Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 January 24

< January 23	January 25 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 18:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xenotone

A one-man band with one release on a small label. Doesn't meet WP:BAND. Delete. ~~SIS~~ 23:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N for sure! --Artene50 (talk) 03:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Complete non-notable. The Rolling Camel (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 07:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possibly Speedy delete per the notability guidelines for regular deletion or CSD A7 for speedy deletion. Razor flame 18:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 22:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Monroe

No indication he ever played a down of football either in the NFL or CFL, and not currently on the Blue Bombers' roster--thus, fails WP:ATHLETE. Blueboy 96 23:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; never played with the two teams he signed with, the San Diego Chargers (cut 8-31-2007) and the Winnipeg Blue Bombers (released 6-22-2008). Baileypalblue (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per this cause it's the same exact situation.--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 23:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 07:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nothing worth salvaging, a complete rewrite would be needed if at all. Tone 22:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Squeaky

Contested PROD. Yeah, I know it's mostly gibberish, but it's not nonsense enough for G1 (because the meaning can be understood). Fails G3 and A1 as well, so it's here as a bunch of references to fictional stuff. So Why 22:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete There is no reason to expend a lot of process on this gibberish. Miami33139 (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE: non-notable action that supposedly occurred in one episode of one TV show. Agree with User:Miami33139, no need to spend a lot of time on this. Baileypalblue (talk) 23:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Miami33139. Although I think it is just a test page. If you think it is, reply to this and I will kindly remind him that he should use the Sandbox on his talk page. calvinps (Talk) 00:04 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, it's not gibberish at all. It's an attempt to document a single motif from a TV sitcom that never progressed beyond the pilot stage. If you've never heard of the sitcom, then read I'm Gonna Git You Sucka#Spin-off. It's not a part of the sitcom that is documented in depth in multiple independent reliable sources, and so does not satisfy our notability criteria. Indeed, it isn't even verifiable, since no sources that I can find document any such thing, and the only way for readers to verify the content would be to find a recording of the TV show somewhere and watch it. But it is, contrary to the claims made above, neither vandalism, nor context-free (A Wikipedia search for "Hammer, Slamer, and Slade" brought up the aforelinked page.), nor a test page. It's a (presumably) good-faith attempt to write an article on a subject that is not article-worthy, since the world has yet to document it as a subject in its own right, or even document it at all. No speedy deletion criteria apply. Uncle G (talk) 02:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I removed the speedy tag, as it doesn't meet WP:CSD#G1, but it most certainly deserves deletion. Could conceivably be speedied under WP:CSD#A1; I'll leave that to the discretion of another admin. faithless (^speak) 10:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As I declined it already, re-tagging was incorrect anyway. It does not fit G1 and A1 so we have to go through this. So Why 19:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreadable, without sources, no notability. The Rolling Camel (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Is there anything that can be salvaged and added to Hammer, Slammer, and Slade? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NUT Container

This file format has absolutely no notability at all and shows no indication of ever becoming notable. All sources are primary. Miami33139 (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unfortunately I can't find any online sources to support a claim to notability. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 22:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Schuym1 (talk) 23:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't even find a claim of notability in the article, must less independent sources that say so. -Atmoz (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Speedy delete per the notability guidelines for regular deletion or CSD A7 for speedy deletion. Razor flame 18:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parviz Haghendish

Non-notable individual. Most of the very few google hits are as a result of this article. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTE: no sources, and little prospect of significant reliable third party coverage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above. And it failed to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people). --Efe (talk) 11:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - he would qualify as an athlete competing at the highest level of his sport if we can confirm that he was a member of the Iranian National fencing team. However, the information provided is very skimpy and searching for his name does not turn up any articles, competition results or anything to confirm this. -- Whpq (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, this is not a candidate for speedy deletion and if we can confirm that he was on the Iranian National Fencing team, he probably is worthy of an article.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if "competition results" or similar turned up, this would not provide the basis for an encyclopaedic article -- WP:NOT#NEWS: "Routine news coverage of such things as ... sports ... are not sufficient basis for an article." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that turning up competition results is not sufficient for expanding the article, but what we are trying to establish is whether the subject is notable enough for an article. Competition results would be a way to validate that he did compete at the top of his sport. As an Iranian athlete, I doubt very much that he would have any English language coverage to speak of, and we should keep in mind systemic bias. -- Whpq (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yuppers, the article claims that he was both a competitor at the highest level and a coach at the highest level, if this can be affirmed then it would become the basis for an argument to be kept as a notable athlete. If he played for the national team, does that potentially means he competed at the Olympics. To me, there is no doubt that if the claims can be verified that this person would be notable enough to keep. The burden thus, is on Patar to find something to show that Parviz was a what the article claims. While I agree, systemic bias may make this difficult, the proof doesn't necessarily have to be in English!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You must have me confused with the creator. While I did put some edits onto the page, the creator is actually User:James Patrick Wright. From his userpage, we can tell that he is a member of the Ottawa fencing club which Parviz Haghendish coaches at, and is in a better position to get potential print sources from his coach. I'm just some random fencer who once went to Parviz's summer camp, and unfortunately doesn't understand Persian, and is in no position to get Parviz Haghendish's Persian name. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless something can be provided to substantiate the claim, and the fencing clubs website is not a RS, then the article is likely to be deleted. The claim is one that, if substantiated, might make him notable enough to keep, but without proof this will end up being deleted.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the Iranian Fencing Federation's website's English version does not seem to work, and its Persian version [1] cannot be translated by Google translations. If anyone fluent in Persian, or with a translation tool which can translate Persian, wants, they can take a crack at it. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A quick Google search turns up this, which doesn't really meet RS. Also, this person's Canadian Fencing Federation license is under Parvis Haghandish, as seen here, so the current article's name might not be the only one to turn up G-hits. Also, judging by his picture from the first linked site, and nationality, his fencing career wouldn't have received much online media coverage. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources do not have to be online sources.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as he fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people). --Boston (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 07:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ty 16:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Margin art

Non-notable neologism. Mr. Vernon (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. You beat me to it. -- Darth Mike _{(Talk• Contribs)} 22:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Schuym1 (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should have been speedy deleted. freshacconci talktalk 12:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doodle covers this fine. Johnbod (talk) 15:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 QTV (Indonesia). MBisanz ^talk 02:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmes broadcast by QTV (Indonesia)

More Indonesian TV spam. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by TV ONE (Indonesia) Benefix (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Another AfD that's relevant is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of programs broadcast by networks. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTGUIDE. JamesBurns (talk) 01:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to QTV (Indonesia) as this list is not too long to include in the main article about the channel. DHowell (talk) 04:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That might hide it but it won't stop it being non-notable and indiscriminate. Benefix (talk) 15:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nestorian Stele. MBisanz ^talk 02:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assyrian Christian Stele

No reliable source calls this object the Assyrian Christian Stele. Instead, all reliable sources I've found refer to it as the Nestorian Stele/Stone/Tablet. The existence of this article is being pushed by one user, Gubernatoria, however the source he/she cites for this title in fact also refers to the object as the "Nestorian Tablet". As such, this article title is original research and should be deleted. No information will be lost, as this is simply a copy of the material already in the Nestorian Stele article. Otebig (talk) 22:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unless the multiple references in the article are fraudulent, I don't see the problem with the current article. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt persistent nuisance article-per nom, no reliable source calls this object the Assyrian Christian Stele. Sorry Pastor Theo, the references do not match what is claimed. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 02:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Why would someone create a duplicate article on the same topic? This is illogical. It is the Nestorian Stele and that's it. --Artene50 (talk) 03:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The book cited acknowledges the term Nestorian is pejorative and should not be used to describe anything to do with the Assyrian Church of the East. The term Nestorian is pejorative and historically inaccurate. Assyrian Christian Stele is a neutral and historically accurate name for the stone. Reliable contemporary scholarship will be cited when university library re-opens and lecture commitments permit time to research. The other sources cited are all more than 50 years old. Gubernatoria (talk) 05:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nestorian Stele and continue the discussion on the article talk page about what the article should be called. Content forking is not the way to resolve disputes about article naming, and AfD is not the place to resolve them. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect one to the other. I do not know enough to say which should be kept and which should become a redirect. The correct name for the relevant church is "Assyrian church". Nestorian is ultimately a Greek term for them due to their following the doctrines of a man judged by the Orthodox to be a heretic. My preference is reverse merge i.e. Nestorian Stele to Assyrian Christian Stele. Since the articles are virtually identical, this will in fact consist of converting Nestorian Stele to a redirect. It would be nice if the article could contain a translation of the text of the original. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on redirects. There is, as far as I can tell (and I've just looked through practically every book on this subject in the Indiana University library), not one single source that calls this stone by any other descriptive name than Nestorian. Even the books that say the Assyrians (or, more commonly, "Church of the East") were incorrectly called Nestorians still refer to the stone as "Nestorian". I've looked at books from the early 1900s up to works published in 2008, and there is nothing, nothing, ever using the term "Assyrian church" directly in connection with the stone. To use the term "Assyrian Church" for this stone, even as a redirect, would be a blatant example of original research. As such, this article needs to be deleted, completely. Otebig (talk) 15:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW Tone 19:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woosket

Unremarkable dog. Nancy ^talk 22:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:Notability and no reliable sources could be found. A Google search of Woosket barely turns up any results, and adding this dog's species, terrier, to the search term brings the number down to zero. I originally tagged it for speedy deletion, thinking it was a person. Animals are people too! :D --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apart from the non-notability, is the sister who is the research assistant the sister of the dog or of the trainer? The name suggests the dog. "Exotic Palletory Delectables"? Google didn't even find anything when I took the quotes out. Drivel. Peridon (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. None of the google hits (except wikipedia mirrors) have anything to do with dogs; the source cited does not mention this dog. The "Yorkshire School Of Training" where the dog supposedly trained gets no google hits, presumably does not exist. WP:COI issue as well; one of the dog's supposed alternate names is "Moosket", and the article was created by User:Moosket. Baileypalblue (talk) 23:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax. Note also that the WKC page used as a ref in the article is dated two months before this dog was supposedly born. Deor (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's funny, but it's a hoax. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. blatant hoax; portions not made up are copyvio of actual ER episodes slakr^\ talk / 12:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jethro: ER

This appears to be a hoax article. Can't find any evidence of it. Note also the wikilink to "Bradtv" that really leads to ABC, the supposed cast and Emmy awards, the "external links" that aren't going where they claim... FCSundae ∨^☃ (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hoax. If the list of performers and the claim of Emmy nominations had any relationship to reality, there would be plenty of documentation for this. Unfortunately, the performers all seem to be busy with other projects, and this hasn't been nominated for anything. Deor (talk) 00:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and most of the text of the article is a copy/paste from Pushing Daisies with names and dates changed. Deor (talk) 00:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You know what you get when you try to turn the Disney Channel sitcom The Suite Life of Zack & Cody into a medical drama? You get a hoax, that's what. (Note that several of the actors are even listed as having the same character names as on The Suite Life of Zack & Cody.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poorly constructed hoax. Only link is to a userpage of someone blocked from TVIV for making similar hoaxes. That person's TVIV userpage is a near duplicate of the userpage of the creator of this article. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 12:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above (HOAX), and I push for WP:SNOW. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. Sorry for the nomination people. I checked the history but I must have missed the valid content, just finding a lot of advertising content (hence it was tagged for G11). Seems like I made a grave mistake, for which I am truly sorry. Unfortunately, none of us is perfect. I apologize for the time wasted with this and I thank everyone for their comments and their work on this article now. It is truly appreciated. Regards So Why 13:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stain removal

