and verifiable as you can read many times above. As for voting Keep a dozen times, I have to respond to issues raised even when they're of no merit or just repetitive like yours. They're not votes, and this is not an election as you seem to reason.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramssiss (talk • contribs)

First: No, it's not notable or verifiable, as everyone here has been trying desperately to explain to you. Second: I put "voted" in quotes, which means that I don't consider this an election. Now, I'm done talking to you because you're too hard for me to get through to. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion Parameters - NOTE TO ALL Please to all, the page is getting flooded by arguments that the material is not verifiable, notable or that it violates WIKI verifiability policy. If you're of that opinion please refer to one of the many times this has been argued above instead of adding your opinion in the hope that it counts as a "vote". IT DOESN'T and it will only trigger me to repeat the same answer and sources as above. But more importantly this is keeping the valid arguments from getting proper attention. The books have been made available. If you read them and have an issue about their authenticity or other that you think matters in our discussion, please do bring them up so they can be debated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramssiss (talk • contribs) 10:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down, man. You're making yourself seem completely unhinged. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 11:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unhinged and calm down! Here is your previous "relevant comment":

Not notable, not verifiable. Perhaps if it some day gets the cultural penetration that Time Cube has gotten, it will deserve a mention. ... You probably already noticed this, but Ramssiss has "voted" keep about a dozen times in this discussion, mostly unsigned comments.

Me, unhinged and Calm Down!? Come on...

I made arguments from policy and commented on something that the closing administrator would need to know, all in a rational "tone of voice." The ellipsis that you added removes the phrase bringing the final sentence to the closing admin's attention. I'm not sure what your problem is with this. Well...no...I do know what your problem is. You're overexcited and need a nap. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note for closing Upon resolution, Infinium should be restored to the redirect as it was, prior to the article: [14].Novangelis (talk) 14:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Note you're trying too hard Novangelis and this discussion is not about redirects. Why don't you just let it go Novangelis? Gee...

Strong Delete. Most of the keeps simply do not address the problems. An article entirely based upon OR, with no indication of notability from independant sources. The effort made in argueming could have been used to improve the article, the fact that it wasn't indicated improvment is not possible, becasue the problems highlighted by the nominator are insurmountable (ir, there are no RSs).Yobmod (talk) 11:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. As mentionned many times before, the concerns of the nominator have been addressed more than once with the proper policy quotes to boot. Please refer to anyone of them as opposed to "VOTING" on this page. Other than that you don't seem to bring anything new to the debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramssiss (talk • contribs) 21:46, 22 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 11:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reed Williams

Related AFDs
Jarrett Brown - Reed Williams -
Dorrell Jalloh

Another non-notable WVU Mountaineer. (See Brandon Hogan, Darryl Bryant, Jock Sanders, and more — the article's creator has a habit of creating articles for WVU athletes of borderline notability.) This article does not seem notable. The MVP of a single game and all-academics teams don't make a player worthy of inclusion on wikipedia. Timneu22 (talk) 14:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - this subject appears to have been written up in a small number of third-party, albeit very focused publications, which are weak in making a case for notability. There does not appear to be any mainstream coverage of this person. If there are no futher references, I would suggest deletion. |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 17:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jarrett Brown. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 17:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete this and related articles. (Feel free to copy my !vote.) Doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE, which is already a pretty low bar. THF (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 18 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 00:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dorrell Jalloh

Related AFDs
Jarrett Brown - Reed Williams -
Dorrell Jalloh

Another non-notable WVU Mountaineer. (See Brandon Hogan, Darryl Bryant, Jock Sanders, and more — the article's creator has a habit of creating articles for WVU athletes of borderline notability.) This article does not seem notable; he is a senior with no achievements. Timneu22 (talk) 13:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jarrett Brown. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 17:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete this and related articles. (Feel free to copy my !vote.) Doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE, which is already a pretty low bar. THF (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 18 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 03:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All Comers Track Meets

Article is nothing more than a dictionary definition, for a term that probably doesn't need one. The occurrence of the phrase in some of the sources does not make this worthy of inclusion. Drmies (talk) 05:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — a cursory Google search (sans the Deletionpedia entry which does not count) shows that this is commonly used here. Cleanup and referencing are necessary, but the term seems notable enough to avoid deletion. MuZemike (talk) 07:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consider a rename as the article's name doesn't seem right. I cannot think of anything right now. Maybe someone else can. MuZemike (talk) 07:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, maybe--and I looked at your Google search, but don't see anything there that would generate more than a one-sentence or one-paragraph definition, nothing beyond what a dictionary *might* have. I mean, this isn't exactly a concept like Revival meeting, or is it? There is no cultural, social, religious breadth or depth here, as far as I can tell (but I hate running--I prefer riding my bicycle). Drmies (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — while the phrase is commonly understandable by looking at it carefully, outside of the UK it is an uncommon combination of words. In respect, specifically to the sport of Track and Field (known as Athletics worldwide) this is a common phrase, describing the most open of public participation events. This defining of the concept, using these words is important to someone who is not already involved in the sport. Wikipedia is here to inform, right? The urge some people have to delete information from Wikipdeia astounds me. When an article is short, which could otherwise be called concise, it comes under more attack. There is no denying that these type of events EXIST all across the USA and Canada. We define similar, low key, popular events such as a Street fair and grass roots sports like Little League Baseball with articles on Wikipedia, what makes All Comer Track Meets so different? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trackinfo (talk • contribs) 22:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists is not a reason to keep an article (Little League Baseball is an entirely different kind of animal, and Street Fair is as weak as All Comers Track Meets). Wikipedia is here to inform--but there are a lot of kinds of information WP is not supposed to provide, see WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not, for instance, a dictionary, via WP:NOTDICDEF. And about my urge, well, you don't know me, and you might assume good faith--another useful policy (WP:AGF)! Drmies (talk) 22:58, 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]

If this were a simple definition of the words, it would be something like an on-line dictionary defines the term "all who come, or offer, to take part in a matter, especially in a contest or controversy." But this is in regards to the specific sport of Track and Field, it is a category of events. Any mention of any sport requires the defining of its categories before further discussion of their significance can ensue. The term is used commonly in the sport, including outside the USA. [15][16] North American reference to the term to describe that category of event (and of course said events) are numerous. [17][18][19][20][21][22][23]

This article goes beyond the definition and DOES provide significant description ABOUT the character of events the term defines. In regards to (WP:AGF), you were the one who admitted to your prejudice against this subject matter in your first response. If you are prejudiced or even ill informed about a subject, should you be actively seeking to quash its content on WP? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trackinfo (talk • contribs) 02:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it was a joke. And if my hypothetical hatred of running disqualifies me, so does your love of it. Besides, you are the creator of the article, and your name by definition damages your objectivity--if you want to look at that way. Which I don't. And AGF here means you should assume my good faith, not look for a conspiracy against running. To show my good faith, I'll take the dog for a walk tonight, and let's just drop this, OK? I like Wikipedia, that's most important.

Now, for these references, let's look at one, the last one. I have been arguing that the title and subject of the article is nothing more than the sum of its words (All Comers + Track Meet = All Comers Track Meet). Your last reference makes mention of an Indoor All-Comers Meet (no Track involved, significantly); does that mean that two articles are warranted, one for indoors and one for outdoors meets? You said that "this article goes beyond the definition...": which article specifically were you talking about? The WP article? If that is unsourced, then it's WP:OR... Remember: the burden required by WP:N is to find secondary sources, not primary sources. In other words, this article can only stand if there are articles explaining something significant about this term, this concept, etc.; announcements of track meets are not sufficient. I never doubted that such meets exist. Drmies (talk) 05:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being well informed about a subject should not disqualify one from being able to write intelligently about it. Being poorly informed about a subject should disqualify one from being able to accurately judge its significance. By placing writing in the public view on WP, it is expected to come under review and will be subject to editing of any incorrect assertations that might be included. That would include the primary assertion that this is a legitimate term to describe this category of events within the sport. Any google search should independently prove the term's widespread use, specifically within this sport. The article's presence has been noticed. Over the last 6 months, some public editing has taken place, primarily disambiguation. It is an adjunct to the master article of Track and Field that already mentions other categories of competitions within the sport, including Indoor and Outdoor differentiations. My knowledge of this level, attempts to accurately convey the feeling of this style of event. Occasionally the subject does get written coverage of specific events, [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] and photos [30] [31], it is mentioned in the lore of participants as mentioned in the previous reference #6, but the majority of independent coverage is pre-meet announcements [32] and results, which are plentiful and prove thousands of people participate in these events. With further research, mentions of this category of events spans longer than 50 years [33]. This article took many anecdotal references to come to a summation. Listing these articles to justify or consolidate a summation of a style would unnecessarily overpopulate references with only minimal support provided from any one source. There is no justification to remove this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trackinfo (talk • contribs) 00:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You said, "Being well informed about a subject should not disqualify one from being able to write intelligently about it. Being poorly informed about a subject should disqualify one from being able to accurately judge its significance." Right. Except that I never said anything like that, and anyone who can read the discussion above, which has gone on for way too long, can verify this: you said that I can't judge because I hate running; I said perhaps you can't judge because you love it. Same difference, except that I offered you the hand of friendship and good faith; I proposed we drop it--now let's drop it. Drmies (talk) 04:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would love that we drop it. Unfortunately, through your actions, this article is unnecessarily under attack. Drop your attack, leave the article alone and we can go away happy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trackinfo (talk • contribs) 07:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:In the interests of calling a spade a spade, it's clear that the article reads like promotional material for trackinfo.org, a link you've added to several articles in addition to creating this one. If you want to save the article from attack, the best thing to do is remove the spam and reliably reference some of its content. If that can't be done, then it should be deleted per policy. Phil153 (talk) 06:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, absent reliable references discussing the actual subject of the article as a topic. We're not a dictionary and I don't think the topic "All Comers Track Meet" has been the *subject* of reliable sources as a notable independent topic. I'd be happy to change my mind if some are provided. For example, we don't have a topic for High school basketball (it redirects to basketball) or Amateur athletics, even though both are more frequent events than "all comers track meets". Phil153 (talk) 06:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While the ascii combination of "trackinfo" appears in wikipedia in multiple cases, only two other placements are of my own generation. Both of those references I give are specific references to supporting articles I have written on my own website for those specific subjects, in much the same manner as I do have a supporting page for this subject, which is a constantly updating calendar of the type of events this article describes. The support information I provide is in support of the general article here and provides many further links. I am not a spammer, nor do I have any commercial interest in providing the information I do provide anywhere on wikipedia.Trackinfo

Delete. It is an interesting article in its way, but that doee not make it notable. It is very much an essay. While not a fan of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS (etc), if we have this article then we also need Come All Ye nights for folk clubs, etc. This article is worthy of a small section in articles about athletics meetings in general, and is probably worth redirecting to one such article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:29, 17 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 13:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Track and field athletics which already discusses the subject; redirect instead of deleting because this is a useful search phrase. Baileypalblue (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per Baileypalblue. THF (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Track and field athletics#All Comers Track Meets (and fix caps), expanding that section a bit. I've never heard the term in American English (AFAIK we just talk about running unattached), but it seems recognizable to UK speakers... and it's worth having at least some information on, since it's a special kind of meet. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 17:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note--I wouldn't be opposed to a merge of some of the article to Track and Field. Right now, the article is trying very hard to 'be' an article; a merge would obviate that need. The phrase might well be a useful search phrase. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect - It does not seem very article-like, but is just naked prose. Hogvillian (talk) 06:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note--There is a short mention of All Comers Track meets in the master Track and Field article. I think if the majority of this article were contained in the master article it would unnecessarily detract from that overall subject. This article is exactly what a related stub would be. In this case I have fleshed out the subject into a full article of its own. It appears to be getting penalized for that. Throughout Wikipedia, there are hundreds, probably thousands of stubs with generic incomplete information just related to this sport. Each of those articles deserves better development, not deletion. And this article does not deserve deletion because it contains more information than your average stub. Perhaps the last sentence, and the friendly "don't be surprised if" conjecture or deviate off the sanitized point. Does a friendly writing style necessitate deletion? Further searching for different sources to back up each statement could be done (note 19 additional references I found just for this defense). References to All Comers Track Meet (s) in those words abound on the internet--it is the most common term to describe this category of events, events that do occur. Unattached running is a different concept entirely. Do I need to write you an article on that? Most references to All Comers Track Meets are time based, promoting an upcoming event, or results and a story of one that recently happened--many of those sources will not dependably sustain. Would more documentation of those points make you happy? I've added a few. Trackinfo
Keep Several references have been added. As the running article is focused on the mechanical act of running, and I can't find any Wikipedia article on the sport, I think the least we can do is save this and consider merging it as appropriate when a running (sport) article is developed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would have originally said to delete, but the article has improved since when the AfD was started. The references added assert enough notability to keep the article. Trusilver 06:49, 21 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 03:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pyjamas (software)