Essay that serves primarely to promote a product and explains why it's superior. I wonder how it survived this long. Reason I'm bringing it here and am not speedy deleting it is that it's not completely advertising and I think a AfD will not hurt but allow to G4 possible recreations. Was PRODded before but contested. Regards So Why 22:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's really just an excuse for an article to build up to a "but this product solves all those problems!" Terrible tone, it even has a smiley at the end. The title is inaccurate, as it's not about "stain removal" in general, but specifically about not slopping hair dye around. Some of the content could conceivably be moved to Hair dye, but the whole concept of the article is suspect. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You want to delete an article because it was vandalised to add a smiley? That's not a rationale for deletion founded in deletion policy. Vandalism can be reverted. And you want to delete an article on stain removal, that covers two types of stain already and their removal, simply because it doesn't cover the rest of the subject yet and because you don't think that stain removal is a valid subject? That's nonsense. There are entire books on the subject of stain removal. And there are other books that document the subject non-trivially even without it being their entire focus, such as the "Stain Busters" section of ISBN 9780028643182, and pages 426–432 of ISBN 9780896762145. The Primary Notability Criterion is amply satisfied, and any problem with the article can be solved by you, or any other editor, deciding to write and edit, rather than tag for deletion. Uncle G (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Stain#Removal - The current tone is not so great, but there's an article or part of an article in there. Most of the content is correct and sourceable, especially the 4 removal methods. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 23:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Stain#Removal per User:LinguistAtLarge, because this is a useful search term; but if any of the current article content gets merged anywhere, it should go to Hair coloring, not Stain, because it's all a detailed analysis of hair dye stains, not stain removal in general; adding the material to Stain would unbalance that article. Anyone merging material from this article should be careful not to include material that could be construed as advertising for "Repelle Hair Color Stain Shield Wand". Just in case anybody is inclined to vote "keep", note this article is both an essay and an advertisement for the aforementioned product. Baileypalblue (talk) 00:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You should note, conversely, that essays can be cleaned up by writing, and the just one section of this article that even mentions a product can be addressed, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy, by editing the article in the normal way, without recourse to deleting the entire article.
  Editors have been desiring an article on stain removers and stain removal since 2005. If you think that this article is bad, then pull out your edit button and fix it, by writing. Sitting on the sidelines and voting in an AFD discussion, without making any effort to fix the article, won't get the encyclopaedia written, and there are plenty of sources on the subject of stain removal which can be used to expand this article, whose coverage of only two particular type of stains merely makes it imperfect, which, per our Wikipedia:Editing policy is fixed by you editing it to add coverage of the other facets of the topic that it misses.
  It's not as if sources are missing, or even hard to find. (Putting "Stain removal" into Google Books comes up with tens of books, all of the first two pages of results of which are directly apposite to this subject, even.) Indeed, the Complete Idiot's Guide, cited above, even explicitly supports content on several of the stain removers that this article documents. Uncle G (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete content, recreate pagetitle as redirect Miami33139 (talk) 00:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any policy-based reason for that. Indeed, do you have any reason for that at all? This is not a vote. Uncle G (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Atrocious nomination by SoWhy, who as an administrator should know better than to do wholly unresearched nominations (or to nominate an article for deletion when editing the article to fix the problem would have taken two edits fewer), and atrocious rationales from Baileypalblue MatthewVanitas, and especially Miami33139. The article incompletely covered the subject, but covered some of it (as can be verified from the sources cited in this very discussion), and so was tagged for expansion; a few parts of it were stylistically poor, and so was tagged for cleanup. So what did SoWhy and MatthewVanitas do? Instead of using that edit button and writing, they both, separately, nominated it for deletion. That is not, per our basic project policies, how articles are written. Nor is it what editors, especially those who have becom administrators, should be doing. As per User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do, which is based upon deletion and verifiability policies as they have been since their inceptions (and indeed was how deletion policy was expressed for several years), if you see an article that is in need of expansion or cleanup, you expand it and clean it up. You don't nominate it for deletion. Wikipedia does not need editors whose approach to collaborative writing is to tag incomplete articles for deletion. Ample sources on this subject exist, and the unwillingness of any editors to do more than reach for deletion nomination templates as the cure for all ills is not a valid reason for deletion. Please read our policies and follow them. AFD is not cleanup. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The first approach to an article like this is to remove every brand name, and every mention of a specific product, and then look to see if there is an article. The article indeed seem sto have bee introduced to promote a specific product, which may or may not be notable. But remove all mention of it, and there might be something left. I've done just what I advised, and suggest a secod look at the article. DGG (talk) 03:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename? Another editor removed some Repelle references. I went and removed the external links, as one was an article on Repelle's website, and the others made little sense (Center for Disease Control?). The title is still far too broad for the subject, so on the Discussion page I suggest changing it to Hair dye stain removal. Tone is still terrible, and my original recommendation to delete was mainly based on it being a CSD:11 for needing near-total rewrite to be appropriate. However, removing all Repelle info (now done), renaming to reflect the specifics of the article, putting up a Tone template until it can be rephrased is workable. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: CSD 11 only refers to pages that originally are written to exclusively promote a specific entity or product. Here, the very first version of this article looks more like a general essay on various alternative ways to remove hair stains instead of using hair dye. How did this page get named "Stain removal" anyway? And how did it evolve into promoting various products? This page needs an extreme makeover or merge, not deletion. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination utterly fails our editing and deletion policies. Stain removal is a massive topic with an interesting history and deletion would do nothing to improve our coverage of it. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valuable topic; article just needs much more work; do not see promotion at this point.Ekem (talk) 13:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW Tone 19:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Champagne University

I can't find any trace of this. Is it a misspelling I'm missing, or a hoax? FCSundae ∨^☃ (talk) 21:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as transparent HOAX. The tone gives it away, and the absence of sources: just check the Wikipedia entries at Manchester, New Hampshire#Post-secondary schools and Columbia, South Carolina#Colleges and universities - other universities listed, but no mention of this. The author NUFlyGrl (talk · contribs) has no other edits. JohnCD (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax exactly as JohnCD says. --Lockley (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are no sources because none exist when the subject is a hoax. -- Whpq (talk) 03:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or ban a "Champagne University" article. Sounds like the University of Illinois to me. Mandsford (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as soon as possible, obv--Crusio (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)ious hoax.[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Rollins

I'm not debating the notability of the author, but this article is an autobiography (the author is Rollie74, note that Mr. Rollins was born in 74.) While normally I'd slap on a COI/autobiography tag, the author has removed these (along with removing three SD tags from an article on his company, Lightning Pictures LLC. Mr. Vernon (talk) 21:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the subject is notable, it matters not that the article is an autobiography, at least where there exists enough salvageable content that upon the removal of problematic material an article that would survive CSD persists; editing, not deletion, is counseled, and that that editing is disputed, even if wrongly (on the merits of the dispute, or even on the notability of the subject generally, I take no position; I address only the proposition that COI/autobiography concerns necessarily entail deletion) by the article's creator (and apparent subject) is, as a conduct issue, immaterial to a deletion discussion. Joe 22:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and deal with the article's issues (autobiography, cleanup, coi, refimprove) via the talk page. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 23:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Firstly I'd like to disagree with the nominators stated reason - conflist of interest is reason for editing, talk page communication and watchlisting, not for deletion. However I'm very dubious about notability. This Google News archive search comes up only with a few directory-type listings in the Daily Variety name-checking the subject as a producer and this article mentioning him in passing as co-director of the Exhibition Hockey League. I can't find any evidence here of the subject's professional ice hockey career - I know it was before the internet had fully taken off but I'd have thought that there would enough fan sites around to be able to find some mention of a professional player from 1993. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 07:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no substantive claim to notability, and whilst WP:COI isn't a primary reason for deletion, it does become the straw that breaks the camel's back. Not only would we be straining notability to breaking point to keep this, but we would be keeping an article that is going to be edited near exclusively by the subject. Mayalld (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mariana Bridi da Costa

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

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

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

No notability except gruesome death and fact that she was a model. Nominated for deletion in the German language and Portuguese language wikis. Hektor (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you search for "Mariana Bridi da Costa" you will find nearly 3.000.000 hits on Google. Keep that article. -- Grochim (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google Search for the phrase "Mariana Bridi" reveals 137,000 pages that have been created within the last 12 months, of which 99,600 have been created in the past month, 85,200 in the past week, and 83,300 in the past 24 hours. That means 60.8% of online references to "Mariana Bridi" have been created within the past 24 hours. Until news of her gruesome infection broke, she wasn't notable. --Nonstopdrivel (talk) 22:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, because I spend today at least 3 hours on that article and I'm really disappointed to hear that beside that strong media echo the article should be deleted I want to say this: The Wikipedia project is dependend on free workers and donates from other people. Many people work here because they believe that they can help with free knowledge other people. This poor girl has suffered a cruel illness and died far too young. Nevertheless she took part at famous contests, for example two times at the miss world contest. Of course she was not that rich and that famous like other stars, but I think she has deserved it to be mentioned here in Wikipedia. I know that this sounds a bit sentimental, but if I wouldn't be sentimental, if I would thinking fully rational, I wouldn't continue working on this project. So please keep this article. -- Grochim (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Top story on CNN? That's a Strong Keep. I'm avoiding mentioning anything as speedy since her notability was not set in stone before this. Wizardman 21:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEWS Benefix (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that she's not notable and that the media pumped up the story because she's young and died gruesomely. But since she's in the spotlight now, Wikipedia needs to have an entry on it. - anon, 22:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep it. She was an attractive and famous model who met a tragic death at way too young of an age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.61.250.254 (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drudge has it on a top link, so millions of people are hearing about it just from that source. Keep it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.85.102 (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - David Gerard (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from plain voting in AfD. This applies even to you. 78.34.148.245 (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that she was 4th in the Brazilian Miss World, not in the finals, as teh article seems to imply. Benefix (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes at least this article should be edited on this point. Hektor (talk) 22:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"She was also a finalist in the Brazilian stage of the Miss World 2008 beauty pageant and won fourth place." Seems clear to me. She was fourth in Brazil. Peridon (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"In 2007, she participated in the Miss Bikini International contest[1] and the Miss World 2007 beauty pageant where she secured fourth place" does not seem clear to me. Hektor (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the one I quoted was clear. If your one isn't, edit it. Peridon (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That info is wrong and not confirmed by independent reliable sources. Descíclope (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This will probably get more notable as the press get to it. To me, it's fairly notable already. Peridon (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable as a model (information about her modeling career is wrong). If not deleted, it should be merged to Sepsis per WP:ONEEVENT (She is only notable because she was a model who died of Sepsis, not because of her career). Descíclope (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She was news when she was alive and news when she died. This deserves an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peronista (talk • contribs) 23:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't understand why this article should be removed. The individual is real and the events retold are real (to my knowledge). If there is any mistake, it should be corrected, but the article must certainly be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.246.118 (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There was so much media interest in here, also I checked on google insight and there was incredible interest in many countries such a Finland, Australia and Germany. In life she was notable as a model too. Reargun (talk) 00:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Sepsis. With all due respect, she's only mentioned here because she died. Her own career doesn't justify an article, per WP:N, and Wikipedia is not a memorial site. ~~SIS~~ 00:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Future readers encountering elements of her story elsewhere are likely to visit Wikipedia looking for a comprehensive and concise biography highlighting the circumstances of her life and death. The story is significant, granting the subject notability she might not otherwise have rated in her budding career. -- Deborahjay (talk) 00:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Deborahjay -- Steevo714 (talk) 01:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There was plenty of news coverage before she died, not just afterwards. This is not notability solely due to death. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am concious that Wikipedia is not a memorial site but come on, it's not like we're writing an article about the unknown victim of a random shooting. What she did alive is notable enough for her to have her own Wikipedia article. E.M. talk ● contribs 01:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this case any lady who scored fourth in a national Miss World beauty contest becomes notable. 90.1.64.31 (talk) 08:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm trying to say is that there's plenty of articles about people who did or took part of nothing deserving of a Wikipedia article. I mean, who's Richard Hibbard? A random welsh rugby player who played in a insignificant rubgy union team. And there's PLENTY of articles like Richard's. E.M. talk ● contribs 13:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Maybe she is in here "just because she died." But then, other entries are entered in histroy also, "just because they did something else famous." OK, maybe dying isn't worthy in itself of an entry, but she has become a very newsworthy story, at least during this time. She was up-and-coming, and despite whether or not she lived a full and successful life, she's a human interest story that has attracted a lot of attention and sympathy. Sure, a year from now, her name will be forgotten, but isn't that part of what Wilipedia is trying to preserve? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.165.211 (talk) 01:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Her case is referred to in the Pseudomonas aeruginosa article. Erxnmedia (talk) 01:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:ONEEVENT doesn't apply to this article because WP:ONEEVENT applies to relatively insignificant events. Her death isn't insignificant based on the worldwide reaction. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-on, although inadvertently. The world-wide reaction is significant, and if meta-sources can be found for that aspect, an article should be written about the eagerness with which her sad story is being exploited. Her tragedy just so happens to be the perfect material for a human interest story. A shame that people who successfully pretend to themselves to be suitable participants in an encyclopedic project are unable to tell the difference. 78.34.148.245 (talk) 10:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is notable Portillo (talk) 02:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from plain voting in AfD. 78.34.148.245 (talk) 10:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:ONEEVENT most certainly applies, and we're not a memorial service either. I can't quite grab a pulse on why everyone wants to keep this but I'm sure it'll get killed the second time around... JBsupreme (talk) 03:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The gist of WP:ONEEVENT is "cover the event, not the person". Deletion would result in us covering neither. Therefore if you believe that section applies, it seems a merge and redirect would be more appropriate. the wub "?!" 12:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question It seems to me that the issue is whether she would have been qualified even with the material on her death. DGG (talk) 04:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but link to Sepsis. Her death brought significant attention to the importance of medical second opinions but more so the need for quick and effective diagnosis and treatment of UTI. It also raised public awareness of the need to pay attention to seemingly insignificant infections.

--Reschrull (talk) 04:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 209.105.207.151 (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from plain voting in AfD. 78.34.148.245 (talk) 10:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. --CheMechanical (talk) 05:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from plain voting in AfD. 78.34.148.245 (talk) 10:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- This woman is the victim of a little-known bacterial infection, whose death made the news in several global news organizations. That is significant Arbiteroftruth ^{Plead Your Case} 06:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This thing has made international news and is in the conciousness of many worldwide. Whether we like it or not, this story has become notable. Also I don't believe it's appropriate to bring into consideration the decisions taken by members of other Wikipedias. We, the members of this English language Wikipedia should rely solely on the facts that become clear to us instead of seeking to draw opinions from members of other Wikipedias. --Pavithran (talk) 06:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- This model became notable due to the circumstances of her death and it should be linked to the disease, bacteria and to Miss World entries. Wikipedia can contribute to the awareness of Urinary Infections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.32.195 (talk) 07:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - It is true that the carreer of this unfortunate girl was not notable, but there are many people who have become notable because of how they died. The tragic death of Mariana Bridi da Costa has made headlines throughout the world (at least in most American and European countries). In that way, it has also drawn attention to Sepsis.JdeJ (talk) 08:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Lots of good points have already been made. In particular, keep due to the worldwide attention this person has received in the news lately, along with what may be longer-term effects on medical standards of care (see Reschrull's post above, for example). *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 08:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article was also nominated for deletion on Portuguese Wikipedia and is currently losing by large marge of votes. I ask people here for support there. Thanks --Saulotardeli (talk) 10:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC) — Saulotardeli (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Is it allowed to do that ? Hektor (talk) 11:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've put a note in the Portuguese discussion about this canvassing, and it's up to them what they do about it. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On pt Wikipedia, people who does not have more than 100 contributions (main Namespace) and 45 days since the first contribution before the deletion discussion started, can't vote on pt wikipedia. So if you wanna vote on pt wikipedia, you need to contribute there first. Descíclope (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Beautiful young woman dies a tragic death. It's a human interest story, not the basis for an encyclopedic article. But since Wikipedia is not an encyclopedic project, we are going to keep it. 78.34.148.245 (talk) 10:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ask 1,000 Wikipedia users to define "encyclopedic". You'll get a thousand answers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Struhs (talk • contribs) 22:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes I ask the people here for support of other languages, too, also in the German Wikipedia, Portuguese and Netherlands. -- Grochim (talk) 10:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Wrong venue, use the article talk page. 78.34.148.245 (talk) 10:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)~~ Didn't notice those where links to deletion discussions. 78.34.148.245 (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've put comments in those deletion discussions to let them know about this canvassing. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:ONEEVENT. List her name on Sepsis with a link to one of the noteworthy news sources.61.27.60.71 (talk) 11:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a VOTE ? AFd is not a vote. Furthermore, invalidating contributions when you are yourself an unregistered user, Mr 201.79.187.186 is a bit of a joke. Hektor (talk) 11:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, it's me, Saulo. And Yes, this is a vote just see "Delete". I can't vote for being too young registered user but unregistered users also cant vote but this doesn't mean I can't point irregular votes. --Saulotardeli (talk) 12:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC) — Saulotardeli (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please have a look at How to discuss an AfD. "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments. " Hektor (talk) 12:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The manner of her death aids her notability (I feel so heartless saying that; she was a real person...) although on its own I agree is a bit of a WP:ONEEVENT. However, combined with her reasonable success modelling, she makes the right side of notable to my mind, if not by much. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:Strong media and public interest and puts a face on a rare medical disease.Ekem (talk) 13:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She was notable before her death, and the manner adds to her notability as Blood Red stated above. NoVomit (talk) 13:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Her career before her death contributed some notability; the manner of her death contributed more. With the notability from both combined, there is enough notability for an article. With just one or the other, probably not. WP:ONEEVENT does not apply, because she is notable for more than one event. JulesH (talk) 14:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Ekem (talk). The strong media attention regarding her death adds to notability. Raphie (talk) 14:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep no discussion. notable--Judo112 (talk) 14:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from plain voting in AfD. 78.34.148.245 (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A textbook case of WP:NOT#NEWS. A Google News archive search that looks for articles more than a month old finds nothing, and no other evidence of notability apart from immediate news coverage of the subject's death has been presented. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Maybe I'm wrong but she seems to have represented Brazil in Miss World? She must therefore have won some national competition to get there? I only presume this as I'm not familiar with procedures. She seems to also have paced in more than one such competition. Compare Katy French, another such model widely known in Ireland for her relationships and numerous TV appearances before her death took over the headlines just over a year ago. --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T_# :) 15:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See the discussion above. She didn't represent Brazil at Miss World - she came fourth in the competition to do so. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a non-notable model who died a peculiar death. Textbook WP:BLP1E. Aecis·(away) ^talk 15:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Articles on BBC in the UK [2], CNN in the US [3], Expressen in Sweden [4], Corriere della Sera in Italy [5] and so on. A person covered by the main news channel and newspapers througout the world would appear to be notable. I'm surprised this isn't a speedy keep.JdeJ (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. I believe her notability can be build upon as per Candlewicke. rkmlai (talk) 17:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - she is a news report. Her career as a model is not sufficient to establish notability so essentially, she's known for a single event. -- Whpq (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Musicians who place in a serious music contest and people who have been nominated for a significant award are considered notable according to the WP:BIO guidelines. So being a finalist in all these peagants should be considered notable in the same vain. Her death may get too much attention, but that can be solved with editing. The fact person details like age, etc show it's possible to shift the focus. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She wasn't finalist. That news is fake. Her modeling career is irrelevant. Descíclope (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep it makes you look like a lot of small minded creeps in view of the fact 1) it's a major news story, 2) you have millions of articles and it's common for a high profile news item to result in an article, and 3) this isn't the German wiki (fortunately). Lycurgus (talk) 18:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do I need to point out that "small minded creeps" is based on your very own worldview? Also, if it weren't so ludicrous a thing to say for someone who wants to keep this "article", I might read it as an offensive remark directed at other editors. 78.34.148.245 (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No you don't; Yes that is my world view; I said "makes you look like"; and I meant that subset campaigning for deletion. Anyway, doesn't appear to matter looks like this is one of those case where the right thing will happen.72.228.150.44 (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have edited my comment. Please don't do that again. 'Nuff said. 78.34.148.245 (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~subset~~ You. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Reliable sources BBC/CNN seems to think she's notable, so she is. Speedy, because Nom seems very pointy- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Nom seems very pointy". No. No, it does not. Please explain or refrain. 78.34.148.245 (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a high profile item on many top news channels. It is to be expected that lots and lots of people are going to be coming to the wikipedia to find out more. I wouldn't expect under those conditions for them to have to face a large and fairly in-your-face tag leading to a page full of people bickering over the fine points of whether a model is important enough to grace the pages of the wikipedia. I therefore continue to claim that this is a self-evidently pointy nom, and call for a speedy keep.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What WP:POINT do you believe the nominator was trying to make? -- Whpq (talk) 18:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to read minds as to why, but it looks disruptive to me.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd like to point out that the IP 78.34.148.245 who is campaigning so hard for the article to be deleted is a single-purpose account whose every contribution is related to this topic. The provocative comments by this user and the fact that he/she came directly here makes it very likely that we're dealing with a sockpuppet.JdeJ (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Newsflash that's an unfair characterization, many internet carriers assign you a new IP address every time you connect to the internet or the power goes out. Try not to make personal attacks on people when you have no basis to do so. JBsupreme (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - We don't have that much choice but to prioritise well-established registered accounts higher than anonymous accounts in these discussions.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You have the choice of basing the judgement on the quality of the arguments, rather than the degree to which the participants in the discussion are "established". 88.234.217.196 (talk) 10:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am worried solely about the quality of discussion, not "campaigning so hard for the article to be deleted". 78.34.148.245 (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need anyone monitoring "the quality of the discussion", thank you. We know your opinion.JdeJ (talk) 19:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"We"? Please speak for yourself. Also, I beg to differ. Some of the keep voters have refactored others' comments, made personal attacks and plain voted. They need to be reminded that none of that is acceptable. 78.34.148.245 (talk) 19:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying is that editors who have been on Wikipedia for years need someone who turned up today to monitor them? We have administrators doing that. And your claim that it is only those who disagree with you who behave badly speaks volumes about your WP:POV.JdeJ (talk) 19:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FTR I only edited text I didn't author for layout/flow (except for attempting to remove the thread I started), just a personal quirk, for example I find the use of the list marker for the thread entries above irritating, but I see it's been done from the start of the page. Also what is 'plain voting'? What process is underway on this page? 72.228.150.44 (talk) 19:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plain voting is when you don't back your general stance (keep, delete, merge elsewhere etc) up with any kind of reasoning as to why this or that should iyo happen with the article. AfD is not a vote, it's a discussion. See also WP:NOREASON. 78.34.148.245 (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(I think I got the level of reply right, it's getting difficult, maybe time to unindent) Let's get something straight for everyone on this AfD: Nobody's opinion is worth more or less than anybody elses and everyone is allowed to do any task unless a)it uses tools restricted to administrators b) they've abused the right in the past and been banned from doing so. And, if you do take the view that established users have more important opinions, this is coming from an administrator. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a) I find it's very easy to maintain proper indenting simply by copypasting the colons from the comment you're replying to and adding one. b) Did I say or imply anything to the effect that I think that the validity of input hinges on "seniority" or anything of the sort? I sure hope didn't. Nevertheless, some types of comments are more valid than others. Plain voting is the least valid type of discussion input. Not just my opinion, WP:AfD happens to agree with me. 78.34.148.245 (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean your comments on voting - you're quite right about them. It was more aimed as a general comment as it has been said a couple of times - including to try to discredit you just above. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you argue "strong keep", and don't appear to mind a host of truly unacceptable behaviour from people who also want it kept. The point you're desperately trying to make is really on yourself. 78.34.148.245 (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Even a perfunctory glance at the sources used for this article reveals that none of them is dated prior to 22 January 2009 -- in other words, 3 days ago. As unfortunate as the circumstances of this woman's death may be, before she contracted this disease, she wasn't notable. Fourth place in a modeling competition? Please, people -- it is pure sentimentality, perhaps combined with a certain horrified voyeurism, that fuels the drive to keep this article. A gruesome death does not notability make; if it did, the woman who died in my hometown of necrotizing fasciitis ("flesh-eating bacteria"), a truly hideous way to die, would appear in Wikipedia, and she does not. Relegate this story to a note in the Sepsis article where it belongs.--Nonstopdrivel (talk) 19:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well she probably would have if she had also been a beauty queen in her early twenties and the story had already become an international media event. *layout/flow and other uncaught exceptions created by other editors. Lycurgus (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this editor Nonstopdrivel did understood about 'Miss World Finalist' competition and wan't to degrading it? --B767-500 (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reliable and verifiable sources provided about the article subject support the claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Review: There are more than enough sources out there from the before, and during her illness, and after her death that WP:BIO is satisfied, and since she would probably have been notable before illness, oneevent doesn't appear to apply. I recommend we keep the article, and review it in sufficient time to see if the coverage of her illness and death makes up too much of the article, or is about right. Jo7hs2 (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This references have informations, which means to keep it:
- [6]
- [7]
- [8]
- [9] —Preceding unsigned comment added by B767-500 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keepher story is notable insofar as it helps discussion of her disease, as well as being part of the beauty contest project. versen (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as it was mentioned before, when you do a Google search on her, her name has a lot of returns. Despite the fact she has not won the pageants, but she finished 4th on two occasions. That's a relative notability and her death has been posted on websites like the Sun (UK) and CNN.