Contested prod. This software has received insufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources to pass WP:N. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's endorsed by Google themselves, and already ref'd as such. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Err, no it isn't. The only "reference" on the current page is a link to the project page. Being hosted by Google Code is not "endorsement by Google". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable software. Schuym1 (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Pyjama is mentioned on several other sources such as Pyjamas, the GWT for Python, Pyjamas2 0.4, GUI Programming in Python or Blurring of MVC lines: Programming the Web Browser. Together with the related projects Pyjamas-Desktop (actually a port of Pyjamas) it allows writing applications that run - unmodifed - on both the desktop and the web making it suitable for cross-platform, cross-desktop, cross-browser and cross-widget-set free software application development using the very popular Python programming language (see Pyjamas - Python Applications for Desktop and Web. I think this shows very big potential and is therefore - in my view - notable.--Shellmich (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)— Shellmich (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- 3 of those sources aren't reliable (2 blogs and a wiki) and one of them is not independent of the subject. Schuym1 (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An editor claiming to be the article's main contributor (diff) has apparently acknowledged that there's no coverage in independent sources. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 18:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here is another reference not mentioned above Pure Python Web Workshop: Pyjamas + JSONRPC + Django at Linux 2008 Conference and Workshop. --Wallach2008 (talk) 14:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A scheduled talk on the subject is not a reliable secondary source which would indicate that the project is notable to a wider audience. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would say this article needs some significant work to be high quality wiki material, lets push for a rewrite and not a deletion, I come to wikipedia several times a week for references to new code projects like this one. I hope the developers/users will take some time to rework the page so it can contribute better to wikipedia. From the page Notability "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." I would think by that definition and the links that have been provided on this talk page as well as the ones in the article that the tag for deletion is "inappropriate" and was not done as "a last resort." Rlcomstock3 (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC) — Rlcomstock3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I totally adhere to the previous comment. Plus, the reasons offered for deletion appear to be biased. Looks more like a not so hidden attempt on censorship. Absolutely nobody will be affected if the entry remains, while there is much to lose the other way round. --Sandy98 (talk) 17:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC) — Sandy98 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Note about the above !vote: clear single-purpose account. (Not to mention that cries of censorship are never very useful.) Politizer ^talk/_contribs 19:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - As is the preceeding comment by Rlcomstock3. Right now, Wallach2008 is the only user suggesting this be kept that has made edits outwith this AfD. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note It is written at User:Lkcl (one of major contributors to pyjamas article) that he/she is Luke Leighton who is one of pyjamas developers. According to one of references provided by myself above Luke Leighton gave several talks at Linux 2008 Conference and Workshop on pyjamas. I would like to have a comment of User:Lkcl/Luke Leighton in this discussion. ... It's a little bit embarrassing that Sandy98 and Shellmich seemed to be created only to defend pyjamas...--Wallach2008 (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See Politizer's comment above. User:Lkcl, posting from an IP, stated on my talk page that he did not know of any independent references for the subject. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I am Sandy98, my real name is Ernesto Savoretti, and I'm stating this in order to try to clarify a couple of issues. In the first place, although it's true that my only contributions since I registered are related to Pyjamas software, that does by no way mean its my only interest. In fact, I made a couple of contributions before I registered (i.e. the name of mod_wsgi author in the corresponding article, date and IP of modification can be checked) but even if Pyjamas was my only interest, it's as legitimate as any, so I don't see the point in Politizer objection, unless he's trying to make my point on censorship.
  Second: Chris, do you try to link IPs to identities so as to sustain arguments?
  All of this seems very narrow-minded to me, I really thought Wikipedia was all about spreading knowledge, not raising sterile issues. At least, that's how I see it. Ernesto Savoretti (talk)
Keep. I just cannot see how how retention of factual information on widely distributed free Linux software in any way can damage the reputation or otherwise lower the value of Wikipedia. Power.corrupts (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete There are some sources of unknown reliablity noted above, but most of the 'keep' arguments seem to be ILIKEIT or HARMLESS. I don't see too much source material on web searches. Nothing on google news. Nothing on google books. Likely nothing on google scholar. Plenty of google web hits, though I have no means to determine which of those may actually be a 'source' on the subject. The first page doesn't look promising, with most of the top links download mirrors. Protonk (talk) 07:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Don't TatumInteractive Mind Tree Ajax Magazine and Ajaxian support notability via search engine test? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.131.211.114 (talk) 15:35, 20 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, G12 (blatant copyright violation) per evidence from Baileypalblue. Blueboy 96 18:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australian flag society

Non-notable political advocacy group. No evidence provided that the group is in any way notable or significant. The two people listed as supporters of the society probably require better referencing,

Note: there is also the Flag Society of Australia, a seemingly separate group as they claim a "a strict neutrality with regard to the continuing "Great Australian Flag Debate" - the question of whether or not the Australian flag should be changed", certainly not the position of this article. Nor is it the Australian National Flag Association, which has a substantially similar polict position but claims to be founded in 1983, 20 years before this group. Mattinbgn\^talk 12:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 12:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - thought it was going to be a keep, as I assumed it was the one involved with the republican movement in the 1990s (a la Malcolm Turnbull). Evidently not. No demonstration of notability. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as COPYVIO from the Facebook page of the Australian Flag Society. For those of you who can't access that page, the entire article comes from the Facebook page, including the distinctive punctuation, except the unsourced claims that two famous individuals support the organization (I have deleted those claims as BLP violations). There is no salvageable non-infringing prior version. Baileypalblue (talk) 17:10, 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Rwaramba

Lacks notability, per WP:BIO. Only known for being the nanny of Michael Jackson's children. Note: Grace rwaramba (redirection page) will also have to be deleted. Pyrrhus16 (talk) 12:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. THF (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article has no relevance. Timneu22 (talk) 20:05, 17 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 00:00, 22 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 03:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom McAlpin

No evidence of notability, in spite of the article's being more than ~~four~~ three years old. (This is one of a large number of articles, created at that time, about Disney executives who got some notice on Disney websites but little or none elsewhere.) —SlamDiego_←T 12:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see any potential for this article. Timneu22 (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, There are a few non-Disney-affiliated publications that have articles on him. See [34] [35] and [36]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JulesH (talk • contribs)
- Comment: The first is a short blurb in a travel-jobs newsletter; the second is a brief announcement that he would be speaking at a College of Business; the third is his in-house profile at Make-a-Wish. —SlamDiego_←T 15:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article was started on 30 November 2005, making it just over three years old, not four. McAlpin is still the president of DCL, which is expanding from two ships to four. I don't see the harm of leaving this stub as is since there is a potential for adding more as time goes on. --Thomprod (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and we don't maintain stubs in the hope that their subjects will develop notability. —SlamDiego_←T 16:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand WP:Crystal, but the article does not include scheduled or expected future events, a systematic pattern of names or extrapolation, speculation or "future history". It simply states the facts with sufficient references to satisfy WP:Verify. McAlpin has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to satisfy WP:GNG. --Thomprod (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Could you please more specifically identify this “significant coverage in reliable sources”? It's of course important to distinguish between sources that are sufficient to support the positive claims being made in the article, and sources that are sufficient to establish notability. —SlamDiego_←T 17:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - There's nothing controversial in the article and I see no "claims" that might be disputed. There are four references for the facts stated. We have articles on other people who are presidents of cruise lines, such as Jeffrey Sterling, Baron Sterling of Plaistow. Being currently out of the limelight is not sufficient reason for deletion. Before it's deleted, you could add {{notability}} and wait a reasonable period of time to see if anyone can improve it. It's just a stub, and with respect, I think you're being a bit harsh. --Thomprod (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not criticizing it for being a long-term stub. (I've created and would defend some stubs that are older than this stub.) I'm criticizing it because, over a period of some years, it has failed to cite references that indicate the notability of the subject. You keep running us on to a side-track of whether the where the references support the positive claims, in spite of my stipulating that they do and that they are sufficient for that purpose. I nominated on the basis of a lack of notability, which is something for which we also use references. This article has no references that establish notability. —SlamDiego_←T 05:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sterling is notable because he's an OBE. This is a subdivision of a corporation. If DCL gets spun off into an indepenent private or public corporation, then its CEO will be notable, but without much more extensive coverage than he has gotten, he's not notable. THF (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. He was previously a director of Royal Caribbean, which is an independent public corporation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JulesH (talk • contribs)
Keep. Appears notable within business community, probable significant coverage in business publications not given away without charge over net. Difficulty in accessing sources does not mean not notable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 23:37, 20 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 23:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of unusual deaths

AfDs for this article:

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. There have been previous deletion discussions for this article, which have resulted in its retention. SP-KP (talk) 12:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is just a list of deaths that the authors think are unusual, which makes it original research. Brownsnout spookfish (talk) 15:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check the Talk Page before you make unsupportable statements. Entries are frequently discussed at length by several contributors before being included or deleted. Editors often step in to assist with references. Entries that are considered weak are often researched and rewritten in an effort to maintain consistency. Wikipedia isn't just about the easy edits. Just because this article might be hard to maintain, doesn't mean it should be deleted.--JeffJ (talk) 06:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having multiple authors doesn't necessarily make it objective. Brownsnout spookfish (talk) 22:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That could be said about Wikipedia at large.--JeffJ (talk) 04:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral This article is well maintained and sourced. I would prefer a fitting trans-wiki to deletion. BTW, this does seem to be a potentially sourceable article: [37][38][39][40] NJGW (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- As long as its sourced, there's nothing wrong with this article. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear WP:NOR violation. THF (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is this a WP:NOR violation? All material is referenced with independent sources.--JeffJ (talk) 06:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Referenced, sourced, etc. How is it any different to this list? Lugnuts (talk) 17:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is one main difference. In my intro, I make the point that such articles are having a hard time in article namespace. That article is in Wikipedia namespace, where inclusion criteria are different. SP-KP (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article is well sourced (124 references). Since 2004, editors have come to a consensus on what constitutes an unusual death. It's common sense, not original research. --J.Mundo (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with User:Brownsnout spookfish's comments. Who is to say what is "unusual"? Statistically, there is a small chance of dying in a plane crash. Isn't that unusual, then? I see no way this article can be consistently edited. Timneu22 (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the manners of death in this list are so uncommon only a handful of people died of them. Thousands of people died in planes. You're mistaking uncommon (how often it happened) with unlikely (the chance of it happening). - Mgm|^(talk) 23:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After reading the article it is pretty clear to me what qualifies as unusual. The manners of death listed in this article are so uncommon they've only happened a handful of times in recorded history (or even just once). The inclusion criteria could be more explicit, but since all of the entries are properly sourced, that is something that could be handled through editing. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Here we go again. If it's properly sourced, then I honestly don't care if my cousin Edna thinks that unusual is a matter of opinion, or that articles of this nature just ought not to be in a respectable encyclopedia. We're not a respectable encyclopedia, we're the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and that's a lot of us make donations when Jimmy Wales reminds us to. The question is not so much whether the article "belongs" in an encyclopedia, but whether it can be given encyclopedic treatment -- verifying that a statement is true and providing the proof, arranging the information in a readable form, and double checking new statements. Where Wikipedia excels is when it gives encyclopedic treatment to topics that hadn't received it in the past. In this case, it places verifiable sources for incidents that would otherwise be difficult to track down. We've all heard the story of the guy who was doing a concert and got electrocuted when he grabbed the microphone, but where do you start looking for it? (Les Harvey, Stone the Crows, 1972, yes, it really happened). I think that there ought to be a strict rule in place for this type of page, requiring that every item on the list has to have a citation, but people do consult reference works in order to find out about more about a whole world of questions. Unusual is a relative term, so is "nice", have a nice day. Mandsford (talk) 23:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll get started on a list of nice people then. Brownsnout spookfish (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

27000 hits on "nice+person"&ie=UTF-8 google news... could be a long list. NJGW (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure I won't be on the nice people list. Mandsford (talk) 02:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is very well-sourced, and "unusual" isn't really an opinion in obvious cases like these.--Unscented (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak Keep but find a better title and real guidelines. The problem here is that a/ many of the individual events are based not on history, but on legend and will not actually hold up. People alleged to die of over-eating in historical sources may simply be contemporaneous slander. b/ Many of the others listed aren't that unusual;. (eg lightning), or c/ just famous people who died in public , or d/ in some cases are just stupidities that would fail NOT NEWS.. Sourced gossip is still gossip. DGG (talk) 02:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly 99% of the population would consider 99% of the deaths recorded on this page to be unusual. The article is more or less sourced and methinks all can be verified except for the earliest ones. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 04:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also note how virtually all the deaths mentioned are of notable persons, if not famous. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 04:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with better-written guidelines. —shoecream 05:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This topic is adequately researched and cannot be covered anymore objectively than it already is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.31.29 (talk) 08:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What is "unusual"? How long can this list go on if kept? Unmaintainable and subjective. KleenupKrew (talk) 04:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subjective, maybe, But nonetheless well maintained, monitored and referenced.--JeffJ (talk) 06:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article provides factual information as much as is possible. While the labelling of "unusual" can be somewhat arbitrary, editors has diligently maintained this article to ensure that entries fall within the ad hoc parameters. Editors often find themselves disagreeing on whether and entry is valid, but this has always been settled through discussion. That aside, this article illustrates how the most unlikely happenstance can cause a person's demise as well as illustrating the unusual cruelty the human race has been capable of. Mortality is of interest to all of us and this article provides an excellent starting point into its study.--JeffJ (talk) 06:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: Unusual (or "bizarre") deaths appears to be a topic of popular interest on the internet. Numerous news articles have been written (see some of the links provided above by NJGW). What I've noticed is that it is very common, even in mainstream publications, for urban legends to be reported as fact or facts to be skewed. In the case of List of unusual deaths, editors have been meticulous about ensuring that all entries are supported by reliable references. If an entry is supported by legend or the facts are disputed by scholars, this is stated in the entry. This article may not be "encyclopaedic" per se, but does offer a well researched and referenced source of information on a subject of significant interest. --JeffJ (talk) 18:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article provides factual information, well sourced; and it makes me smile up to both ears. Wonderful wiki! Power.corrupts (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourced and factual. I don't see a reason to delete. Zouavman Le Zouave 02:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Is the deletionist cabal really so bored as to claim OR on such an article as this? Yawnfest. Hooper (talk) 07:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For example, there are two people on this list who got killed by helicopter blades, which isn't a particularly rare cause of death. Are they there just because they happen to be "notable"? or is there something objectively unusual about this which I fail to grasp? Brownsnout spookfish (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good point. There has been a significant amount of discussion on the talk-page about creating a checklist for inclusion. So far, the rule of thumb has been the notability of the death (Suicide is not notable, but suicide live on a webcam is), the notability of the person, or if the entire event is unusual AND has its own Wiki-article. It's not a "carved in stone" criteria and often editors will debate an entry (again, see the article's talk page). We really do need a checklist along the lines of "if your entry meets 7 out of 10 of the criteria...". But this can be accomplished and the article shouldn't be deleted just because it needs some fine-tuning. --JeffJ (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, a checklist like that still violates wp:OR. We can't be the ones making the standard. But we can report that such-and-such a death has been labled as unusual by a wp:Notable source. NJGW (talk) 04:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can edit the list. Cue the Tom Jones music -- "It's not unusual to be killed by any blade (nananananana), it's not unusual from a helicopter blade (nananana), but when I see it on the Wi-kipedia... it's not unusual to see me cry.. Oh, I wanna die." Mandsford (talk) 03:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - many of the objections above make sense, in the that they illustrate how the article is squishy, borderline, and short of perfection - but they're not potent enough to kill it. (By the way, does anybody know the wikipedia record for most AFD discussions for a single article? This is No. 4) - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article is very informative and well-sourced. No other place in the internet gives this kind of information. It is well maintained and edited. Stop nitpicking on articles that make wikipedia great! My only suggestion would be to break the article up into several pieces because it is getting too long and unwieldy - Powerslide —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy keep as two previous discussions already closed as "keep" and because literally hundreds of thousands of readers look at this aricle monthly. As that tool reveals, it is one of the top 500 articles we have! Moreover, our editors work regularly on the list as well. Hundreds of thousands of editors and readers obviously think this interesting article is wikipedic. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:21, 21 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 11:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Grella