Norum (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will grant this argument if other instances of models whose primary claims to fame (outside their death) are placing fourth in national beauty pageants having articles in Wikipedia can be produced. --Nonstopdrivel (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She's notable person. --Paukrus (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a vote. Portillo (talk) 06:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please provide more information than just a vote. What makes her notable? Aecis·(away) ^talk 08:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I find it a bit hard to believe that people seriously argue that a person covered by the CNN, BBC, The Sun, Guardian, Corriere della Sera, Expressen and many other news channels and newspaper is not "notable". Which new definition do you give to notable to arrive that a person noted throughout the world is not notable?JdeJ (talk) 11:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 07:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep massive media coverage on mainstream press. --Ciao 90 (talk) 08:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This case resembles that of Ruslana Korshunova , whose article was kept. It's true that Ruslana was more notable, nonetheless she came in the spotlight after her tragic death - Alternatively, i suggest merging with sepsis --Itemirus^{Talk Page} 09:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Who has heard of Albert_Alexander? Was he *notable*? IMHO, notability policy is to prevent articles about, well, anyone. In this case, her death was an event that generated significant coverage, and people would come to Wikipedia (just like I did) because they would expect to find an article about this person together with relevant facts about her and her death. If Wikipedia deletes this entry, it is IMO just reducing its usefulness to all of us, exactly against its stated goals. Billyj (talk) 11:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would seem that many people do not understand what "notable" means. If a person has been covered by leading newspapers in many countries and many continents, that person is notable. So what these people seem to do is to invent a new requirement, not only must a person be notable, but the person must also be notable in a certain way, satisfying their own requirements. I say it reeks of censorship. A question to those who argue that she is only because she died: more than 100.000 persons die each day, do you see a large number of articles about them throughout the world? No, 99.99999% of all people die without being covered even by a minor local newspaper. They are not notable. When a person's death is noted by newspapers and newschannel in Brazil, in the US, in the UK, in Italy, in Scandinavia, in Germany and many other countries, then the person is notable.JdeJ (talk) 12:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Ms Bridi da Costa would probably have become notable if it were not for her tragic infection and horrific death. Whether she did become notable... that's trickier to say. DS (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. So much callousness & disrespect by people in this "community". The woman suffered terribly & did not survive a disfiguring illness. People don't have the minimal decency to wait for her family to mourn and bury their daughter! But this "community" wants to delete her on the day she dies? Daxmac (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC) Comment copied from talk page. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This person isnt notable for just a one time event but for several different events/happenings. Her beauty pageant participations and her modeling career and other stuff it seems. Its a definite keeper.--Judo112 (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seriously, is anyone in the world at large going to remember who she is in ten or even five years' time? 60.51.98.228 (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is anonymous or recent users allowed to vote? This IP was only used in two edits to vote. The same above with users 60.51.98.228 and 78.34.148.245. --Saulotardeli (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saulotardeli, your comments reveal how much you really know. (i) Nobody should vote; instead, everyone should make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments. (ii) For heaven's sake, please just carefully read through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Yes, people editing from IP address are very much allowed to participate in deletion discussions. You're becoming disruptive, and that's not evem going into your single-purpose contributions. 78.34.137.140 (talk) 20:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can I move closure as the discussion seems to be degrading? (I'm glad I'm not an admin - I'd hate to try to sort this one out!) Peridon (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. It's a no-consensus-defaults-to-keep anyway. 78.34.137.140 (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The late Ms. Bridi is not notable for her achievements; even the Portuguese Wikipedia did not have an article on her before her untimely and sad death. The media attention spent on this case is somehow based on the perception that the tragic death of a young woman is more tragic if she happens to be beautiful. Soon, however, this case will be out of the news and the public eye and forgotten, except by her family and friends. Not coincidentally, on four of the five Wikipedias that have an article on the person, it has been nominated for deletion. 88.233.38.17 (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since she's died, WP:BLP1E doesn't apply. Is this news or notability? Certainly, her plight was covered as much as the little girl down the well and Ryan White (now a featured article). Time will tell whether she'll be remembered five or ten years on. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This story has evolved to be of deep international, intercultural interest. Web traffic to this article alone ought to speak for itself. Struhs (talk) 22:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia isn't the news, nor is it E! Entertainment. Human-interest stories that will be forgotten in 50 years are not notable enough because notability isn't temporary. Themfromspace (talk)

That is nonsense. We have thousands of articles on people who will be forgotten in 50 years and are not even famous now, such as thousands of players in minor sport leagues. Put the combined media coverage of 1000 of them together and it would not equal the media coverage Mariana Bridi has received. As I already said, many of those who vote delete seem to be frustrated that she became famous through her death, and that is their problem. It doesn't mean that she isn't notable.JdeJ (talk) 10:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(i) "We have thousands of articles [...]" — See WP:OTHERCRAP. (ii) "many of those who vote delete seem to be frustrated that she became famous through her death, and that is their problem" — Not to hammer the point beyond pertinence to this discussion, but. If this comment is the actual result of you spending time thinking, you are better off not speculating on other people's reasoning under any circumstances, ever. 78.34.138.80 (talk) 10:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend you to read WP:CIVIL as it is fairly obvious that you have no idea about how to behave.JdeJ (talk) 10:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And you do? 78.34.138.80 (talk) 11:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's put it this way, I don't go around using "My God" or "Oh dude" in edit summaries, and I don't comment on other editors' mental abilities and I don't call other editor's contributions "crap". None of that is of any relevance and doesn't contribute anything. I have commented on the fact that some editors on this page seem to take a moral stance. That, however, is directly related to the topic under discussion whereas I'm afraid that your contributions, the ones I listed above, are more aimed to provoking than contributing.JdeJ (talk) 14:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This really doesn't belong here anymore, but since you've civilly made it clear that you don't want me to respond at your talk page, I might as well respond here: Some of yours is not the pinnacle of civility or razorsharp reasoning either. Let's leave it at that, shall we? 78.34.138.80 (talk) 15:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The subject in the article has attracted a lot of media interest. It can be used as a case on Wikipedia to show that drug resistance bacteria can affect everyone. Fangfufu (talk) 23:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Besides passing our core notability guidelines, this is one of the only high profile people to die from this very rare bacteria infection. WP:BLP1E, besides applying to living people, was established to protect the privacy of "essentially low profile" individuals who found themselves in the news through no effort of their own. A contestant in the Brazil "Miss World" contest is in no manner an "essentially low profile" person. --Oakshade (talk) 00:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is actually a very common bacterial infection. 88.234.217.196 (talk) 10:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Common bacterial infection, but rarely causing the death of a high profile person. --Oakshade (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll bite. What part of her life, which particular achievements justify calling her a "high profile person"? 78.34.138.80 (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Brazilian Miss World runner up who now has vast international attention. Remember, I described "high profile" to point out that WP:BLP1E clearly states it applies to "low-profile" individuals (i.e. "Cleveland man accidentally mows off own foot"). Someone who participates in a national and nationally televised beauty contest is not "low profile."--Oakshade (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll concede that point, she's not exactly the nn Cleveland man. Just wondered how you might describe the notability level of, say, John Lennon if Mariana Bridi da Costa qualifies as "high profile person". 78.34.150.177 (talk) 00:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The publicity seems to be only generated because she was a beauty queen. Many people die every year from sepsis caused by Pseudomonas, many of them undoubtedly equally or more notable than a Brazilian beauty queen. Keeping this panders to the cult of celebrity and suggests that women who are judged to be attractive (usually by men) are somehow more important than those who are judged to be less attractive. This is undoubtedly why the press picked it up. Do we here in the press of ... unattractive male microbiologist dies of Pseudomonas... ? No of course we don't. Maintaining an entry for reasons of male chauvinism seems a particularly bad reason for inclusion. Everyone, even Brazilian beauty queens, have a right to privacy and one of the most sacrosanct privacies is that between a patient and his/her physician or doctor. Unless an individual makes a public statement about their condition, then their medical history should remain private - Wikipedia is not the gutter press. So if you look at Pancreatic cancer, there are no case histories and, of those cases known and reported on Wikipedia, all have been individuals who chose to make their condition known. Similarly at Testicular cancer that are a number of recoveries listed all of which have been made public by the sufferers themselves. For a bacterial infection look at Tetanus - all the cases listed are for people who died more than 50 years ago.

In this particular case we have no informed consent from the sufferer, we have no corroboration of diagnosis, just the press reporting verbal comments from family members or friends. Thus we have no reliable evidence as to cause, no informed consent and no value in the recital. The issue has been raised elsewhere that this should be a warning to others but this article mentions that the condition is potentially fatal and can cause sepsis. That alone should alert the reader to the dangers inherent in this organism colonising living human tissue. Using an example like this seems to take a vicarious interest in something that would be sad but unremarkable if it happened to any one of the great majority of human-kind. Velela (talk) 10:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another argument making a point that isn't relevant. Like so many others, Velela seems to have a problem with Mariana having been a "beauty queen" and bases her whole argument on that. Once again, it is completely irrelevant. What we are interested in is IF she is notable, not why she is notable. Having been covered by BBC, CNN, O Globo, Corriere della Sera, Expressen and many others, there can be no doubt about notability.JdeJ (talk) 10:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the reverse. Notability as judged here is just about reporting in the more sensational news - do we have articles for such stuff as Nude father Christmas streaks through Prague!, no of course we don't but such stories are all too common in the press. This one is a great deal sadder for family and friends but the press only took notice because she was a beauty queen. If this had been you or I dying from sepsis (an all too common death) nobody would have taken a blind bit of notice. This debate is wothy of the gutter press not Wikipedia. Velela (talk) 10:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you bring your personal moral standards into the discussion. We all know by now that you deplore that a "beauty queen" got so much attention. While that personal feeling of yours is understandable, it's not relevant. We don't ask why people are famous, we ask if they are famous. And are you seriously claiming that BBC, CNN and Corriere della Sera are gutter press? I'd say they are among the most respected news media in the world.JdeJ (talk) 10:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I bring moral standards to everything I do in life. Don't you ? I don't deplore that a beauty queen got so much attention quite the reverse. I believe that she should be afforded the same privacy and respect given to the many thousands that die in similar ways each year and that being a runner -up in beauty contest doesn't give us the right to deny her that respect and privacy. Velela (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I was vague, there is nothing wrong with morals. What I meant is that my interpretation, and of course I may be wrong, is that you seem to thing that her being a beauty queen would be a reason not to include her on Wikipedia. If that's so, I'd like to point out that her profession is not important, academic, beauty queen, civil servant, dancer, electrician... What we're interested in is whether she is notable. And being covered extensively by leading news media throughout the world, including BBC, CNN and many others, implies notability.JdeJ (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would suggest the following criteria for entry as a Wikipedia notable death: All persons must have some element of celebrity, fame or political relevance so that an announcement will be mentioned in some credible news source. I would suggest that the BBC or CNN are credible news sources. That is all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.227.2 (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2009
Keep. Drug resistant bacteria kills young healthy person. Come on. Why in the world should this tragic tale be deleted? It´s relevant to all of us. Sigmar Þormar, Iceland —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.213.139.210 (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2009

Comment Even though I support a keep, I don't think the reason given above holds water. Unfortunately, many young persons are killed by diseases and their deaths are always tragic, but that is not a reason to have articles about them. The reason I support a keep is that her death, in contrast with the tragic deaths of most other young people, is very notable and has been covered by media around the world.JdeJ (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point, and I fully agree with you on this one: her death is very notable. In this vein, one might ask why the article isn't accurately located at Illness and death of Mariana Bridi da Costa. 78.34.150.177 (talk) 00:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this is an area that needs a more general policy established - there are going to be deaths every week that bring people to the attention of the media more than the work they did in their life. Either a notable or unusual death plus a somewhat notable life (however we're determining either of those - say by hits on Google or the number of different news sources on either topic) together add up to a worthy subject for an article, or they do not. The preceding debate will be replayed ad infinitum unless some sort of concensus can be reached in general. I would err in this case towards a deletion, although a mention of this case on the article for sepsis might be relevant. I'm no expert on fashion, but it seems to me that people are describing her as a 'model', while the biography in the article only mentions beauty pageants. This seems less notable - surely there are lots of entrants to beauty pageants, spelling bees, quiz shows, etc, most of whom don't win, while far fewer people are selected by companies or agencies to model for them (which in itself may not justify notability). Scyrene (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She was known across the Portuguese speaking countries, which do contribute significantly to the number of visitors of English speaking Wikipedia. 81.84.183.85 (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Say what you will, this is actually one of the most valid arguments to keep I've seen so far. 78.34.150.177 (talk) 00:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Portuguese Wikipedia did not have an article on Ms. Bridi before her death; now there is an article, but it has been nominated for deletion and at the moment there are more !votes in favor of deletion than for keeping the article. So much for the argument. 88.234.217.196 (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another example of wikidiocy: delete someone who's death made worldwide news, but keep the death of some obscure French cleric or some Canadian Provincial politician that no one's ever heard of. You people are "reel jeen-yus-ez" .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.55.215.13 (talk) 06:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - More one example of WP:ONEEVENT. Béria Lima ^Msg 12:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Overall notability. And the fact that so many is involved in this discussion point out to me that she isnt just another model. and that her death and life has been interesting for many people. Had she been a model without any beauty pageant of runway notability i might have said delete but as she has actually done good in many beauty pageants and was involved in a pageant at the time of death i guess she is more than just a WP:ONEEVENT so that doesnt apply here.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Or at least let the Brazilians decide. From what I've seen in Wikipedia, it seems like someone from a non-English-speaking country has to be ten times more famous than someone from an English-speaking one in order to be included here. At least this Mariana was a model and a somewhat famous one. That cannot be said for Cassie Bernall, for example (another one who is famous only because of her death). – Alensha ^talk 19:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Who is the schmuckbag who wants to delete this article? You should crawl out of the hole you live in and come out and smell the coffee you drooling drubbling idiot. I have really started to dislike these wikipedia bureaucrats from the bottom of my heart. I propose you delete all of wikipedia and then put a bullet in that dumpster you call a brain. 119.154.61.185 (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of legislation sponsored by Ron Paul. MBisanz ^talk 02:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We the People Act

This legislation is unlikely to pass and has no inherent notability. Thousands of bills get introduced in Congress, and writing an article for all of them is impossible. Wikipedia is not GovTrack. Wandering Courier (talk) 20:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This bill has greater notability than most acts that pass in any given year. It would strip the federal court system of jurisdiction over a wide range of issues, effectively re-drawing the currently existing balance between the various entities of the US federal system. Even though it's being proposed in legislative form, this bill is more like an amendment to the Constitution, and as such has notability even if it never passes (compare, for example, to the Equal Rights Amendment, whose potential impact was less than this bill). The article has been improved since its last AfD and includes reliable sources which demonstrate notability. Baileypalblue (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Not remotely notable, the bill has never been considered by the House Judiciary Committee; and has had no impact on the public debate. The article has no printed secondary reliable sources: a passing mention on a radio show, two blogs, and a Christian right web magazine. Merits maybe a sentence, if that, in the Ron Paul article; there is nothing meaningful in this article that is not already in jurisdiction stripping (which, by the way, is an abysmal article that needs a substantial rewrite--why are people creating all these meaningless stubs over collateral legislation with zero chance of passing when the main articles are in such poor shape?). Baileypalblue's argument for keeping confuses "possible impact" with "notability" in contradiction to WP:CRYSTAL; the Equal Rights Amendment is notable not because of its possible impact, but because it was the subject of extensive public debate and coverage by secondary reliable sources. The article is also factually inaccurate and has POV problems, but that's a different issue. THF (talk) 13:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to List of legislation sponsored by Ron Paul. Non-notable proposed legislation that was sent to committee to die. No evidence of wider or lasting impact and little if any non-trivial WP:RS coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Gene93k-- I would have said to the Ron Paul article, but Congressman Paul has apparently tilted at enough windmills that his bills get their own article. Bills that never get out of committee do not rate their own article, no matter how intriguing they might be. At least with a merge, people can locate this ironically named piece of legislation. Mandsford (talk) 15:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to List of legislation sponsored by Ron Paul. This bill did not become law. It didn't even get passed by the House. Wait, it didn't even get out of committee. Wait, it didn't even get out of subcommittee. Why are we even talking about this? TJRC (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G3) Nancy ^talk 21:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bolocgo

Hoax about a non-existent breed of dogs. A Google News search returns no results. Cunard (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete It's a hoax. FlyingToaster 20:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per the snowball clause. Non-admin closure. MuZemike 18:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kickboxer 2

Non-notable film. Valrith (talk) 19:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The film was released to theaters and video and has been reviewed by multiple sources. WP:N/FILMS is easily met. Nate • (chatter) 20:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Per Mrschimpf. Also as the sequel to a major motion picture. I'm not sure why the nom felt this failed WP:N. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 09:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a Kickboxer (film) article under a "Sequels" header. I don't know how notable this movie actually is. Why does it fail WP:NOTE you ask? Well, because NOTE requires "significant coverage from reliable, third-party sources independent of the subject" - It has 2 reviews listed at Rotten Tomatoes and if you actually view them you'll see that the first is just an announcement for what the film is (not a review) and the second does not appear to actually be accessable. Thus, the lack of third-party sourcing, or any real world coverage from any type of reliable source is why this film (and I'm sure the other two that have articles) fails the WP:GNG. It needs mentioning somewhere, just not in its own article. Create a section in the original film's article. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - as Michael has found some reviews to satisfy WP:NOTE. Unless the same can be done for those direct-to-video sequels that follow this one, then I still say someone should put a merge proposal and place them at either Kickboxer or Kickboxer 2. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This movie is notable. Why does it meet WP:NOTE you ask? Well, because NOTE requires "significant coverage from reliable, third-party sources independent of the subject". Schuym1 (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - good points Bignole. Ikip (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY Keep as notability is not temporary. One can easily understand that as the second in a successful series of films, that it would have been covered at the time of its release 18 years ago, and there were multiple comparisons made to its predecessor. That fact that these pre-internet/pre-wikipedia reviews or commentaries are now difficult to find, does not mean that they did not then exist. However, I did find a few lengthy reviews... Entertainment Weekly, TV GUIDE, Bad Movie Knights, Kung Fu Cinema, and others at [10][11]... With respects to the nom. its a keeper. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:NF. Schuym1 (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is also this and this. Schuym1 (talk) 21:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Great find! Good work. I'll add then to the NOW improved article. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep As easily as Michael found reviews, there is no point to redirect the other articles as review are probably just as readily available for them too. Ikip (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Recorder. (non-admin closure) — neuro^(talk) 16:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parts of a recorder

Doesn't fit neatly into a speedy delete criterion, however this isn't an encyclopedia article. PhilKnight (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete - because the relevant sections (and images) on the existing Recorder article adequately cover this topic, and I personally doubt this title would make a useful redirect~~. However, I also notice the creator is a (presumably quite junior) newbie contributing their first article (and first contribution of any kind) - so I also hope someone-who-knows-how-to-do-these-things (sadly, that's not me!) can make sure the user is not scared away if this does indeed gets canned? --DaveG12345 (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects are cheap, and this seems like a possible search and maybe even a future break out article, so I could go for a redirect. SilkTork *^YES! 20:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Recorder as a plausible search term. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Redirect, per SilkTork. Wasn't aware of that, and thanks. --DaveG12345 (talk) 00:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant and unnecessary. Information is better covered in the Recorder article. MuZemike 00:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects are cheap. the wub "?!" 12:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 22:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheval Sombre

Non wiki style, seems to be unnotbale, contains an interview. L-Tyrosine (talk) 19:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Speedy) Delete. Doesn't meet WP:BAND at all. ~~SIS~~ 00:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No claim to notability. Livna-Maor (talk) 00:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. No need to redirect since the title is not confirmed. Tone 19:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Batman: Caped Crusader

Falls under WP:NFF (no principal photography), but I can't find much evidence that this film is planned outside of various rumor boards. Mr. Vernon (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Schuym1 (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL/WP:NFF violation. Should be redirected to Batman computer and video games as one of the games described there had a very similar title. JulesH (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Batman computer and video games as a plausible search term for the 1988 video game. Otherwise, article is pure crystalballery and unverifiable speculation. MuZemike 00:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure speculation and total fabrication. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that a redirect to Batman computer and video games would be useful. the wub "?!" 12:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL; the title and the information within the article is flat-out unverifiable. We have everything we need at Batman (film series)#Future. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NFF, and possibly WP:HOAX. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A cursory search can confirm NONE of the assertions in the article, beyond it being rumour. Cannot confirm, cast, crew, director, production... nothing. If not a hoax, it seems to come close. No need to even merge of redirect this one, as it even fails WP:Verfy. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then redirect. This is a rare case where keeping the history intect is actively harmful as it consists of nothing but unverifiable speculation about living people. When the project is confirmed verifiable material about it can be put at Batman (film series)#Future and it can be spun out as a seperate article when appropriate (about the time that principal photography begins). However, this is a plauible misnomer for a video game and so a redirect to Batman computer and video games makes sense. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Notability established. Now, if argumentation could be incorporated in the article, it would be great. Tone 19:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Keenan