No appearances in professional competition, although his is a professional sport. Fails WP:ATHLETE and principles established at WP:FOOTY. Kevin McE (talk) 11:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Kevin McE (talk) 11:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails notability test at WP:Athlete. Camw (talk) 12:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has not yet played professionally; article may be re-created when this changes. Baileypalblue (talk) 12:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wouldn t Kris Joseph similarly fail notability, another 'American college athlete' Mayumashu (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No, of course not. Many previous AfDs have shown that parochial sports such as Basketball and American Football have far lower notability standards than sports played by hundreds of millions of people. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails soccer notability guidelines per WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTY. --JonBroxton (talk) 06:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite being selected by Toronto FC in the 3rd round the recent draft, this player is on trial at Leeds, and is a long-shot to play in the near future in Toronto. I'd think that any of the three 1st round draft picks would be notable (given that all have won various awards), however I don't think that is the case here. Recreate if part of the line-up in March. Nfitz (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, despite the incorrect rationale provided in the nomination. Football is not a professional sport — football is competed at both the professional and amateur level. Failing to meet the standards of WP:ATHLETE or, particularly, a project-level sub-guideline, are not sufficient grounds for deletion. However, I do not see any evidence in the article that he has been the subject of multiple published secondary source material, nor do I see any evidence through a web search that said material exists. As such, the article does fail the notability standards at WP:BIO, which are appropriate grounds for deletion. Mlaffs (talk) 05:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 17:26, 19 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) 13:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flock of Angels

Article doesn't assert the topics notability. It has one reference that indicates that the subject exists (but not notability), ~~the external links appear to be links to blog coverage of the subject which may not meet WP:LINKS~~ and don't appear used as references in the article.Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retracting nomination subject appears to have coverage that I was not aware of. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all three external links are reliable sources providing full reviews of volumes from the series including two from AnimeOnDVD.com (now Mania.com) and Comics Worth Reading a review site of Johanna Draper Carlson, who is a professional reviewer Publishers Weekly and has been a reviewer of comics and manga for some 15 years. This meets WP:BK for significant coverage and there are likely more.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 11:23, 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. While there is some discussion on whether this article should be kept or redirected, all commenters have unanimously agreed that the material should remain in some form. (non-admin closure) Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flexibility

Wikipedia is not a dictionary - and this seems to be just an expanded list of definitions, most of which don't agree with the lead. If expanded even more it would be at least 5 articles. dougweller (talk) 11:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to range of motion, as this article identifies that as a more proper term. Workplace flexibility conceivably could be its own article, but under that title, and there's not currently enough material for an article. The other sections are non-notable. Baileypalblue (talk) 12:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Switching my vote: Redirect Flexibility to Flexibility (disambiguation) per Explodicle, merge Physiology section of Flexibility to Flexibility (anatomy)

Redirect to Flexibility (disambiguation), which includes both common uses of the term and a wiktionary link. I think engineering flexability is notable. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replace with the contents of Flexibility (disambiguation) and then change Flexibility (disambiguation) to redirect here, as suggested by Tyciol below. --Explodicle (T/C) 02:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete, voting to delete something like this is irresponsible. Redirecting to things like range of motion as suggested are better. That's what flexibility means in common phrase. More specifically, flexibility refers to half of one's range of motion, the ablity to flex a joint, whereas extensibility would refer to the ability to extend a joint. Also, rather than direct to disambiguation, if there is no home article, wouldn't it make more sense to simply relocate the disambiguation page to Flexibility to do away with the parenthesis? Tyciol (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. --Explodicle (T/C) 02:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A redirect or a dab page would be fine, anything but what we have now. dougweller (talk) 22:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this could be expanded and sourced very easily. Bearian (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC) Also, there are articles in several other Wikipedias. Bearian (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right on both points. I don't know about Wikipedia in other languages, but in English "flexibility" can mean multiple things, so sorting it out through disambiguation would be helpful. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:22, 21 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) 14:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nightmares For Sale

~~Article makes no assertion of notability. References only refer to the fact that the comic was published. Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Retracting nomination subject appears to have coverage that I was not aware of. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are four significant reviews from reliable sources listed in the external links and there are quite a few more available, which meets WP:BK for significant coverage. The Aurora cruft has already been cleared out, it now just needs expansion with valid information. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 11:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are reliable sources? --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are. AnimeOnDVD.com is considered one of the top anime websites in the country, has tons of industry support and contacts, and has long been considered a reliable source. It was purchased by Mania.com but the reviews are still done by the same staff and are still considered reliable. ComicMix is a site founded and run by a trio of comic book professionals (Mike Gold, Glenn Hauman and Brian Alvey). Comics Worth Reading is the review site of Johanna Draper Carlson, who is a professional reviewer Publishers Weekly. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 11:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize AnimeOnDVD, but didn't realize mania was the same thing. About.com is reliable. I'm still not sold on Comixmix or Comics Worth Reading, but the other two are enough for me to retract this nomination. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Chris Beveridge sold the site to Mania.com last year, though he still is running the anime/manga news and reviews parts and the review staff was retained (and the AoD forum) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 11:33, 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 03:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adis Husidić

No appearances in professional competition, although his is a professional sport. Fails WP:ATHLETE and principles established at WP:FOOTY, and although there is a reference, it is from his university , which does not seem sufficiently independent to establish notability. Kevin McE (talk) 10:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Kevin McE (talk) 10:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question. He is included in the category of people who have played for the Bosnia and Herzegovina national football team. Has he played for them? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to his article, and not in the current B&H squad. Kevin McE (talk) 13:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then, playing in US college soccer does not pass WP:ATHLETE. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Appears to have been mentioned on [41] and in the tribune as a notable player, though neither article is exclusively about him or his performance in a match Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --JonBroxton (talk) 00:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems notable enough - [42] Nfitz (talk) 19:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --David Shankbone 07:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE as he has not yet played at a fully professional level, and the sources provided appear to be mostly trivial mentions in match reports so it's not quite enough to pass WP:BIO in my opinion. The biggest mention he gets is this article which contains a paragraph detailing the coach's thoughts about him. Also, a number of the hits provided for his nickname seem to be false alarms. Bettia (rawr!) 10:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 17:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:N per the sources found by Nfitz and Panyd. --J.Mundo (talk) 02:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - As it stands, the article fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:N. The sources mentioned here don't appear to be non-trivial coverage which would satisfy WP:N, but I seem to remember a fair amount of coverage here in the Chicago newspapers about his exploits with UIC. If someone adds sufficient sources to pass WP:N, I'll happily change my !vote to keep. Jogurney (talk) 23:20, 21 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 - it's snowing. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Game (drinking game)

Another non-notable drinking game. No references, only links to a myspace website, essentially entirely written by a single user. Delete. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as something someone made up one day. As a side note, most of the articles in the template footer (Bullshit (drinking game), Fuck the dealer, 21 (drinking game), etc) all seem non-notable. Lugnuts (talk) 09:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Livna-Maor (talk) 13:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:N. Schuym1 (talk) 16:22, 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. The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 00:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DHL Hometown Heroes

A Minor promotional award that Major League Baseball did back in 2006, fewer than 60 direct google hits, most of it are wikipedia mirrors and promotional material from MLB.com themselves. Fails reliable sourcing and notabilty guidelines Delete Secret ^account 23:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This looks useful to me. It's an award for the best players ever to play baseball. There should be no question about reliable sourcing; the most reliable source about Major League Baseball likely is the official site of Major League Baseball. As for notability, they had nearly 17 million votes cast for these awards, and there was an hour of television coverage on ESPN, as well as a lot of print coverage and online coverage. When I google "MLB Hometown Heroes" I get 125 results, only a handful from mlb.com, and the majority from independent bloggers, sports sites, and newspapers, particularly in Chicago where there was apparently some controversy over the exclusion of Sammy Sosa (example). Beyond that, the nature of the the list itself, including only the most historically important player from each franchise, makes it a useful introduction to baseball history. Keep Acerimusdux (talk) 08:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Besides the articles and television special, this poll also spawned a book [43]. I feel as though it is notable. I'm not sure how much press is still available on the internet on this subject, but we are not bound just by internet sources and this received considerable press at the time of the poll. Kinston eagle (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This Google news search: [44] came up with over 140 hits. Kinston eagle (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 08:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Kinston. Joe 05:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kinston. Hogvillian (talk) 06:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article is subject of reliable sources, as Kinston points out. Wizardman 18:20, 19 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 03:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B S Dwarakanath

Google came up with only one hit: a French-language article that features a mere mention of the subject's name and nothing else. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 07:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's because you searched for his full name. Search for B S Dwarakanath. You'll get lots of hits. He has over 150 publications and international awards to his credit. Radiation Biology is not a glamorous field. Moreover, due to discrimination, many Indian scientists cannot publish in journals like Nature etc. And most importantly, DRDO labs do not advertise their scientists' on the web. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.68.29.162 (talk) 11:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I thought about that after I wrote it. At any rate, the article still seems to be an autobiography; I mean, look at the article's name and the creator's name. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 19:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Satisfies Wikipedia:Notability_(academics): influential scientist whose research influence has been noted by User:58.68.29.162; winner of multiple prestigious national-level awards; membership in multiple prestigious scholarly associations. Clearly notable. The article needs to be sourced and wikified, but the remedy is editing, not deletion. Baileypalblue (talk) 13:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you baileypal. I do not know how to reference. I'm quite new to Wikiepedia. Also, organisational references are not available due to above mentioned reasons. I checked the page of the Society for Cancer Research and Communication's webpage. They still have not updated their webpage with this year's winners.

I have links for some of the other awards but I don't know how to reference. Could someone please help me out here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhilashdwarakanath (talk • contribs) 15:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Not everything in the article is really significant, but he did publish 51 papers listed in scopus, with the highest citation counts 46, 45, 28. This is respectable, though not sensational, for a medical scientist in this area. Is his academic position is likely to be notable? I think yes, as the joint head of a major institute and Are his awards notable? for this I am not at all sure-- Society for Cancer Research and Communication is not an international society. He has an editorship, but not of a major journal. DGG (talk) 04:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Scopus is not the be all and end all of scientific publications. I must stress that due to various constraints, scientists from the third world do not get as much exposure as the ones from the first world. If you look at the awards list, quite a few of his awards have been international ones. Scopus gives a list of 51 papers. However, Dwarakanath has more than 150 papers to his credit. He is the Jt Director of the world's first institute wholly dedicated to Nuclear Medicine. And one more thing that has been skipped by the author in the page is that Dwarakanath is one of the advisors to the Ministry of Defence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.68.29.162 (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@ Americanmetrosexual: Yes please look carefully at the scientist's name and the author's name. They are two different names. B S and Abhilash aretwo different names. I think Abhilash is his son. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.68.29.162 (talk) 05:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if that's the case, then it's a conflict of interest, which is discouraged. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 06:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. How often needs it to be said that autobio or COI are NO REASON TO DELETE! They are indicators for cleanup and editing, nothing else. Both are discouraged,but there is NO RULE AGAINST IT. Having gotten this off my chest, the citation figures given by DGG are rather low. In addition, I seem to be unable to find the journal Biotechnology in Health Care of which Dwarakanath is claimed to be an editor. In fact, the way that this entry is written, it looks to me that he actually is not claimed to be an editor at all, but just a referee. In all, not sufficient evidence of notability. --Crusio (talk) 07:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Biotechnology in Health Care is a book coauthored by Dwarakanath, R K Sharma and Lazar T Matthew. It is indeed sad that quite a few good Indian publications do not receive the kind of attention they deserve in the Western World. If you carefully peruse Biomedexperts, Dwarakanath is listed as one of the world's top 50 authors for work related to Gliomas and 2-DG.

If anyone here has access to the NIHs at Bethesda, you could inquire. Dwarakanath and group have strong collaborations with the NIH and they concluded one quite recently. Dwarakanath's group also has research collaborations with Dr Joe Mantil's group at the Kettering Institute in Dayton, OH.