Not notable, fails WP:BIO. Pyrrhus16 18:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is Professor Above Scale at UCLA since 1995, according to his CV. For those not familiar with the UC system, it has a system of steps within each rank (Professor I, Professor II, etc.); advancing through most of these steps happens routinely every three years (in typical cases) but the jump from Prof. V to Prof. VI is considered to be a major promotion on the same scale as a promotion from assistant to associate or associate to full. The jump from Prof. IX to Prof. Above Scale is similarly major. So he's two ranks above the normal full professor, which I think should be considered a pass of WP:PROF #5. He's also a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences since 1998, passing WP:PROF #3. And he has a good citation record in Google scholar (though it's a little tricky to pick his contributions out from those of the other E. Keenans) so I think he likely also passes WP:PROF #1. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Clearly passes WP:PROF. -Atmoz (talk) 23:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But it wouldbe advisable to add his major publications. DGG (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 07:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 19:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Limh

Non-notable neologism - even article states that it was "created in 2009"! Nancy ^talk 18:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nomination and WP:MADEUP. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax. Pyrrhus16 18:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a hoax (see [12], [13]). But it is just a definition of what Wiktionary cautiously accepts as a neologism. Wikipedia generally does not like neologisms. Maybe, if it survives, it could warrant an entry in Wiktionary. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 19:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hartwood (Lancashire) railway station

Other editors appear to doubt that this station ever existed, see talk page; no references or other evidence provided in article to support its existence. The Anome (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems odd that a user would invent a station. I have asked User:A1personage where the information came from. I did have a quick look myself and found nothing, but that doesn't mean the station was invented - simply that the source has not yet been found. Hopefully A1personage will be able to provide the source. SilkTork *^YES! 19:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A1personage has got back to me and feels he may have misread the information. SilkTork *^YES! 00:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. No references to this station existing that we can find. If we cannot find any, we shouldn't have an article. Also, considering the suggestion that the station may not have existed, I examined the suggested situation of it on google maps, and the geography seems a little out to me. Look at this aerial photo [14], which shows what seems to be the ruins of the abandoned line as it approaches Chorley. Zoom out 2 or 3 steps, and project a sensible path for it to take to join the remaining line and come into Chorley station. Remember that it would have turn in a relatively broad, sweeping arc, until it pointed in the same direction as the other line to enter the station. Note that the marker on the map identifies where (as near as I can tell) the village of Hartwood would have been. Unless the station was significantly to the south of the village, it does not seem likely to me the line would actually have come to an appropriate place for it. To somebody familiar with the local area who hadn't looked at the ___location of the line on a map it might seem plausible that there would be a station in the village, but given the actual siteing of the line, it seems unlikely to me. A hoax also seems unlikely; this may have originated in somebody's original research, where they hypothesized that such a station may have existed (I know I certainly have theories about possible origins and purposes of places around my local area, many of which are likely to be incorrect). JulesH (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's another data point: [15]. The narrowing of the canal was probably the ___location of a bridge that carried the line over it. This gives a much better idea of the route it would have taken into Chorley from there: heading southwest, along roughly through the locations of Northgate Drive and Sycamore Road, probably along directly behind the gardens of the houses on Wordsworth Terrace, passing probably under Harper's Lane in the vicinity of Old Bridge Way (whose name is suggestive that its development replaced a bridge) before roughly following the curve of Railway Road as it joins the remaining line. This path does not go anywhere near Hartwood. Had the line been going to Hartwood, its path as it approached the canal should have been directly west, not southwest as it now appears to have been. JulesH (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - three other station pages, created by this editor, have been deleted as expired, uncontested Prods which are also thought to be possible hoaxes. I pulled the Prod on this page for similar reasons to those given by User:SilkTork to allow time for the existence to be verified. Relevant discussion is also at Talk:Hartwood (Lancashire) railway station. In the interest of full disclosure per WP:CANVASS, please note that I have alerted User:Dr Greg to this AfD and asked for advice on his talk page and I have also alerted User:Snigbrook who placed the earlier Prod. Specifically, I asked Dr Greg "A second reference (Ian Allan} has been added to Blackburn to Chorley Line. Can you advise whether this mentions Hartwood, please?". Useful collaboration to the theory that this is a hoax is given in the external link at Blackburn to Chorley Line, here. That article states "The four stations on the line at Feniscowles, Withnell, Brinscall and Heapey were built at a total cost of £10,430." The other stations bar these four and Hartwood (Lancashire) railway station are presently open. Consequently, if Hartwood existed there seems no reason why it was not mentioned. Unless verifiable information is presented in the next few days I shall be recommending deletion. TerriersFan (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless a reliable source is provided duirng AFD period. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Peterkingiron. Note that station is not listed in Jowett's Railway Atlas. Mjroots (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pending fresh evidence. TerriersFan (talk) 04:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't comment on the book referred to in the earlier comment by TerriersFan, but I have several other reference books which claim to list every British station and there's no mention of this. No mention, either, in Suggitt's book Lost Railways of Lancashire which covers this line. A1personage has conceded defeat on his/her own talk page. --Dr Greg (talk) 12:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Notability apparently established... Bizzare title, yay... Tone 19:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Night of the Day of the Dawn of the Son of the Bride of the Return of the Revenge of the Terror of the Attack of the Evil, Mutant, Alien, Flesh Eating, Hellbound, Zombified Living Dead Part 2: In Shocking 2-D

No notability established... the supposed review on New York Times site is really just a bare listing, apparently taken from another site, and not a real review at all. Even if it were a review, notability requires multiple nontrivial reviews. Previous AFD was closed with supposed "keep" vote, which seems to be judged as such in error based upon the votes. At best it should have been a "no consensus" based upon the limited voting, but leaned more toward delete. DreamGuy (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete': Fails WP:NF. Schuym1 (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
!Vote changed to keep: I think that the film festival criteria is the worst criteria ever, but the film passes WP:NF. Schuym1 (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ Keep per my comments at the previous AfD; I see no reason to reiterate what I said there when nothing new is being brought to the table here. I'm a little mystified as to why this film is being discussed again and not the sequel, when as I recall the sequel had a far lesser claim to notability. PC78 (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- New York Times Overviews don't show notability. Having a long title does not make it notable. Schuym1 (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Who said anything about the NYT? Did you read my comments in the previous AfD? The film was screened at a film festival more than five years after its initial release, which in itself meets one criteria of WP:NF. PC78 (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Double check that page again; those aren't "items that meet these criteria are notable" criteria, but rather "items that meet these criteria are likely to have sources that prove notability" criteria. The sources that prove notability still must be found. Powers ^T 22:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, it means that they are likely to exist; it doesn't mean that I have to produce them on demand at AfD. As I said in the last discussion, I belive the festival screening(s), together with the fact that this has the longest title of any film and various other bits & bobs, all adds up to a claim of notability. PC78 (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are enough mentions to verify the existence of the film. There's a non-reliable source which supports the claim that this is the longest film title. There's a foreign language review on Rotten Tomatoes. There's generally enough sort of borderline stuff to give this the benefit of the doubt. And the All Movie Guide review which has been reprinted by the New York Times just pushes this over the border, especially as it states (and we have to assume it's true as it is published in a reliable source) that the movie has been mentioned on Late Night With David Letterman. Borderline for sure, but enough not to have the article deleted. Where there is a doubt, we tend to keep. SilkTork *^YES! 20:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a doubt. The review from All Movie Guide is trivial. One reliable source with significant coverage is not enough. Schuym1 (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A non-reliable source can't support any claims. Schuym1 (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Really no point in returning this repeatedly to AfD. The arguments there were irrefutable. Its definitely a keeper. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to meet WP:NF. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What fun! I found cites for the length in the Daily Record and TV Guide and added them. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 19:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Solly

Non-notable youth player who fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully-professional match. Originally PRODded for the same reason, but the PROD was removed by Dirk Valentine (talk · contribs) who used the (false) rationale that "The player is not a youth player, he is a proffesional, with a squad number for a Championship team, making him a player of note" - being a professional and having a squad number does NOT give notability. Giant Snowman 18:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nominator. Camw (talk) 01:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite what it says in the first line, he does not play for Charlton Athletic, although he might play for their reserve or U18 teams. Del until he does play senior competitive football, if ever. Kevin McE (talk) 09:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well the reason you have tagged this for deletion is because they are a "Non-notable youth player". He isn't a youth player and therefore your argument is completely flawed. He is also a registered member of their first team squad. Having been a supporter of the club since birth I feel I have a better grasp of who Charlton's proffesional players are that a Gillingham fan. --Dirk Valentine (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Being a registered member of the squad is not enough. Per the WP:ATHLETE policy, he is not considered notable (in WP terms) until he has actually played a first team match. He hasn't, therefore his article should be deleted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 07:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability criteria per WP:ATHLETE and additional guidelines per WP:FOOTYN. Rationale that player is non notable youth player is sound in that player has played at youth level but done nothing at that level to assert notability status. Cannot rationale as a notable senior player because player has not played at senior level. Being professional is not enough. Working for a living makes you professional in whatever you do, but not necessarily notable. Recreate if and when.--ClubOranje^Talk 08:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and recreate when he plays. Punkmorten (talk) 09:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and recreate if and when he makes his first team debut. Bettia (rawr!) 10:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 19:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Psychostats

Been around for a year with no sources, nothing on Google News, Google Scholar just gives false positives, no assertion of notability. — neuro^(talk) 17:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references, no notability Benjamin Dominic (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — could not find any reliable sources (among the false positives neuro indicated above) that can establish notability. MuZemike 03:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find any sources. It's a pretty cool service, though. I wish all games had something similar. Too bad :( SharkD (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Errol Sawyer

PROMOTION, COI, N, OR, NPOV, V. Article seemingly created as promotion, with two major contributors (including subject's wife/agent, M. Fischer) doing their best to turn non-notability into notability through various breaches of Wiki policy; the content is almost entirely:

original (and likely unverifiable) research
quoted intro's to his work that push a positive POV with citation links that don't verify the text, or quotes from Sawyer himself (who was promoting himself earlier using Christie Brinkley in attempts to verify once and for all my professional legitimacy[16] due to feeling slighted by the lack of Google search results mentioning him) that add little real content to the article
what appears to be activism campaigning sourced with blogs and the comments lists of online articles
examples of his work