And if I'm not wrong, Dwarakanath delivered a Keynote address at the International Conference on Radiation Biology at Jaipur, India this November. You don't get to do that unless you're a highly noted academic in that field.

strong keep oh do keep this page. one never sees indian scientists on wikipedia, and heaven knows they deserve to be there. at least Dr. Dwarakanath does. he is immensely cited, and has his brilliant work on 2-DG to his credit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.142.8.172 (talk) 11:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note. This user has made few or no other edits outside of this topic.--Eric Yurken (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: being editor of a book is nothing really special for an academic. And, in fact, Dwarakanath is not highly cited. Web of Science lists 36 articles for "Dwarakanath B*", with 245 citations in total, the most cited article having 38 citations and an h-index of 10. Nothing to be ashame of, but far from notable in my book. --Crusio (talk) 12:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment - The west has the propensity to conveniently ignore or dismiss publications in national journals and citations gotten from them. For the record, I haven't seen many brilliant radiation biologists on Wiki. Wolfgang Pohlit and Viney K Jain are conspicuous by their absence.

Weak keep. Article needs to be rewritten to avoid WP:PEACOCK terms. Possibly meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Citation impact seems to suggest notability, even though it may be a bit lower than one would expect for notability in this field. News coverage seems to also indicate a certain degree of notability (there are false positives).--Eric Yurken (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree with both Eric and the anonymous IP just above. The GS search linked by Eric gives citation counts in the low 30s, despite the supposedly broader coverage of GS, this is actually lower even than in WoS. On many of the articles found, Dwarakanath is not even first or last author, but occupies a much more junior position. In any case, a total number of citations less than 300 is in my eyes completely insufficient for notability, especially in a high-citation density field like (tumor) medicine. As for the lack of coverage of national journals, WoS actually includes 20 journals with the word "Indian" in their title (plus one "West Indian"). This does not even count journals edited in India but without India in the title, such as the Journal of Genetics. In addition, this person is supposed to collaborate with Western groups and to be a ~~founder of~~ leader in his field. One would therefore expect that he would at least from time to time publish in Western journals and garner more citations. I am not trying to belittle the accomplishments of this person or the accomplishments of Indian scientists in general. This person just does not meet WP:PROF. Concerning WP:BIO, unless I am mistaken, none of the 7 hits in Eric's Google News search touches upon the subject of this biography. --Crusio (talk) 19:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. One of the news entries (Hindustan Times; Dec 19, 2005) states that: “Earlier on Saturday, the Science Congress was inaugurated by Dr BS Dwarkanath, chairperson of the Bio Cybernatics Institute of Nuclear Medicine …” Assuming that it refers to the event organized by the Indian Science Congress Association, it would arguably indicate national prominence. It is bits and pieces like this here and there that make me lean toward a "weak keep".--Eric Yurken (talk) 03:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not much to add to extensive study by Crusio. The news search results are next to negligible with only two of them mention this person, both in no way assert the notability. The citation counts are also unimpressive towards notability. ^LeaveSleaves 20:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment Do I need to provide an entire list of his publications in which he's the first author? Never claimed he's a 'founder' his field. Unless I'm very much mistaken, even scientists who have notable contributions and are not founders of their field can be on wikipedia. Is wikipedia becoming elitist now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.68.29.162 (talk) 14:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, you don't need to produce the whole list of publications. Please read WP:PROF: numbers of articles published does not contribute to notability. What counts is whether those articles have been influential, which can be measured by citations or (more rarely) articles in more general media such as newspapers. Sorry about my use of the word "founder", it should have been "leader". (However, note that the article calls him a "pioneer", not that much different from a "founder"). --Crusio (talk) 15:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I once again stress on the fact that defence scientists' work in India are kept quite hush-hush due to various reasons. Moreover, I ran a search and it is quite surprising that the citations and impact in national journals are NOT accounted for. Anyways, when we informed him that he has a page on Wikipedia, he was quite agitated and requested us to withdraw it ASAP. So you can go ahead and delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.68.29.162 (talk) 18:19, 20 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 Sex (book). MBisanz ^talk 03:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erotic (song)

fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Extremely limited promo release only. In fact can barely be called a promo released as it was given away free with a book. Paul75 (talk) 07:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The distribution method doesn't matter; it still received heavy top ten airplay on most charts and was an important milestone song for Madonna. The video infamy alone puts this over the WP:N threshold. Nate • (chatter) 08:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Neutral~~ Apparently I voted keep on an article which was not up for debate, and the actual article was redirected. That cannot be done during the five day window. I'm reverting the redirect. El cangri386, it must remain in its original state through the entire nomination process. Nate • (chatter) 00:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Redirect not to the song article, but to Sex (book) as a component of that work. It was a different mix of the song and thus it's separated from "Erotica" itself. Nate • (chatter) 00:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well then before anything else happens, then I guess I'll give my opinion. I feel that it should be redirected since it isn't really a song of importance and that "Erotica" and "Erotic" are closely related. "Erotic" is the demo version of "Erotica". El cangri386 ^{Sign! or Talk} 00:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well if the song is mentioned on the Sex article, then what about mentioning information on Erotica (song)? It's not like the song can be mentioned in two articles, right? El cangri386 ^{Sign! or Talk} 00:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - A one line mention in the song article is enough. Go into detail about it on the book article. Nate • (chatter) 05:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has already redirected the article on the promo song "Erotic" to the page for the single Erotica in the middle of a deletion debate without telling anyone, which is frankly bloody annoying! Paul75 (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You want me to undo it?????? The song "Erotic" is the demo version of the song "Erotica", so mentioning the song on the "Erotica" page was what I thought necessary. So if you want, then undo my two edits. Then debate over it. However "Erotic" was merely just a promo CD given free with a book, and didn't even get any major airplay. The two songs are related for the original song "Erotic" being a demo of the later internationally successful single "Erotica". El cangri386 ^{Sign! or Talk} 18:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Say what? You're making this way too complicated. Putting all info regarding the song together may be a good idea, but please clarify that comment cause I totally don't get what you're saying. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My decision would be Redirect but I've done so already. If someone else feels that my edit is "unfair", then go ahead, undo my edits, and continue discussing on whether or not "Erotic" should have its own article. Simple as that. El cangri386 ^{Sign! or Talk} 00:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable promo. JamesBurns (talk) 03:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Civil aviation authority. (non-admin closure) — neuro^(talk) 14:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Airworthiness Authority

Redundant page. Same thing as Civil aviation authority. Parler Vous (edits) 07:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect unique information to Civil aviation authority. SMSpivey (talk) 08:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per SMSpivey. Baileypalblue (talk) 13:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Appears to also violate WP:NEO. THF (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect This good-faith creation seems to simply have missed the fact that there is an article at the other title. TBH, an AfD wasn't needed, it is an uncontroversial merge and could simply have been boldly done without discussion. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:57, 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, WP:CSD G12. (NAC) --J.Mundo (talk) 15:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Solla Solla Inikkum

Apparently fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (and so tagged) as a blatant copyvio with no salvagable content. That said, an article in The Times of India indicates that filming is complete should someone wish to have a proper go at this article. PC78 (talk) 11:08, 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 11:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Medicine Show Cinema

No notability asserted. Wikipedia does not exist for self-promotion. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 10:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SPAM. Baileypalblue (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Before giving an opinion, I felt compelled to go to the article and clean the sucker up... setting it up per MOS and setting up the references so they were refs and not simply inline EL's. My conclusion is that 1) yes... the article is quite spammy and 2) their is a major WP:COI for the author as he is writing about his own company. That worry aside... their projects all seem to fall under WP:Crystal as there is litle online about them that does circle right back to the fimmaker's own website. I tried to find independent WP:N for the company itself with the same results... nothing independent. Yes, the blogs are active about it... and in a few months there may actually be WP:RS about the company and its films... but currently? No. I urge the closing admin to userfy this back to its author... despite his obvious COI. He may find sponsorship from another wikipedian when the time is ripe. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per User:MichaelQSchmidt. Power.corrupts (talk) 23:45, 19 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 Akira (film)#Live action film. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Akira (live action film)

Explicitly fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: shooting hasn't started. Cliff smith ^talk 08:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. May fail WP:NFF, but meets the general notability guideline which overrides it. The discussions about whether this film is going to be made are notable in themselves. JulesH (talk) 09:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 10:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to Akira (film), which is where this entire article is cut & pasted from. Fails WP:NFF, and I'm rather dubious of the above claim that it meets WP:N; in fact little if anything appears to have changed with regards to this film since it was last discussed at AfD back in February 2008. PC78 (talk) 11:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't meet WP:N? Come on... there are 3 reliable sources used as references in the article. IGN has a total of 8 articles about it, all but one published since the AFD you mention, which is a clear change that invalidates the previous result. Additional sources are two-a-penny: [45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54]. And that's just a selection of what turned up on the first 5 pages of a google search. Google news would undoubtedly turn up a different set, and different keywords are likely to turn up still more. There can be no doubt that this film is notable, whether it actually gets finished or not. JulesH (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I haven't checked all of those links, but there's at least one blog in there. Notable or not, WP:NFF exists for a reason. Anything you could write about this film, sourced or not, would be largely speculative. Now is not the time for a stand alone article, and for now it can be adequately covered at Akira (film). PC78 (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The only site that's obviously a blog is a blog of a journalist at Wired, and is therefore a reliable source. As to why WP:NFF exists, I'm not sure that it applies in the case of a film that is so clearly notable as this one. It is logical to avoid reporting the "Tom Cruise's next project is..." type of stuff that often ends up in the media, but the reaction that the production of this film has produced is of an entirely different kind. I see no reason not to write an article that covers the speculation about it. Such speculation would be sourced, and would seem to meet the requirements of both WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL. JulesH (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect in agreement with PC78 and also with respects in partial agreement with the WP:N found by JulesH. Talk about the film may meet WP:GNG, but until it begins production, it does not merit per WP:NFFa seperate article... and a redirect will send readers to where they can learn about the rumoured/planned/proposed film in context with its inspiration. When it does begin production, and information is then available about cast/crew/production/storyline, then by all means give it its own well-sourced article. Basically... the seperate article is just a tad too soon. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back and redirect per MichaelQSchmidt. I agree with his idea. While a production can be notable enough for inclusion somewhere, writing a separate article is a tad too soon. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. MichaelQSchmidt is right I think. WP:NFF is best understood as a style guideline in so far as it reccomends that even notable projects be merged before principle photography begins. This is to prevent Wikipedia becoming cluttered with perma-stubs about projects that generated buzz and then fell through, not to prevent coverage of actually notable projects which almost always (as in this case) have a logical parent article to put info on the production until it needs to be spun off. Of course, including what is really style guidance in a notability guideline is potentially confusing, but I still think it's the best place for it, all things considered. In any event, in cases such as this where WP:V and arguable WP:N are met, no deletion is necessary even if WP:NOTFILM calls for a merge and redirect. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: as you mention, the intention of NFF is not to suppress information, but to define the appropriateness of separate articles - this makes it no different from any other notability guideline, including the GNG. It is firmly a notability guideline, though, not a style one. No one doubts that many of the NFF cases met WP:V and WP:RS, but those are content standards. Had this project failed either of those, NFF would have been raised in this AfD, but only after those primary concerns. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that WP:NFF addresses a structural issue with film articles. When articles are created about planned films like this one, there is always the tone that the film will be made. There is usually coverage about the baby steps a film takes toward production, but when coverage stops for some time, it cannot be concluded whether or not the project is truly done for. So how is the existing coverage to be treated? These are guidelines for a specific scope (cinema) for which we know that the film industry will often start up many possible projects but only go through with a fraction of them, an issue not really found in other scopes. I think that the guidelines encompass both style and notability... there is no mutual exclusivity. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was going to say redirect, but where should we do so? Either Akira (manga)#Adaptations or Akira (film)#Live action film. The planned film is a remake of the 1988 film, yet the source material is grounded in the manga. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Akira (film)#Live action film. I'm satisfied that this has enough ties to the 1988 film to warrant the ___location, and after the last time this was created (at Akira (2009 film)), the information was comfortably incorporated there without controversy. Suggest a link is included to Akira (film)#Live action film from Akira (manga)#Adaptations should the redirect be enacted. Steve ^{T • C} 00:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Akira (film)#Live action film per Steve and make sure Akira (manga)#Adaptations links to the section. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:46, 21 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

13: Fear is Real (film)

Explicitly fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hoax. AnyPerson (talk) 06:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above: even if it isn't a hoax, shooting hasn't started apparently. Cliff smith ^talk 08:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. At best it's sheer speculation. I've removed the cast list per WP:BLP, since there's no source saying that any of the people involved are actually working on this film. I don't rule out that it's an outright hoax. —C.Fred (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFF or it's a hoax. Schuym1 (talk) 16:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Even if not a hoax, a cursory search find no confirmation of the film... hence failure of WP:NFF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFF. No sources confirming this and since I know at least 5 actors on this list, I would've noticed if they'd been signed to do this. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:55, 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 03:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Rydelnik

Delete: Minor academic. No indication that he meets any of WP:ACADEMIC#Criteria (let alone verifiably so), and in any case appears to fail the "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject." clause. Only source given is to the topic's webpage at the institution which employs him. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 07:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. THF (talk) 10:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pass neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO. His most widely held book in libraries, Understanding the Arab-Israeli conflict, is in less than 100 libraries worldwide according to WorldCat.--Eric Yurken (talk) 16:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He hasn't done anything notable to make him stand out from other academics. I just don't think this man warrants an article on wikipedia.WackoJacko (talk) 01:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Moody, despite what might appear to be the implications of its name, is a very important long established (and fully accredited) college, and he is a full professor there, which to me is an indication that he might well be notable. DGG (talk) 06:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: even if we accept that Moody is a "major institution of higher education and research" (which is a stretch), Rydelnik is not a "named/personal chair appointment or 'Distinguished Professor'" there, so still fails WP:ACADEMIC#Criteria on that point. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without further evidence, fails WP:PROF. Plastikspork (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [55] provides enough news sources that either quote him (including the Jerusalem Post) or review his books to lead me to believe he's notable. There is certainly enough out there to write a well sourced (if short) article. Hobit (talk) 20:07, 21 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 23:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Typesetting System

A reimplementation of TeX but no evidence that anybody is using it. Apparently the latest state is an alpha release made in 2000 - not exactly an active project. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Oneiros (talk) 12:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - True: Probably nobody is using it. NTS is interesting as a step in the evolution of TeX and as AFAIK the only software project substantially (ca. 75.000€) financed by user groups. And also as an example of a software project gone totally wrong.--Oneiros (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question - could you explain how it's "a step in the evolution of TeX"? What came after as a result of having been informed by this project? It just sounds like a dead project that never got very far to begin with, fascinating as the concept may be. J L G 4 1 0 4 13:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is the first (and only) completely faithful (100%) reimplementation of TeX (in Java). It's slow, but it works. The project started as something else: The idea was to first create a prototype with which various concepts could be tested, and finally a fast implementation of a successor of TeX. Unfortunately the code is hindered by it's license, and the project ended in a political disaster.--Oneiros (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. It sounds like it has some sort of historic significance, but I don't know how to make a case for its notability, which I'm guessing will be the challenge here. J L G 4 1 0 4 04:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll contact the original authors & the community (I hate this "canvassing"), but in the meantime missing notability alone shouldn't be reason for deletion. I think the article is of interest, but must be improved.--Oneiros (talk) 09:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - on acknowledgement of historial significance, despite possible lack of sources. Frankly, this is one of those cases (it sounds like, to me) that may be reasonably exempted from the typical notability-checking practices, provided the good-faith efforts of Oneiros per above. Indeed, it seems like perhaps an unhealthy trend in AfD to attribute "notability" solely on the basis of clever Google searches, and then to consider inclusion solely on the outcome of such searches. J L G 4 1 0 4 12:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Although NTS is unlikely to be in active use today, it was a very significant milestone in the history of TeX, which is itself one of the most important developments in computer typesetting of the 20th and 21st centuries (to date, of course). Much as the NTS team had hoped that NTS would be widely used, the performance problems referred to in the History section of the main article prevented this from taking place. Disclaimer : the present commentator was a founder member of the NTS Team. Euphuist 14:36, 21 January 2009 (GMT)

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 03:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Rowe

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Richard (talk) 05:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Previously speedied by me for lack of assertion of notability; re-created today so I figured I'd refer this to the AFD community for resolution. If this article is to be included in Wikipedia, then we would be opening the door to having an article on every sportscaster on every major network. Richard (talk) 05:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -

(1) She is linked to by many articles already and mentioned in a bunch of others, so people obviously feel there should be an article on her,

At first, I was impressed and taken aback by how many articles link to Holly Rowe. However, on further investigation, many of these articles only link to her because she is in the list of ESPN personalities at the bottom of the article. In such articles, the article text itself doesn't mention her name (e.g. Jim Rome is Burning or Bonnie Bernstein). In articles that do mention her explicitly, the mention is usually to note that she was one of the ESPN reporters (e.g. Mike Patrick). Then there are the "List of... " articles. The best one is Sideline reporter where she is mentioned as one of the "Notable sideline reporters". Which begs the question... what exactly is she notable for other than being a sideline reporter? Oh, there is one incident ... the one mentioned in the Ron Franklin article. Right, sweetheart... that makes you notable... that Ron Franklin called you "sweetheart" and got smacked down for it. Woohoo! Such is the stuff that Wikipedia notability is made of. --Richard (talk) 08:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There were close to 40 or so that explicitly mentioned her in the text of the article (not in the ESPN personalities navbox) before they started filtering down as links. Those were the ones I was talking about, as the statement I made was before any of those were showing up. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(2) She is one of the only ESPN personalities without an article (See: List of ESPN personalities, List of ESPN College Football personalities, etc.).

The question being whether every ESPN personality should have an article solely because he/she is an ESPN personality or whether they should be notable for some other reason. --Richard (talk) 08:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but it is a point worth considering if others of the same caliber are considered notable (a president, if you will), why a special case would be made to delete this one. That was all I was bringing up. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(3) I certainly do not feel it would be "opening the door to having an article on every sportscaster on every major network", as the nom said; at least not any more than it has already been opened by the so-mentioned personalities already described. (in the lists, and other places) There is already a large president for people as notable as this to be included. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 05:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Yuck. You're right. The door is already wide open and the whole host of ESPN personalities past and present have tramped through it. Let's see how this AFD goes. If the consensus is running towards Delete, I'll nominate the rest of the list. --Richard (talk) 07:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whatever you feel is best; I personally find the articles on ESPN personalities helpful, but I'll go along with whatever everyone else decides. Cardsplayer4life (talk)
- Keep, per Richard's observation. How many other articles have to go if this one does? Criticisms of the present content of the article, e.g. Baileypalblue, should be resolved by improving the article not deleting it.Simon Dodd (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the relevant copyvio policy, which states that pages are to be speedy deleted if all their content is copyvio and there is no prior non-infringing version to revert to. Alternatively, you could be bold and write a non-infringing version yourself. Baileypalblue (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Edited to change wording.Simon Dodd (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any perceived copyvio issues have been fixed now. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woops, I think I was editing at the same time as you, Simon, and may have overtaken your edits. Apologies, mate. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 01:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. :) Simon Dodd (talk) 01:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Cardsplayer4life and for having received an in depth article in the Daily Oklahoman (link) as well an many other mentions (see Google News). Icewedge (talk) 07:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Gee, when I go to news.google.com and search on "Holly Rowe", only 3 search results come back and none of them seem to establish notability. Can you provide a URL which will display these "many other mentions" that you are referring to? --Richard (talk) 08:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to filter your search for all dates, not just the last week, which is the Google News default. Icewedge (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as COPYVIO. This article is copied, with a few word changes and minor transpositions, from Holly Rowe's ESPNMediaZone bio. There is no salvageable prior draft. Baileypalblue (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedited the article and fixed all the parts that could be construed as copyright issues. (Tried not to delete any of the actual information since that isn't copyrightable, just fixed anything that even remotely resembled the source.) Also, added some more info that is relevant. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is a relevant article about a noteworthy individual. I find it disheartening that an article such as this about a female sportscaster would be deleted while all the male sportscaster articles are allowed, in the links provided above. There should not be different standards imposed just because this person is female. Hogvillian (talk) 06:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please leave gender politics out of this. The first version of the article was speedied by me because it did not assert notability. The second version is better written than the first but still does not assert notability unless we assert that all ESPN personalities are notable by the very fact that they are ESPN personalities. This then suggests that every sportscaster of a major broadcast or cable network is equally notable. This is not my definition of notability although I concede that the odds of reversing this precedent looks slim. I should comment that when I visited a handful of the other articles on ESPN personalities, most of them had some sort of notable sports career prior to becoming an ESPN personality. Holly Rowe has no other claim to notability other than being an ESPN personality (and I argue that is not a sufficient claim). --Richard (talk) 08:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I certainly agree that gender should stay out of this (I don't think this article was targeted because the person is female). It succeeds on the merits mentioned above, so there is no need to make it a gender issue. I personally believe that both being an ESPN personality (I don't think anyone would argue Kirk Herbstreit or people like that were non-notable even though they are notable because they are on ESPN), and being mentioned in other media stories about her per Icewedge above makes her notable enough for inclusion. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per above. GoCuse44 (talk) 19:17, 18 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 03:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Gantz equipment

Unnotable list of "equipment" used within the Gantz manga and anime series. No significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Fails WP:N, WP:WAF, and WP:PLOT. Would also fail WP:FICT and contains an excessive amount of non-free images along with some WP:OR Self-admitted by creator that he restore of information that was properly removed from the main article in August for being excessive plot/in-universe detail and unnecessary to the series' overall understanding.[56][57][58] Removal had clear consensus,[59][60] but creator disagreed and made a new split, adding in additional information taken from the Gantz wiki and the images. Note, article has frequently been tagged for various issues ("owner" quickly removes any tags), and was prodded in October, but again the creator removed that as well under the claim of "I disagree. Post your reasons on the talk page and we'll discuse it though. A series with millions of fans will have a list of things in it, just as other popular series have." -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was no clear consensus. There was her and two others who agreed the article was too long, but did not answer my questions about whether they thought the content was valid. If the only reason against it was the length of the main page, then wikipedia policy is to make a side page for it. And it has plenty of references from the Anime, Manga, and the official Gantz Manual. Comic books/manga need only mention what issue and page something was mentioned on, not find a third party review for it. And if you tag something, you must state the reason for the tag, and discuss it. To which tag are you referring to? Collectonian was arguing with me on my user page, upset that I undid her deletion of something on the main Gantz article, she erasing it because she had never heard of the Gantz/Manual and decided instead of looking it up, she'd just erase that bit someone had added. After arguing back and forth, she suddenly nominates this page I created for deletion. I am a bit concerned of her motives. I vote KEEP of course. It is relevant to the extremely popular series, just as the episode lists, the chapter list page, and the character list page. Dream Focus (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You were nice enough to point out during the argument that you had circumvented consensus and readded the content (proudly declaring it, even, that you had gotten around the valid removal by moving it elsewhere). And your questions were answered about the validity of the content, you just didn't like the answers so you readded the information in a "new" article a month later when attention had died down. You have already noted very clearly on your talk page that you do not care at all about Wikipedia's actual editing guidelines, and instead make articles to suit your own purpose: to be interesting for series fans, not Wikipedia readers, and for entertainment.[61] For those not wanting to read the lengthy talk page, my issue was not with his reverting the removal, but with his personal remarks posted to the article talk page and his snarky remarks in the edit summary, instead of just a quick and polite note saying "hey found it" on my talk page; and with his later messing up my citing the readded material presuming to "correct" me even though he, by his own admission, was uninformed as to how to use the cite web templates. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[62] The comment in question, where I asked her to look up information if she didn't believe the manual existed, instead of just deleting it. Someone please go there and tell me your opinions on that. And most of wikipedia's readers are here because they enjoy reading articles, not because they are required to learn anything about Anime, manga, or whatnot. And as I have said, the only reason it was removed, was because the article was too long. That's the same reason why the character list was removed, and placed on another page. Its the same thing here, since the equipment is as important as the characters, in this particular series. Dream Focus (talk) 06:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Character list splits are valid as per the Anime and manga MoS and consensus through AfD discussions. Additional fictional element lists are not. Equipment worn by characters, if relevant to major plot points, is covered in the plot summary. This is not the same as a character list. Equipment is not a character nor is it nearly as important as a character. And you seem to not be getting the point that this is an encyclopedia, not a place for fans of the series to learn more about it. And opinions on what? The content is now in the article, correctly written and sourced. Please stop trying to distract away from the actual issue of whether this list of equipment, which by your own admission is purely plot and has no third-party coverage meets the notability guidelines for existance. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As an additional note, I just spotted that this list was previously merged back to the main article[63] into a "Settings" section but was later reverted by Dream Focus[64], requesting a discussion and a talk page note was added by DF saying that it couldn't be merged back because it was split for length, which, of course[65], is incorrect as it wasn't split for length and the merged version was much briefer. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One new person merged things from the character list and the equipment page to the main page, which several people posted was wrong. You have to discuss mergers before making them happen. Dream Focus (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – no assertion of notability whatsoever through reliable sources independent of the topic and clearly fails WP:NOT#PLOT. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the excessive images were removed and the article was cleaned up, couldn't this be kept a valid sub-topic of the main Gantz page? --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, as it still fails all notability guidelines and even cleaned up, it would completely fail WP:PLOT and WP:WAF as it has no third party coverage. Plus, it was already rejected as being invalid content in the main article. It can't be a sub-topic if it would never be allowed in the main article anyway. Even the Clow Cards of Cardcaptor Sakura failed these guidelines and the article was "deleted via redirection (as it was a very likely search term). This, doesn't even need a redirect as it isn't a likely search term.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 10:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the erasing of what the Clow Cards do. How can you understand the series, without knowing that? And this information was not rejected from being in the main article. After an edit revert incident you and I had, I posted for a third party opinion, and the two people that came over, said they agreed the article was too long, but didn't answer me when I asked about the content. If the consensus is that character pages are acceptable for series, but equipment pages are not(and there should be a set rule about this to avoid problems like this to begin with), then a brief mention of everything should be added back to the main Gantz article, since it is a key aspect of the series. Dream Focus (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Userfy or move to an appropriate wikia site, then delete~~ Delete Ok, this might be useful to someone, it just doesn't belong here on Wikipedia. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Dream Focus, he took parts of it from the Gantz wikia, so it may already be transwikied there in a way. Someone may want to check to see just how much is "some". -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 11:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am the one doing most of the editing on the Gantz wikia, and created the equipment page there, after first creating it on the official wikipedia a month or so before. Someone else added the images there, which I took to use here, and copied over some minor changes I did there to the main wikipedia article. Why is this relevant? Dream Focus (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[All!] Ok delete this sucker! --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're not really concerned so much by who did it, but by the fact that it was done. The articles at the moment are word for word in most places, as if someone has been trying to keep it as a copy. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 18:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that a problem? The Wikia is just like the Wikipedia, except you can add in a lot more stuff. They even have a tag on the wikia to link to where on the wikipedia the original article was at. Dream Focus (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:FICT as a list. I see a great deal of original research in the description, typically preceded by weasel words such as "seems", "appears". And finally, understanding the equipment is not essential to understanding the series nor are they covered by third party sources. --Farix (Talk) 15:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the weasel words, not realizing there was a rule about that. I thought it only meant words used to insult someone. I disagree that anyone could understand what the series is about, without understanding the equipment. Dream Focus (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. This article has no backing to stand on its own. Fact & just fact concerning the equipments can/should be included in the Gantz main article, speculations should be left to the readers/viewers imagination. Readers/viewers have brains too, they can make their own original research with just the facts and only the facts.--KrebMarkt 18:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They don't state anywhere how the H gun works, so another editor wrote that it seemed to use gravity... I suppose it could be reworded to state just what was shown, without the "weasel words". And how much should be included in the main article? Before hand, some claimed it made the article too long, thus the reason for a side page. Dream Focus (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check WP:SIZE. At 60KB of proses you should split, at 100KB you must that is not the case here. --KrebMarkt 15:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Another example of WP:FANCRUFT. Fails WP:PLOT, WP:DIRECTORY, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:N, the previous and currently proposed WP:FICT, and can probably never be written in accordance with WP:WAF. -- Goodraise (talk) 02:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Please say Bad/Worst example of WP:FANCRUFT instead of just fancruft as some fancruft can be trimmed & refined into something relevant & useful for Wikipedia. In that specific case it's Very Bad fancruft in the intent & realization.--KrebMarkt 06:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The intent was to preserve information many had worked on from the main page, which was deleted because someone thought it made the main article too long.Dream Focus (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As has been proven in several afnd's recently (even in a kept article), not all information needs preserving or should be present in the first place Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I checked the Gantz article. It's in pretty poor shape staring from the lead :( Meanwhile the list of equipment seems to have received more attention (woot pictures gallery)--KrebMarkt 16:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Unnecessary list of unnotable fictional items, references are all primary, obvious ownership issues (no, merges do not necessarily require consensus and can easily be done under WP:Bold and removing completely valid tags for questionable reasons). No point redirecting, it's a questionable search term and based on edit history, likely to be reverted. Seems pretty open and shut Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gantz&diff=257022873&oldid=256689225 A new editor merged the character list and the equipment page back into the main article, which I undid. This merge was discussed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gantz#Character_list and most were against it. And what tags are you referring to? I always explained my actions in the talk pages, and asked others to explain theres. Dream Focus (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um...the editor who merged those articles is far beyond a "new" editor. He has been here for years. And, as Dandy Sephy notes, merging bolding does not require consensus, and TTN is well known for doing them. The character list merge was strongly opposed by multiple editors, while only you opposed the equipment merge. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All policies are just suggestions, not absolute laws. The wikipedia clearly states that. Years ago, there were a lot of articles like this, which have been deleted by those who decided that wikipedia should not have anything other than basic information on it. Why is a character page more valid to a series, than an equipment page? Will we begin eliminating those as well? They already eliminated the trivia sections on most articles, even when the information was valid and interesting to those interested in the subject. There is no shortage of server space. There is no reason to keep deleting things some might find of interest(within reason of course). You can easily ignore it. Dream Focus (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Equipments should have been put in a sub-section of plot, not as a section itself and even less as a section redirecting to a list; so does the rules of Gantz who deserved also a sub-section. A critical rule that dead player can be resurrected by another player willing to pay 100pts is missing. The plot should explain the nature of the two arch-arcs in the manga and how the stake evolved from a game to save oneself to a game to the world.--KrebMarkt 21:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check out my old Aspects of the Mission section for that. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gantz&oldid=231192836 This also shows where the equipment list was at before being moved to a side page do to length. Dream Focus (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Why is a character page more valid to a series, than an equipment page?" suppossed to be a rhetorical question? Characters are a key element of a series, the entire series depends on the actions of characters. Entire series generally don't rely on a couple of pieces of equipment to tell their story. Policies may be "suggestions", but they are almost always proven to be correct and receive the backing of majoritys. Theres not a single keep in this nomination, you are clearly fighting an uphil battle and clutching at straws. I'm surprised this hasn't been closed already Dandy Sephy (talk)