Every source but one fails RS, and that one source (the only reliable secondary source anyone can find on Sawyer) only briefly mentions him in regards to discovering Brinkley. Neither Sawyer nor Fischer seem to take my policy explanations seriously and rewriting the article to conform to Wiki policies probably wouldn't leave more than a footnote to Brinkley's career. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 17:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep If his work has indeed been purchased by the museums specified, he's notable by our standards, and all the rest of it is a matter for editing. We do need 3rd party evidence of that, and now we have it added . This is the basic criterion for notvility as a creative professional artist. DGG (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC) (supplemented, DGG (talk) 02:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Note Countless artists have had work in museums, which is why WP:CREATIVE puts an emphasis on the work having been a "substantial part of a significant exhibition" or "represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." The content of Sawyer's article doesn't satisfy this: no citations prove the claims or support the significance of any of these exhibitions or that the purchases are on permanent display in the few (not several) venues that seem obviously notable. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 17:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sources do not verify the museum claims, nor establish notability or meeting of wp:creative --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/question, rather a ghastly article, but I do like the look of the five books whose covers are illustrated. However, WorldCat hasn't heard of any of them. Has anyone found any disinterested mention of any of them, anywhere? -- Hoary (talk) 14:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note I just did a brief Google search and couldn't find any mention of the books outside Sawyer's official website or any companies selling them. Not to mention, they look more like normal prints than book covers after browsing photobooks on Amazon. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 16:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Above, you say Every source but one fails RS, and that one source [...] only briefly mentions him in regards to discovering [Christie] Brinkley. [... R]ewriting the article to conform to Wiki policies probably wouldn't leave more than a footnote to Brinkley's career. Which made me wonder who on earth this Brinkley might be. Her article informs me that she's an American model perhaps best known for her three appearances on the cover of the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition in the late 1970s and early '80s, her long-running contract with Covergirl and [being the [?]] ex-wife of musician Billy Joel. Which makes her sound to me like an utter non-person. This is all rather sad, as the illustrations of what might or might not be Sawyer's books make them look far more interesting (to me) than the alleged discovery of somebody who'd later be photographed in swimsuits and marry a pop singer. My guess is that these are self-published booklets. If that's indeed what they are, they may still be notable: Takanobu Hayashi's sole "standalone" publication is a very slim self-published book, but it's a book that is shelved in specialist libraries and is discussed (and Hayashi's work is verifiably in the permanent collection of at least one museum). I hope to see more evidence for Sawyer. -- Hoary (talk) 00:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. You show a bit of bias there, Hoary! Brinkley is one of the most famous names in the history of American fashion modeling, although I can sympathize with you for not finding someone famous for wearing bikinis to be worth arguing about (and I would obviously disagree). But this isn't about her, of course. Yes, Hayashi has legitimate claims to notability based on that his work has been discussed in anthologies on Japanese photography and he won a notable photography award. If the same can be found for Sawyer, I would have no problem with the article staying (after a great deal of editing-down, of course) - but nothing similar has surfaced despite so much searching by the exact people who would know to look for these things if they existed. As for Sawyer's books, the discussion on DGG's talk page reveals that the books have yet to find a publisher. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 02:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. It looks more and more hopeless. -- Hoary (talk) 04:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Far from hopeless, quite the opposite. What the discussion on my talk page reveals, is an honest though belated attempt to trim down the article to what is supportable, The existence of his work in permanent collections of major museums, which has now been demonstrated, including by the Dutch profession photography magazine PF is sufficient to meet the requirement of WP:BIO the person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries I really see no policy-based objection to having an article. i regret all the fuss about Binckley, which I think shows nothing much, but thats a question of editing. DGG (talk) 02:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Each reference to PF was to pages [?] 51 of a single article, and came with a link to the website's search facility. Dutch is sufficiently close to English for me to know where to type in "Hoeneveld and "Sawyer"; I did so and got no hits. (I've just now amalgamated these references, commenting out the external link.) I clicked on the link to the Houston gallery but its website failed me; I took the link to the BnF but it told me that my session was invalid. None of this goes to prove that there's anything fundamentally wrong (the website of PF may omit stuff that was genuinely in the magazine, I may have just had bad luck with the galleries), but I've yet to see evidence of articles on Sawyer, exhibitions, placement in permanent collections, etc. Have you? (Meanwhile, a lot is sourced to a page in "Intute"; this does exist but it does not seem a disinterested source.) Would you care to rewrite the article? I'm still hoping to be persuaded to "!vote" "keep". -- Hoary (talk) 03:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC) ............ PS the Houston gallery does list photos by Sawyer. Hoary (talk) 06:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had a look at PF, too (I'm Dutch myself, no language problem). If I search for "Sawyer" I find the "p. 51" article, however, it is not linked and not available online. So it exists, but their is no way apart from consulting a hard copy to know whether "p. 51" is the whole article or only the starting page of a longer treatise, nor can I see what's in the article. --Crusio (talk) 08:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If getting shown in a museum was sufficient for notability, we'd have a hell of a lot more artists' biographies. As far as I can tell, the only reason this particular photographer has a page whereas others of equal stature do not is because this one happened to register an account. Seems like precisely the kind of situation that promotion, autobiography, and COI were designed to avoid! LSD (talk) 00:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 22:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warrior Cats- The Mystery of the Power of Three

I can't find any sources for this. Fails WP:V. This was either mentioned in the book or it is speculation. If it is verified that this is from the book, I will merge this and withdraw. Schuym1 (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as speculation. If verified, then this title may be recreated as a redirect. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 07:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems like something that should be dealtg with - or not - in the book articles. Artw (talk) 08:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Sagan

Contested PROD; the article doesn't have any independent sources, nor does it have any claim to notability beyond the subject having written "over fifteen books" (also unsourced), which isn't in itself sufficient to establish notability. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 17:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I try to be nice to newbies, but this thing is, to be blunt, less than a stub. While the phrases ""samuel sagan" and "samuel sagan books" generate thousands of Ghits, I don't see a lot of notability or decent sources out there. He generates Zero Google News hits. This technically ought to be speedy deleted due to lack of any assertion of notability. Bearian (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You might be right. He has authored quite a few books, but from what I can tell all seem to be published by the Clairvision school (which he started). Establishing notability will be a problem here, so it may be wise to just delete it. NoVomit (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 07:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Non-admin closure. Ottre 08:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Wertha Pendleton Cole

Non notable astronomer, I find few if any reliable sources/refs, fails WP:BIO and Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 17:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- In the light of the NYT obituary which had not surfaced when I put this up for AfD, I would agree the article should remain. I withdraw the nomination. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 08:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. She is surrounded by relatives of more clear notability (her husband and son, and possibly also her father) but notability is not inherited. And she seems to have made little or no impact on astronomy, so I don't see the evidence for passing WP:PROF. Also see WP:DIRECTORY: someone seems to view Wikipedia as a place to publish family history, and it isn't. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Later: changing from delete to neutral after finding an obituary for her in the New York Times. Unfortunately it's not available for free online so I can't see whether it says anything of interest about her, but just its existence is enough to make me less certain about deleting this. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We may not be able to read that NYT obituary for free online, but we can see that it's 140 words long. [17] Phil Bridger (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would say it barely scapes by as notable from the New York Times obit. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Long or short, a NYT obit is a definitive proof of notability, accepted as such in every afd in the last year at least. DGG (talk) 20:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 12:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kospint

Notability of this article is not established. Beagel (talk) 16:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verifiable as a secondary school with some reliable sources here. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources are available to meet WP:ORG. No reason to delete. School has achieved outstanding results.[18]. TerriersFan (talk) 04:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Spinach Monster (talk) 04:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This article needs a cleanup, deletion really isn't the case here. Tone 19:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Brittas Empire characters

Fails WP:FICT. A long article about characters in a sitcom discussed entitely within an in-universe perspective, without any real-world context or independent references. The only references are very vague ones to the primary sources. ~~A radically shortened version of this can be merged into the The Brittas Empire, and this deleted.~~ The JPS ^{talk to me} 16:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Combination articles like this are the way to go for this sort of subject. It should not be radically shortened, in fact it should probably be lengthened, for every named character with a speaking role should probably be included. As for the sections on the individual characters, perhaps some of them should be expanded into individual articles. It was a major prize-winning show in its time. It's hard finding online sources for 3rd party discussion of 90s television, but print sources need to be examined and the material added. This is an instance where the motivation of a deletion nomination is explicitly stated to be a merge, not a deletion, and the motive for the merge to be , in fact, not for the proper arrangement of material, but for the elimination of content. DGG (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a corresponding article of this type that immediately sprang to mind was List of House characters, but I am sure there are many other examples. This series was long-running and merits such a break-out section. I am less convinced that the various images in the current article necessarily satisfy fair-use, but that's a completely separate issue. (Actually, checking the article's history, this is already a merge of several separate "character" articles, complete with their original "character" Infoboxes - to be clear, I don't think it should be "merged" any further)--DaveG12345 (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Corresponding articles are only necessary when the parent's article is of a substantial length. House (TV series) is a developed article that justifies spin-offs, though the List of House characters does not share the credentials of its parent. This parent's article is a complete mess. The JPS^{talk to me} 22:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I agree re the current status of those three articles. Looks to me like improvement is needed in the parent article more urgently than in this child. But I'm just not convinced a simple merge of child-with-parent will provide a satisfactory solution in that respect. --DaveG12345 (talk) 23:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite to an out of universe perspective and maybe find some more citations. This isn't a very good article as-is, but it seems notable enough.--Lost tiree, lost dutch :O (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is a proposal to merge not delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a proposal to delete this article, not a merge/redirect. Any content that could be "merged" should be substantially rewritten to the extent that it's probably can't be considered a merge. I'm striking my merge sentence in the nom as it's getting in the way of people seeing what the problem is. Ultimately, though, this content fails WP:FICT; where are the episode article deletionists? -- copyvio? in-universe perspective? real-world info? I would agree with 'Lost tiree' if I beleived that a suitable rewrite is forthcoming. My position is: delete, with no prejudice for recreation if rewritten properly. The JPS ^{talk to me} 13:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though needs cleanup, sourcing, and there still may be consideration to move to the parent article if the parent article can't be expanded - presuming that this list, however, is complete. The list does have several cleanup issues (too many images per WP:NFC, lots of {{cn}}'s , etc.) but such lists of characters are generally acceptable. (and FWIW, the "current" version of FICT is still a proposed guideline, nor would cover lists of characters, so best to use current community standards which is to retain lists of characters) --MASEM 13:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it does need re-writing, but doesn't need deleting. I wrote the content a while back now as 'Edito*Magica', and what i thought was written in an 'in-universe' way at the time probably wasn't entirely, but if you read through the whole of the page, you'll find evidence of some of the content being written 'in-universe'. It expands on the information given on the main page, and supplies signifcant character detail, therefore should be kept. I think it is too long to be merged into the main page. All images are screenshots I took myself, to settle any concerns about copyright. Whirl*editing (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is indeed to long. That is why it should be deleted, rather than merged into the main page. BTW, the copyright issue about images still exists, regardless if you captured them or took them from a website. The JPS ^{talk to me} 17:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Boyce

Individual is non notable. Article has been submitted twice prior with PROD. Original editor removed PROD tag without change to article. Reference insubstantial with cited text. Possible commercial or vanity page Jettparmer (talk) 16:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This statement made by jettparmer is not accurate: "Original editor removed PROD tag without change to article." A footnote supporting the claim that Boyce was an early pioneer of Internet commercialization was added to this article prior to the PROD tag being removed.Nolatime (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)nolatime[reply]
Keep The article could definitely do with a bit more work, but there's no doubt about the notability of the man who ~~invented~~ pioneered the commercial application of the banner ad. I don't know what he means by "reference insubstantial" - the cited book spends 41 pages on this individual. This proposal should be seen in the context of Jettparmer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) recent obsessional onslaught on the Ken McCarthy article. DaveApter (talk) 17:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject of the article made a significant and very early contribution to the development of the banner ad model and now there's a verifiable albeit short statement to that effect on wikipedia. In the future, people interested and knowledgeable about this subject may add additional detail. The claim that the reference cited is "insubstantial" is strange. Boyce's contribution is described in significant detail in a book published by a major publisher.Nolatime (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)nolatime[reply]

Comment - Did you read the reference book? The three pages mentioning his name can be viewed online The reference makes quite clear that Boyce did not invent the banner ad, nor did he "significantly" add to its development. He is a salesman. Jettparmer (talk) 13:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully request that Jettparmer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) please read the following before submitting this or any article for deletion. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion "Before nominating an article for deletion" Nolatime (talk) 19:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Nolatime[reply]

Read them , thanks. that's why I put this to AfD vice the removed PROD from two other nominations. Jettparmer (talk) 14:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Conditional Keep ~~meets WP:N, just needs some work.~~ Providing a reliable source is found for him creating the banner ad, otherwise, delete --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: No claim is made in this article that Boyce "invented" the banner ad. Tim Berners-Lee would get credit for the core WWW protocols and Marc Andreessen for introducing the IMG tag. What is at issue here is the introduction of the concept of the banner ad to advertisers and specifically persuading them to accept the idea of paying real money for banner ad impressions. It is very easy to discount the importance of this now but prior to the acceptance of the banner ad, there was no obvious way for web sites to generate revenue through advertising.Nolatime (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Nolatime[reply]

Hotwired introduced the banner ad to the advertising industry and it was Boyce's job at Hotwired to handle that process. The book referenced establishes: the history of the banner ad, Hotwired's role it in, and the name of the individual who did the actual selling, a founding executive of the company, director of business development Rick Boyce. The banner ad was the first successful Internet advertising model. The IAB estimates Internet ad sales were $21 billion in 2007. http://www.iab.net/insights_research/iab_news_article/299656 In another book - available on the web - Rick Boyce is described thus: "Rick Boyce is widely acknowledged as the father of the banner ad." http://books.google.com/books?id=extn_UeicFoC&pg=PA344&lpg=PA344&dq=rick+boyce+IAB+1994&source=bl&ots=Mb6L7GUFHO&sig=FipQsA50Qd2mRk8JUU2TX9LsAa0&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result Nolatime (talk) 19:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Nolatime[reply]

Delete Individual did NOT invent the banner ad. Article originator has deleted two prior PROD for this individual with no modification, improvement or verification of notability Jettparmer (talk) 13:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no claim made anywhere in this article that the subject "invented the banner ad." The statement is "Boyce was responsible for organizing the first, widespread effort to sell banner ads" and this statement is supported by references in a book published by a major publisher. I respectfully request that Jettparmer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) please cease posting obviously inaccurate statements to support his arguments. Nolatime (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)Nolatime[reply]

The quote you used indicates more importance than the reference indicates.

very early contribution to the development of the banner ad model.