It is not the backing of the majority. The overwhelming majority of people have never posted their say in the policy debate threads, and policy keeps on changing. Until there is an official election for all wikipedia users to vote on policy, you can't determine how many people support which ones. Its all determined by whatever people are around that day to vote on deleting something. And characters are one key aspect of a story, but not the only one. Any article could survive without more than a token mention of a few of the main characters in it, but we keep character list pages for now. Meanwhile other pages that also give useful information for a key aspect of the series, are deleted. Should the pages dedicated to space ships from popular science fiction series, or weapons and equipment from every series out there, be deleted simply because some feel them less valid than character pages? Dream Focus (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Putting aside wikipolitics, you're last claim falls flat on it's face in this context. Space ships from popular science fiction series are often notable (USS Enterprise (NCC-1701), USS_Voyager (Star Trek) for example), if not they are, or should be merged. Equipment from Gantz isn't notable, and you are the only person claiming it is. Each article is handled on a case by cases basis, this one isn't in your favour Dandy Sephy (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_weapons_in_Star_Trek Some series can have weapons list, others can not. It depends on how many fans of the series are around. There is no difference between the Gantz equipment list, and the list of Star Trek weapons. You shouldn't be able to simply delete something, because there aren't as many people around to protest. Dream Focus (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which also has a newspaper article as a reference. However the existence of that page holds no relevance in this discussion, both articles have their issues (many are the same), so you'll find no benefit from trying to use it in your defense. You seem to have no time for wikipedia policy or guidelines, and you're making a lot of questionable claims. Firstly you can't "just delete something", thats the whole point of AFD. There are plenty of people to protest as the AFD is located in the same place as all the other afds, even though it appears in the Anime and manga afd list, it still appears in the master list and in the fiction list. That no one is protesting should be a sign, and all this this is getting pretty tiresome. Dandy Sephy (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm for keeping it, and I count 7 people saying delete. We aren't apparently going to convince each other of anything, so there can be no consensus. Therefor it stays, in accordance to wikipedia rules. Correct? Dream Focus (talk) 22:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is not the same as unanimity. Refer to WP:CONSENSUS and WP:WHATISCONSENSUS for details. And closing editors are given latitude in determining a rough consensus. --Farix (Talk) 22:26, 18 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 11:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DSM Hot 25

Apparent hoax chart. No sources, and I can't find a trace of this anywhere. —Kww(talk) 04:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have come to the exact same conclusion. Drmies (talk) 04:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't know whether it's a hoax or not, but I doubt a notable pop music charting organization would be so invisible on the internet. DSM Charts should go along with this article. Baileypalblue (talk) 05:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's pretty doubtful that the Phillipines has any kind of country music station at all, so this chart sounds like WP:BOLLOCKS. Nate • (chatter) 05:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was about to ask a native Philipphinian (sp?) because I've seen weirder things. It's probably not common, but since they listen to other western music in the Philipphines, the idea of a significant amount of country fans isn't far-fetched. However, the idea that the January 21, 2009 chart has already been released now (17th) is preposterous. Mgm|^(talk) 22:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Filipino.—Kww(talk) 22:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article appears as if the subject is the Philippines' equivalent to the United States' Billboard and Japan's Oricon. Our country does not yet have a nationwide music chart, only singles charts from individual radio stations. Starczamora (talk) 16:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We made have Top 10 countdown in our country but it's only per radio station and not a nationawide tally and awards are also given by every station to their top artist or group depending to their most requested song of the listeners and callers.JJSkarate 組手:くみて|空手道 —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:23, 21 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 11:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

C. J. Joseph

Does not appear to be notable. Only refs are from apperently self-published sources and google doesn't turn up anything better. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 03:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable school principal. I have removed some copyvio material from the article; I think the remainder is okay. Baileypalblue (talk) 05:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO.--Eric Yurken (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Without more evidence fails WP:PROF. Plastikspork (talk) 16:42, 20 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 15:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Kumetz

Both sources are from myspace and google only turns up 100 hits and change ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 03:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete guy is NN to the extreme. JBsupreme (talk) 03:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--yet another MySpace artist. Drmies (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:24, 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 11:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Diamond (vocal entertainer)

Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC and general biographical guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 03:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hard to separate from Barry Diamond (American comedian) when searching. But on closer look and distinction, there is lack of third-party sources for this particular artist. Has evidently released two albums, both under non-notable record label, which has no coverage. Insufficient to meet WP:MUSIC. ^LeaveSleaves 20:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no independent 3rd party sources. JamesBurns (talk) 01:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to be notable. Almost all the ghits on Barry Diamond are for the comedian, not this guy. KleenupKrew (talk) 05:40, 19 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 Receptionist. MBisanz ^talk 03:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Front desk

This is, and has been, a strange entry and my rationale for putting it up for AfD is not as clear cut and policy based as it would normally be. I prodded this some time back and it was deleted, then I noticed it was recreated so I prodded it again and the prod was removed after a source was added.

The main argument I have here which I hate to fall back on is that this is in some way "unencyclopedic." For one thing the real title should be "hotel front desk" which really should not be an article (maybe a section of the article on hotels). Because of course there are all kind of places that have "front desks" in a manner of speaking though they are often called something different like a "reception desk" (which redirects to receptionist).

To me this would be like having an article on "restaurant dishwashing area" since that is an aspect of restaurants and presumably there are some things out there written about it (I could tell y'all some stories from my high school days!). Or we could have an article on "circulation department" (for a library) or "counselor's office" (for a school) or "receiving committee" (for the huge food co-op of which I am a member)—all of which are departments or offices unique to a particular industry or business. But I just don't think we want that kind of thing in this encyclopedia, though admittedly I can't cite a policy on that offhand (WP:NODEPARTMENTS?).

If there's a creative way to turn this into a viable article then fine, but otherwise I think it's going to look like it does now, i.e. more like a job description you get when you go in for an interview. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--I think I'd say this is nothing but a dictionary definition: WP:DICDEF. Drmies (talk) 03:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, it might be a bit more than a simple dicdef, but it's close enough as far as I'm concerned.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, it's the sheer size of the article that makes you wonder, what policy could it be? Seriously, I think the point of a lot of articles that violate DICDEF is to look like they're a lot more, which one can do by adding all kinds of stuff. Drmies (talk) 03:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I followed the category link to Category:Hospitality occupations and note that the article Night auditor is somewhat intertwined with the article in question here. If the process results in deletion, then it will need to be dealt with. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Receptionist - which needs rewriting, but it at least covers the broader definitions of a "Front desk". One example of the broader definition is my GP asks me to settle my account at the front desk on my way out. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This might be saved by a major rewrite, but for now just let it go. I'm opposed to the suggested merge to Receptionist since that job is very different, at least in American English. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:49, 18 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 15:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Crossing: Online

Contested prod. Article about an online game that is about to shut down. No assertion of notability, and no available data on Alexa. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be clear. The fact it is closing has absolutely no bearing on the discussion. If it has any notability, the closing will not make it disappear. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Totally NN. JBsupreme (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 05:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, no signs that this unauthorized game is notable. TJ Spyke 06:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The game ran for 7 years and is connected to a notable franchise. The fact it's shutting down has no basis on notability. I can't find anything in the article that indicates it is unauthorized and that again isn't criteria for deletion. Article needs revision, definitely. Alternately, I'm fine with merging it with the main Animal Crossing article. 23skidoo (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It was nothing more than a non-notable fan site, one that shut down quite some time ago (it's down now, but a search of the Internet Archive shows the ___domain expired in March 2007 and became a Amazon Partners page). It also says it was not affiliated with Nintendo (http://web.archive.org/web/20050516002553/http://www.animalcrossingonline.com/). It ran for 4 years and there is no indication in the article that it was ever notable. TJ Spyke 23:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Poorly written/Nonsense. This should have been tagged for speedy deletion, ~~as it looks almost looks like someone vandalized the article, including here~~. Versus22_talk 05:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing both WP:N and several aspects of What Wikipedia is not. Reads like an advertisement (not exactly of the blatant nature that would warrant G11, however), someone's web page, and a directory entry. Article would basically need a complete rewrite to become anywhere near encyclopedic, not to mention it also needs to meet notability standards, which apparently doesn't. MuZemike 19:38, 20 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 03:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biff and Charlie

not notable; fails WP:FICTION. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn per the article itself and a gsearch (192 gits for "Biff and Charlie" and none in news; 3 passing hits from Books and Scholar). JJL (talk) 02:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. JBsupreme (talk) 03:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Author of work appears notable (Emmy nomination), proper development of article impeded because article began being slammed with deletion tags after its creator, a new editor, had written one paragraph. Give its author a chance under WP:BITE. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the author does indeed seem notable; perhaps creating a page for him and making this page a redirect to that would be best. JJL (talk) 14:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable...not even close. -- 68.183.104.7 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per above.. -- 128.97.245.3 (talk) 12:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment created Chambers Stevens and suggest a redirect. JJL (talk) 15:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable and I am dubious about the notability of the play's author. Sgroupace (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to badger you, but why do you think an Emmy nominee would not be notable? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: clearly not notable. -- 149.142.220.74 (talk) 18:37, 21 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) 00:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Svenskavidr

Likely hoax. Google yields zero hits both for current title [66] and Cyrillic version [67] M0RD00R (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Don't know if it's a hoax, but it's not verifiable through Google, and this is the only page edited by its author. --Lockley (talk) 03:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Stinks of a hoax, and I'll be surprised if it isn't. Can't find ANYTHING about it. Jo7hs2 (talk) 03:33, 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, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--it's a hoax. Not a single hit on Google, that's pretty indicative; worse, nothing on Ethnologue. Drmies (talk) 04:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 00:25, 18 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 03:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Database Modeling Excel

Deleted as an expired WP:PROD, restored per request. — Aitias // discussion 19:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to a new section CodePlex#Other projects. I have cleaned up the page and expanded it a little. However, I cannot find the reliable sources needed for it to be kept as a standalone article. The CodePlex article would greatly benefit from a summary list of projects and I am suggesting that a new section be started with a brief mention of this software. Smile a While (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and boldly carried out the merge. Smile a While (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The software has been published via CodePlex and SourceForge in years. so thinking it as CodePlex#other projects is a little bias. I am thinking that if the software is notable to mark it as a wikipedia article. The wikipedia is a really great website. and is adding a article like it helping the website or messing up the website? I think you are professional than me, it is acceptable that any decision from you. Following is my reason of keeping it as an article. Designing a database is a critical task in developing, and the software provides an easy, low workload way for database designers. The software supports SQL Server, Oracle and MySQL, and there is a plan to support PostgreSQL. BTW: I found there are lots of articles are in same situation like it, is there a way to mark an article as hidden, proposal, or something like it.Steven.n.yang (talk) 02:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these interesting and helpful points. At present the home page for Database Modeling Excel is within CodePlex so that points to CodePlex as being the right home for a summary. My view is that a reference to this software should be maintained somewhere but if you don't feel that the present ___location is appropriate then please suggest an alternative. Unfortunately, there is little chance of a standalone page surviving since that would require reliable independent sources to meet Wikipedia policy and these haven't been produced. Also, I haven't been able to find sufficient independent sources to make me confident that the software meets WP:N. HTH. Smile a While (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnotable excel code. Tavix (talk) 02:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable software. --Hamitr (talk) 01:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability, although Merge and redirect to a new section CodePlex#Other projects, as suggested above would not be too bad a choice. Tim Ross (talk) 15:56, 19 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 23:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Burnett

Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:NOTABILITY. Iamawesome800 Talk 01:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: plays (or played) for a fully professional team, exactly what WP:ATHLETE requires. Ironholds (talk) 02:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC) Delete per comments below. Ironholds (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless it can be demonstrated that he actually played. Punkmorten (talk) 08:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Never played for the two teams he signed with, the Minnesota Vikings (signed 5/3/2007, waived 6/20/2007) or the Saskatchewan Roughriders (signed 4/1/2008, released 6/1/2008). Baileypalblue (talk) 11:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability. Timneu22 (talk) 20:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability guidelines require that he play, not just be signed. Edward321 (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (strange for me, yes) not because of notability or athlete, but because of lack of sources cited. I'd be very much open to changing my position should the article be improved.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Per multiple delete reasons I added {{Rescue}} as I don't know enough about him to research nor do I feel like doing it :-).--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 20:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rescue tags aren't to be used as a safety-net. In situations like this where it is obvious all the sourcing in the world won't help it is a bit pointless. Ironholds (talk) 21:15, 21 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 11:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Tablature for the Diatonic Accordion

Delete novel musical notation of very recent creation with no widespread notability Mayalld (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence that anybody besides this one non-notable accordionist is using this technique. Baileypalblue (talk) 11:49, 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hypnotized (Rihanna song)

Unsourced future single, not one source to back it up. Most certainly a hoax. See also WP:Articles for deletion/Hotness (album), the alleged album this song is part of. Fails WP:V, WP:NSONGS. PROD declined. Amalthea 15:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per articles own statements an unreleased single that is unlikley to be released. No problem with re-creation at later poing if many circumstances change however in current state should be deleted. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Zero evidence to support claim. Second (or third) the move to delete. 67.83.85.236 (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it per above Tavix (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails WP:MUSIC # Songs JBsupreme (talk) 03:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the album's main article. If there's nothing interesting, notable, or even true (if what you're saying about hoaxness is correct) to say about it, it shouldn't have an article. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 22:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, since I don't think that anything in the article is true there's nothing to merge. It certainly was not "made available for download" in November 2008 – if anything an early version of a song might have leaked; I haven't found anything to support even that, but there were similar claims surrounding "Sexuality" (Rihanna song). The only thing that might turn out true is that there is going to be a song with that title, but it's certainly not verifiable. --Amalthea 22:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^DELETE-It fails to agree with WP:MUSIC # Songs as JBsupreme says. It is also not notable enough to stand alone in one article. Kikkokalabud (talk) 03:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article itself says the CD single release was cancelled due to non-interest. I think this one has already established its notability, or lack thereof. KleenupKrew (talk) 04:53, 19 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) 00:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snoob

Delete non notable neologism, no content worth transwiki to wiktionary Mayalld (talk) 13:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Mayalld, notices that it also hasn't got an article in svwiki (where it also would be likely to be AfD:d). Tomas e (talk) 10:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JBsupreme (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism/non-notable He-man and the Masters of the Universe character. Baileypalblue (talk) 10:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable neologism. JuJube (talk) 11:04, 18 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 03:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doug DeMartin

No appearances in professional competition, although his is a professional sport. Fails WP:ATHLETE and principles established at WP:FOOTY, and although there are some references, they are from his university and his club, for whom he has not yet played: these do not seem sufficiently independent to establish notability. Kevin McE (talk) 01:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Kevin McE (talk) 01:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:ATHLETE. Not Notable until he plays a senior game at a professional level. Camw (talk) 02:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through and cleaned up the article and made it fit into the footballer template before reading this. The young man is notable and will play for his club when the season begins. American footballers should be considered differently because of the structure of the college game/youth clubs in my opinion. There is nothing that presumes he won't be a professional as he is now about to sign his first contract. Morry32 (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopaedic inclusion depends on what has verifiably happened, not on what there is no reason to assume will not happen (WP:CRYSTAL). There are vast numbers of aspiring players who have signed contracts at professional clubs but have not yet appeared in a competitive match, and the creation of their articles is not recommended, nor is it justified by WP:ATHLETE Kevin McE (talk) 03:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Morry clarified on his talk page that this was meant to be a keep !vote, not just a comment.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Player is a new draftee who has not yet played a professional game, and therefore fails WP:FOOTY's guidelines for WP:N and WP:ATHLETE. --JonBroxton (talk) 06:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Big Ten Player of the Year should confer notability.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for winning a major award in college athletics. matt91486 (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and restore if/when he plays professionally. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 00:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has won several awards making him notable. Nfitz (talk) 19:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He certainly fails WP:ATHLETE at the moment (stating that he WILL appear for his club is crystalballery and shouldn't be used as a keep argument), but the awards won and sources supplied are enough to make him notable (NCAA honours are a pretty big deal in the States). Bettia (rawr!) 10:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 17:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources are available to establish the notability of the subject 1. --J.Mundo (talk) 02:59, 21 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 03:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OpenRPG

Fails WP:V and WP:N, non-notable open source project that is no longer actively developed according to the official website. Based entirely on original research; a quick scan through Google News Archive returns absolutely nothing. The second half is clearly vanity; the last person to edit prior to this AFD was this Greg "Oracle" Copeland guy mentioned many times in the article. I know he's a Battle for Wesnoth developer, but notability is not inherited. Tuxide (talk) 04:03, 12 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 One of many defunct open source projects that never reached the point of being usable. Looie496 (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Here's one news aricle: [68]. Further, a Google search turns up ~225,000 hits, which is quite a lot. SharkD (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article's content currently fails basic WP:V policy, and I can't see any significant coverage from a reliable source. Marasmusine (talk) 13:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The first article I linked to meets the requirement. SharkD (talk) 04:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It doesn't seem particularly significant to me. Perhaps this falls under Wikipedia:N#cite_ref-3, although I'm not sure which "broader article" it could be mentioned in. Marasmusine (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just because something is no longer currently in the works does not mean it needs to be deleted. (That would be like deleting articles on the U.S. Civil War simply because it's longer being fought.) The article needs some serious citation and possibly even a re-write, but can't we flag it for that? Kallimina (talk) 05:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. OpenRPG was pretty big in its day. Just because the development has stopped does not mean that it has ceased to be notable. Article might need clean-up, but deletion is never supposed to be a solution to that. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 02:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources provided, tagged since May last year. --Peephole (talk) 02:10, 22 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 03:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bombing Run

This article seems useless - it's bascially a summary of a single video game mode and seems more like an FAQ than an encyclopedia article. WP:Not a game guide? _ZXCVBNM 01:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. _ZXCVBNM 01:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I found several sites that at least mention the term: [69][70][71][72]; as well as some lecture notes on AI programming. SharkD (talk) 09:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a game guide. Looie496 (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Unreal Tournament 2003. Not a notable subject. As it is unique to that game series, it should be briefly covered in the game's article. Marasmusine (talk) 13:54, 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, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per SharkD's sources, this game mode is not unique to Unreal Tournament 2003; it also exists in Arena Wars, and has equivalent mode references in Tribes: Vengeance and Nox. And I wouldn't say that it's written in the style of a game guide or an FAQ. Baileypalblue (talk) 11:06, 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. Magioladitis (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David J Silver Enterprises LLC

Speedy tag removed by an IP. Real-estate company with no assertion of notability, one employee. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete should be speedied. No assertion of notability. And no advertisingBali ultimate (talk) 04:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not speedy. The article makes claims of news reports, but is uncited. There is certainly more here than the requirements of a speedy deletion would merit. I support deletion given what is there, but I also support letting this have the full 5 day run to give editors a chance to improve it should sources be found and added. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CORP without reliable sources. Claims in the article and related changes to Ricardo Salinas Pliego are not supported by any references. This is a rumor post with a spammy aroma. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We're not advertising here.Critical Chris (talk) 03:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as self-promotion. Baileypalblue (talk) 12:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article It supports that the business was involved with celebrities something that is notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.223.0.151 (talk) 08:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be noted that the above IP (now blocked a second time) has been repeatedly removing the AFD notice from the article in question, and appears to be a single purpose account with a significant conflict of interest in the subject at hand. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:08, 18 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 11:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PortaWalk, Inc.

Spam. Article created by an spa who repeatedly spams the company on the Wheelchair ramp page, removes the notability and refimprove tags from the article, and refuses to discuss, or to provide, reliable sources. AnyPerson (talk) 00:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete salt and otherwise nuke this emberassing advertising. Shouldn't this be speedy?Bali ultimate (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A speedy deletion tag was removed - [73]. AnyPerson (talk) 01:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam spammity spam. Editor has been uncooperative and ignores attempted guidance from other editors. All of the refs are general facts about the Americans with Disabilities Act - nothing about the company itself. Graymornings_(talk) 01:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G11 and A7. Why was speedy declined - there is not even a scintilla of notability, just gobs of spam thrown in for good measure. ukexpat (talk) 01:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All references are to disability acts and nothing to do with the company. No claims of notability, seems like just advertising to me. Canterbury Tail talk 02:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I am borderline in thinking that this is blatant spam FWIW. However, this is very well acting as a web page for a company, which is certainly not allowed. MuZemike 05:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Any admin passing by, please snowball close and delete. – ukexpat (talk) 17:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment especially as the originating and majority contributor is now blanking the page. Canterbury Tail talk 22:53, 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hanuszka

Unable to find a single review from an independent reliable source (there is one from the channel that aired the film). IMDB cites no reviews or awards. Searching in Google finds nothing more than mentions of viewing schedules with the occasional plot snippet from press release summaries. I originally tagged this article three months ago hoping that there would be some sources identified. But unfortunately there aren't. Bongo matic 05:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Channel that aired the movie is independent of the movie, they're not the production company or anything. Wily D 12:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever opined that an article should be deleted? Bongo matic 23:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he has :) The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 02:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Web search indicates that the film was screened at multiple film festivals and also won second prize at one of the festivals. There is lack of significant critical coverage which bothers me a little. But other than that, notable film. ^LeaveSleaves 17:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which criterion on criteria in WP:FILM does it satisfy? Bongo matic 23:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it probably won't pass standard requirements under WP:NF, but being screened at multiple film festivals and receiving an award in one of these festivals definitely elevates the film past the inclusion criteria to my belief. Plus there is a chance of existence of non-electronic and non-English sources which would only increase its notability. ^LeaveSleaves 15:16, 16 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) 00:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. That "Regional Jewish organizations in the United States regularly host screening of the film" would seem to indicate notability to that part of society. If it wasn't notable to them, why would they do so? There is Xavier University:"Xavier hosts special screening of Hanuszka as part of Israel's 60th anniversary celebration", The Holocaust Center of Northern California, Vancouver Jewish Film Festival, The Jewish Channel, The Jewish News Weekly, San Francisco Jewish Film Festival, San Francisco Bay Guardian, Warsaw Jewish Film Festival, and others. I think it is reasonable to believe that the reviews the nom wishes may be available in Polish or Israeli sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On occasion, the notability of article subjects should be evaluated in consideration of the status of WP:N as a guideline, not a policy. Being careful to avoid WP:ILIKEIT arguments, we should still consider whether there is clear and convincing evidence of notability within the subject's cultural milieu. Such notability is shown for "Hanuszka" by MichaelQSchmidt's argument and references: the extensive viewing of this film when it is shown by Jewish organizations confers a certain notability upon it. Moreover, searches for coverage of a subject in third-party RS should also reflect the subject's cultural context. As MichaelQSchmidt notes, a source search appropriate for this particular film would require that Polish or Hebrew sources be sought. Being an irremediably anglophone editor :) and not having access to the necessary translation software, I cannot conduct the search myself. However, we should not conclude that coverage of the film in WP:RS meeting WP:GNG doesn't exist until editors fluent in these languages have attempted to find sources. While WP:V does deprecate foreign-language sources, they are acceptable when irreplaceable by sources written in English. The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 03:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - two preceding have summed it up well. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:07, 19 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 11:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of objects in Artemis Fowl

Unreferenced list of nonnotable objects in Artemis Fowl. I see no potential for expansion, as this topic is not covered in third party sources - in other words, it's not notable. Bsimmons666 (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found the policy I was too tired to search for last night: WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Bsimmons666 (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pointless listing of fictional objects. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 00:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete per uncategorizable nonesense. What's next, "List of verbs used in Lord of the Rings?"Bali ultimate (talk) 00:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seriously? Tavix (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:LISTCRUFT from some of my favourite books. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - truly non-notable cruft. Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 06:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The indivudual items may be notable (I only read two books and forgot most of what was in it). There's no inclusion criteria, and no way of expanding this beyond a random list of objects. They're better covered in the relevant book articles. (Is that movie still coming?) - Mgm|^(talk) 14:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no place in an encylopedia. Brownsnout spookfish (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary, does not belong in Wikipedia. Icy // ♫ 20:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE per nom, WP:RS and WP:NOTE. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Fails WP:IINFO and WP:N. Themfromspace (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I saw your comments, so I agreed to them (and saw the guidelines) but Wikipedia might not have 'List of verbs used in Lord of the Rings' unless it goes and starts having an article about everything. --Leolisa1997 (talk) 13:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Arina Tanemura. MBisanz ^talk 03:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sakura Hime Kaden

Unnotable manga series of unknown length that fails WP:BK. Series has only just started serialization this month with only two chapters publisher. First volume released. Obviously no notability whatsoever. Prod was removed with reason that author's other works have articles (not a valid reason to keep per BK). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy: Clearly fails WP:N, WP:BK, and WP:MOS-AM#Notablility. Therefore I can't say "keep". However, the success of the author's previous series (all except the second most recent one meet at least WP:MOS-AM#Notability) lets reasonably assume, that this series will eventually become notable. That's why it doesn't seem right to !vote for outright deletion. -- Goodraise (talk) 06:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given the number of articles you can find about the announcement of this series, one can make an argument for the series notability based on coverage of the anticipation of it. I'm not sure I'm going to make it myself, though. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps...except all of them are based off the same announcement so really just one source republished :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is the problem of interpretation, yes. OTOH, it could be that all the reports exist indicates that the sources believe it's of note for their readers. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Don't forget about Japanese sources :) WhisperToMe (talk) 06:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there any, no one has found them yet. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:12, 17 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) 00:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have fun here & tell me if it's WP:RS a japanese website

Shueisha is strongly pushing that series : First chapter free for reading, Shueisha. Whatever it's worth their effort is too soon to judge.

I think it should be putted in a fridge until we have enough ammunitions to support that article.--KrebMarkt 12:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding mangaspirits.com. I'm not sure if the authors qualify as experts in the field, however it is most definitely a blog, and says so on their "about" page. --Farix (Talk) 15:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's too early to tell if this new manga series will become notable. Better to wait until it is covered by third-party reliable sources. No predigest for recreation if the third-party reliable sources do appear. --Farix (Talk)
Merge to Arina Tanemura, the series creator. If it demonstrates enough notability later, it can be broken off into a separate article again. Edward321 (talk) 00:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability not established. JamesBurns (talk) 02:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Goodraise here -- it's not a keep, but given the author's status as a hitmaker and amount of notice the series announcement got, it's not a delete either. I think Edward321 has the best solution: merge to Arina Tanemura until such time as it more conclusively demonstrates notability. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:04, 20 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 03:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hedgewars

Non-notable video game. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- A simple search on Google produces about 12 links (in fact, there're way more than a dozen...I just gave up counting). It's notable enough to have it's own forum, web page, and a few reviews from various websites, like this one: [74]. Given enough time, it'll be quite a large game. I say we keep it for the time being and see how it holds up. Cheers, Zacharycrimsonwolf 12:28, 12 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]

*Keep - Per Zachary crimsonwolf. Livna-Maor (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Most of the links seem to be from blogs. I can't find anything better. SharkD (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article does not show where this game has received significant coverage from a reliable source. Gamershell link above is not a review, and does not satisfy WP:N. Other search hits are directory entries [75] or self-published sources [76] - I can't see anything usable. Marasmusine (talk) 13:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Major Linux distributions (Ubuntu, Fedora, Debian, etc.) include ready-to-use packages of hedgewars. Versions for Windows e.g. can be downloaded from Gamershell, which has had 1023 downloads for the last 5 weeks [77]. There also is a port for MacOSX [78]. Stats at software.informer [79] indicate that people from all over the world (Germany, Italy, Turkey, USA, Australia, Thailand, etc.) installed Hedgewars (which is mainly developed by some russia-based guys) on their computers. --84.138.81.62 (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC) — 84.138.81.62 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - It is absolutely more notable than Wormux, because it is more complete. So the chances are relative high, that there will be more users than in Wormux. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.72.151.102 (talk) 12:22, 20 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) 00:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only blogs and download sites mention it. SharkD (talk) 15:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources provided and a google doesn't turn any up either --Peephole (talk) 02:08, 22 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 15:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tan Tan Taan!

Delete non notable single Mayalld (talk) 13:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This (using a different transliteration) confirms that this single charted in Japan. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:58, 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) 00:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep in light of running me eye over things one more time. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable song, insufficient 3rd party notability. JamesBurns (talk) 02:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The single charted, music of it was used in an anime. WP:MUSIC says charted hits are notable. It may be small, but I think it has enough facts to warrant a separate entry. Esradekan's comment about the size of the article might warrant a merge to the band, but since it meets WP:MUSIC, it's clearly not a suitable target for deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, name of a single = plausible seach term. Brownsnout spookfish (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Phil Bridger, Mgm. Edward321 (talk) 01:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Belefant

Delete non-notable biography. Asserts to have invented a technique, and sources a patent, but no evidence that it is discussed by reliable sources. Mayalld (talk) 14:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm pretty familiar with the film world and I've never heard of the guy. His IMDB credits are slim. He might be big the advertising world but I wouldn't know. No famous ad is mentioned. Apparently he has a web site at http://www.elixirlens.com/ Apparently his claim to notability is that he shoots through liquids. As a fellow artists let me say: yawn. Now he does have some prizes but nothing competitions are a dime a dozen. A reliable source, a newspaper perhaps, that favorably mentions his work would change my mind. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 20:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How about the Oregon Wine Press? http://oregonwinepress.com/index.php?pr=August_07_08 "Elixir Lens, Belefant’s brainchild newly opened in April, creates fine art souvenirs for independent wineries, among others, using an unusual photographic technique: Shooting through wine." Someone earlier said that although he had a patent, there was no evidence that he'd successfully marketed it. He also has another website with some of his commercials and his photographs through liquids. http://www.belefant.com/Home.html. MitchGans (talk) 01:34, 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) 00:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, needs wp:reliable sources to establish notability. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 01:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until some future period when perhaps his work will get some significancet published recognition. DGG (talk) 01:28, 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 04:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Kirby

Subject does not meet the notability criteria for politicians. —Snigbrook 17:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable election candidate who fails WP:POLITICIAN. Valenciano (talk) 00:11, 17 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]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 16 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. In order for an unelected candidate to be notable, the candidate needs reliable coverage or notability outside the election, and this hasn't happened. Graymornings_(talk) 00:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The candidate of a major party in the UK (or US) political system for a recognized constituency is notable,even if he does not get elected. However, there should be some attempt to find additional information. People don'tnormally achieve thiswithout something in the newspapers to cite. DGG (talk) 01:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So cite it, I can't find anything. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG, sorry but no they're not unless they get elected to a notable enough political body or achieve fame through third party sources for something else. No evidence of that in this case. Valenciano (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I have grave doubts as to whether we should have bio-articles on prospective Parliamentary candidates, long before an election is called, ~~but I am not sure of the policy on this~~. We certainly do (and should not have them for councillors, on the one hand. We do have them for elected MPs on the other. ~~I am uncertain where we should draw the line.~~ According to WP:POLITICIAN, candidates (even for national office) are NN until elected, unless of course they meet notability criteria for other reasons. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 18 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 23:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Brown (experimental music)

nn unreferenced article also fails wp:bio Oo7565 (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 19:50, 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, multiple reviews at Allmusic, and an article of his time in The Hub at the San Francisco SF Weekly. Passes WP:MUSIC#C1. And that was only after a 30 sec search. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:14, 14 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]

Strong Keep. A glance at the Allmusic Guide profile Esradekan provided shows that Chris Brown has released two albums on John Zorn's Tzadik label: "Lava" and "Ruins". WP:MUSIC is quite clear on the notability guidelines here: if an artist "has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)", then he or she is notable. Tzadik is an important indie label. It has published works by such notable artists as Buckethead, Ruins, Secret Chiefs 3, and Zorn himself. Chris Brown has released two albums on this major indie label. If you have released two or more albums on a major indie label, you are notable. Therefore, Chris Brown is notable. Stipend Steve (talk) 05:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as above. Cleanup needed though.--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 16:39, 21 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 03:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Komikoo

Contested prod. Article is about a non-notable magazine. Just began publishing in 2008. No reliable sources provided, none found beyond blogs and forum posts. No bias against recreation once magazine is more established and better covered in reliable sources. TN‑X-Man 20:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notable sources found. Scapler (talk) 22:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. The only source is a blog. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 00:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs aren't neccesarily bad sources (blogs by known experts or journalists are perfectly acceptable sources). You should've mentioned the blog isn't independent. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable magazine. Schuym1 (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am concerned about systemic bias here - normal source searching is not going to be adequate for a Malaysian comics magazine. The sources are all in Malay. I can't read them. I'd like to see us be cautious here, contact the article's creator, and get a better sense of what is going on here before we go deleting willy nilly. Certainly the mentions of the artists who have had work appear in the comic is significant - the three mentioned are significant illustrators with high profile work. A magazine that has published all three seems certain to pass WP:N. I need to see more significant evidence that this has been looked into by someone who, at the very least, knows Malay. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I understand your concern. I do not speak Malay, however I did not find anything that resembled a reliable source. I also checked the Malay wikipedia and did not find anything there either. I think this may indeed be a notable subject in the future, but as of right now, I don't think it is. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 21:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Searching about, though, I'm finding that artists who have published in the magazine have extremely significant resumes. Aadi Salman, in particular, has made the jump to US comics publishing, working on the graphic novel version of Silent Hill, which suggests that he's highly notable in his homeland. Certainly a US comics magazine published for several months and with comics from high-profile creators would not be deleted. Thus I am hard-pressed to justify the deletion of a similar magazine from a foreign country. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - But do we have any notable references saying he did publish in this magazine, or are we just trusting the article? The article's claims to notability do not make it notable. Remember, WP:NOTABILITY#Notability requires objective evidence Scapler (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salman confirms it in his blog: [80]. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a good start. As I mentioned in the nomination, I have no problem supporting this article, but I haven't found any reliable sources that cover the subject. Please don't think that this is a case of IDONTKNOWIT, but I can't find anything! I'd be happy to look if someone could point me in the right direction. TN‑X-Man 23:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that the right direction is a primer on Malay and a plane ticket to Kuala Lumpur - which is to say, we're dealing with an article that surely has sources, but those sources are surely Malaysian-language and regional sources. We're good at finding such sources in English. Malaysian? Harder. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - US-centric systemic bias is not a deletion reason. Can we get some Malaysians knowledgeable about comics on hand? - David Gerard (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Even on the Malay language Google, I was unable to find much beyond blog entries. If anyone can with it though, have at it. Scapler (talk) 03:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment - I have asked User:CHJL, who claims a professional level of Malay to help us with finding reliable sources, so we will see what he does. Scapler (talk) 03:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would also note, I am not 100% convinced that there is any reason to think that the Malaysian comics scene has a huge online presence. We're talking about a country with 18% of households online. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think another issue that is pertinent here is verifiability. If we cannot find any sources, online or otherwise, then I don't believe WP:V is met. Of course, CHJL may be able to provide us with the relevant information. TN‑X-Man 12:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Komikoo blog does us fine from a verifiability perspective I should think. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Hughes

Non-notable local councillor who fails WP:POLITICIAN as he has not been elected to any national or regional office. Being related to someone famous is not sufficient grounds for inclusion. Valenciano (talk) 21:07, 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]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find a single article concerning this person anywhere. Looks NN to me! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Councillors are not notable. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:08, 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 04:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris MacManus

Non notable local councillor who fails WP:POLITICIAN. Just being related to someone does not confer notability. Valenciano (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a member of the local council of a small town does not make someone automatically notable (WP:POLITICIAN), and what little press coverage there is of him doesn't indicate that he's any more notable than an average local councillor. I wondered if being a member of Sinn Fein's national executive might mean he's a significant figure, but the only press coverage I can find of him in that capacity is references 3 and 4 in the article, neither of which focus on him. (#3 only lists him as a member of a delegation and doesn't mention him in the main article at all; #4 gives a brief quote but the article focuses entirely on the event he was speaking at, it isn't about the man himself.) Nasica (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You're mixing two things up. An article focusing on the subject (or providing a significant amount of info about them is what is required for criterion 1 in bio guidelines or what is commonly known as WP:GNG. If "being a member of Sinn Fein's national executive" is verifiable (confirmation in one reliable source suffices) and that is something that would make him notable, GNG wouldn't even come into play. Remember: it is just one of the many possible criteria the guy can meet. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- Nasica (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Snappy (talk) 08:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Nom.Red Hurley (talk) 19:56, 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aimee Horne

no evidence of multiple significant roles in notable productions WP:ENTERTAINER. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources, only non trivial independent source appears to be this one WP:N. also note that primary editor is User:Mrspeed who may be Benjamin Speed, partner of Horne WP:COI. Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep have located other independent reliable sources & included them in the article. After checking the article would have to agree that the primary editor maybe directly related to the subject of the article. Dan arndt (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Some decent sources. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 16 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) 23:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sources in article meet WP:GNG. The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 02:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, subject of an article in the SMH. Some of the other "sources" in the article are shaky, but I think that she still just falls over the notability line. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per improvements and soucing done since it was first nommed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:34, 19 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Running of the Santas

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rashed Uddin Ahmed Topu

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage independent of the subject in reliable sources. After excluding facebook, I only found a single reliable source, and that was a trivial mention. PhilKnight (talk) 17:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - Does not appear to be notable subject based on search of english sources. Very minor mention in one or two articles. Other sources (including facebook) cannot demonstrate notability. The article also appears to be created by a WP:SPA. |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 18:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yaatri doesn't even have its own article, but more importantly, no WP:RSs.Bsimmons666 (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't appear to be notable or to have reached any siginificant chart position. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:12, 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.