The published work mentions his name four times. I would not classify that as significant. Information I have pointed out is factual and verifiable.Jettparmer (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

good improvement with two new source additions!!! Jettparmer (talk) 20:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 02:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clì Gàidhlig

Non-notable organisation, fails WP:COMPANY. Note - Redirection pages needing deleted:

It returns about 15,000 hits on a google search which, unless the criteria has changed and/or my memory fails me, is some 10 times more than the bare minimum required to render an article "notable". siarach (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It only returns 1,870 for me. Besides WP:GOOGLEHITS is not an assertion of notability. Pyrrhus16 09:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is because you are searching using a term which is pretty much never used - as you would be aware if you were familiar with the topic or the related language from which the name of the organisation (and thus its acronym) originates. Search for "Clì", which is what the organisation is generally known as/how it is referred to, and you get back 14,800 hits. As is stated on the Googlehits page you link to, google hits are not necessarily always an indicator of notability in and of themselves - however you should have a fairly decent reason why the subject matter is not suitable for wikipedia inclusion despite showing up comfortably on the google hits front. Indeed i notice that you have yet to provide any reason why this article should be deleted - neither when sticking up the deletion template or on this AfD discussion page. At the moment the problem with the article is that it is mistitled "Cli Gaidhlig" rather than simply "Cli" and this mistitling (and the consequent impression that the organisation is far less prominent than it actually is) is what has led to your Afd. siarach (talk) 10:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with An Siarach. Useful to know what this organisation is, since it is quite important in the Gaelic community. --Doric Loon (talk) 13:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I had to look elsewhere to gauge notability, though, as it's not clear from the article that the organization is notable. It needs much improvement otherwise I could see other editors, in good faith, nominating this for deletion in future (assuming it survives this). Rameses The Ram (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clì is often mentioned with regards to lobbying etc in the news (eg [19] - in Gaelic) and are represented at the Scottish Parliament cross party group on Gaelic ([20]). I appreciate, though, that the article is still a stub and further information is required.Prof Wrong (talk) 12:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 07:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 07:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 07:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per obvious consensus. (WP:NAC) flaming lawyer 05:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Pearl

Unnotable fictional ship from the Pirates of the Caribbean series. No significant coverage in reliable third party sources and the bulk of the article is WP:OR, personal opinions, and chunks of plot summary acting as if the ship is real. Only three refs are from a press release and a forum posting. Fails WP:N, WP:PLOT, and WP:WAF. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge and redirect~~. This is a mess. Merge anything relevant and well referenced back to the Pirates of the Caribbean (film series) and then redirect the title. It is something people might search for probably but not something in need of its own article. I don't see it as being like Tardis, where a fictional vessel has a large, complex and notable story in its own right. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am changing my position to neutral on whether it deserves its own, separate, article. If we are going to keep the article it needs significant work on it. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - extremely notable. Needs sourcing and a cleanup but there is certainly no reason to delete this. Pyrrhus16 15:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please actually show that notability by pointing to third-party sources providing significant coverage of this specific fictional ship (not just the film). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since there will likely be an article rescue attempt that will deceptively play up the significance of the topic (such as using a sentence in someone's review of the film to make it sound relevant). Recommend withdrawing the AFD nomination and instead seek to merge/redirect outside this particular realm. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would favour letting the AfD run its course. A definitive result to merge would prevent an edit war between those who want to keep the article and those trying to merge it. If people want to argue for rescuing the article then that is their right. So far we have only had one comment to this effect and it has not been backed by any argument (deceptive or otherwise). Lets see how it goes. We can keep an eye out for canvassing and deception but I don't see anything of that type going on at the moment. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The ship is a highly significant 'character' in the series, and the series has been remarkably culturally influential in recent years. I think there's substantially more argument to be made for keeping this article (suitably referenced and freed from in-universe writing, of course) than (say) Cutler Beckett - a villain whose most remarkable characteristic to my mind was that his claim of nobility in the second movie made it sound like he had mysteriously become the second son of a marquess. The Pearl is a key feature of all three films. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article provides substantial real world coverage. Jfire (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- There's real world coverage out there, as Jfire has shown. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jfire. Important part of a highly notable film series, and definitely worth documenting. JulesH (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources exist. Nice find. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cutler Beckett

Unnotable fictional character from the Pirates of the Caribbean series. No significant coverage in reliable third party sources and the bulk of the article is pure, unadulterated WP:OR and personal opinions, along with chunks of plot summary from the two films in the series he appearance in. Referenced statements are from films except two, which are support OR rather than actually having anything to do with the character. Fails WP:PLOT, WP:N, and WP:WAF. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AnmaFinotera, I know you're only trying to help but do you have to delete every single fictional character article? Beckett is one of the main characters in Pirates of the Caribbean AND he's the main antagonist thereby making him key to the plot. If you delete this article then you might as well delete the ones on Jack Sparrow and Davy Jones as well. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make falsely dramatic statements. I do not "delete" anything, I suggest articles should be deleted, nor do I suggest every fictional character article be deleted, only those for unnotable characters. Jack Sparrow and Davy Jones both significant coverage in reliable third party sources, as shown by their articles, and Sparrow's being FA. Beckett does not, irregardless of his role in the film (and being an antagonist alone nor "key to the plot" does not make him notable for his own article. Both film articles have plot summaries addressing his role. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since there will likely be an article rescue attempt that will deceptively play up the significance of the topic (such as using a sentence in someone's review of the film to make it sound relevant). Recommend withdrawing the AFD nomination and instead seek to merge/redirect outside this particular realm. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is a main character of the latter two films and therefore has notability, the article is referenced and is detailed, and as Erik has said above, it will just be recreated if it is deleted. Gaia Octavia Agrippa^Talk | _Sign 16:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being a main character does not assert notability; receiving significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject does. Since the films are obviously notable, the main character will obviously be referenced in the context of these films. The question is, is there significant enough coverage of the character to warrant his own article? Is there anything that can be said about the character that cannot be said at the film articles, which have "Cast" sections to host such detail? I don't expect this article to be deleted because the significance will be misrepresented (just follow the article and its AFD) since there will be a hodge-podge of every passing mention of Cutler Beckett to give the illusion of major coverage outside the films themselves. There is a film series article that can be pretty encompassing of all things related to the trilogy; I recommend following up with a merge to this article after the closure of this AFD. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Despite being notionally a major villain, he seems to have made little impression on audiences, and I'm unaware of any particular reviewer or fan interest in this figure. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as main character of notable works. I consider that the developing consensus here is definitely that such characters are intrinsically at least somewhat notable, and we should write what we best can based on whatever RSs there are, including the work itself. whether the articles should be combined into combination articles is a unresolved matter of style. DGG (talk) 19:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and others. Major character of multiple films, and consensus in such cases appears to be to keep such articles. JulesH (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. No real world context. The JPS ^{talk to me} 13:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of characters in Pirates of the Caribbean: the only thing I ever recall the writers discussing about Beckett is that the East India Trading Company represents the opposite of the freedom of a pirates' life, but he's really tangential. Reception wise, he's been compared to Palpatine ("small angry man syndrome" - Empire magazine), and was called by one AICN review the blandest villain ever - albeit with the coolest exit. Not enough for a whole article though I reckon. Alientraveller (talk) 13:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)Keep some useful real world context has been mentioned, add the things I've mentioned and you could get to B-class. Alientraveller (talk) 13:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PERNOM not be a compelling reason to delete, especially when real world context has been added. Sometimes when we do searches for fictional characters we maybe only get results on Google Books, or only get mentions in reviews on Google News, but in this case we get significant out of universe coverage in reliable secondary sources on Google News, Google Books, Google Scholar, and even Amazon.com. Thus, we have a character with appearances in a major franchise including films, novels, and toys and who is discussed out of universe in multiple published books and newspapers. Meets the current draft of WP:FICT in any event and given the precedent of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Pearl, deletion is clearly not the route to take. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvement. You could get a GA out of this if you really wanted to. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PERNOM -- the character is significant in his contribution to the story of the fims he appears in. Like Long John Silver in Treasure Island, his rols is in now way a minor one. The information about him is derived from the films and EU books. These are the only possible sources, just as the novel of Treasure Island is the only information source about Long John Silver. Deleting the article and relegating it to a list of characters article just can not be justifiesd. There is too much information to place as part of a larger article. He's too significant a character to warrant only listing his name as the only information to place here. And he is most definetly not Unnotable! --Jason Palpatine (talk) 16:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag for expansion and sourcing. If it can be made worthy of wiki, it should be so. Deletion is a last resort that should not be considered until all other available options have been considered. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as made-up lies. DS (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Cardin

A complete WP:HOAX. No IMDb listing for this individual; and he certainly was never nominated for an Oscar or Golden Globe for the Best Actor; most of the films don't exist; of the films that do exist there is no mention of actor nor role. If hoaxes could be speedied, this would be the one. — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. — — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiley Sylvester Grayer

The article appears to be completely unverifiable and possibly about a non-notable person. I was unable to find any secondary sources about him (Google, Google News) to prove that he was real or notable. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:V. No evidence that this person has ever been treated in any reliable independent sources. Deor (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - without sources, the nom has it right. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 16:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thread pasted from User talk:WayneRay

You need some published sources. i put on a tag that should give your 5 days to find them. if there really isn' t anything but the unpublished family genealogical record, it will have to be deleted. 'DGG' (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: DGG has not posted here, this is from before this AfD started. — neuro^(talk) 18:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough but the Post Office friend is away in Boston and I just sent an e-mail to get more information so perhaps as other legitimate small articles you could just put on a Stub until I can get more information. I understand the notability thing as I have been writing and editing here for three years and run into it many times. However the person who put on the original speedy delete did it within 30 seconds of the article being written. Perhaps if this was a high school student or first time User writing an article for the first time, they would be deeply hurt or bothered by the sudden negativism instead of an Admin having some bedside manner and just talking to the author first to get a better idea of what's going on instead of this in your face delete or put out attitude. Thanks for the 5 day delay but it could be longer. WayneRay (talk) 12:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]

This person was one of the first letter carriers with Canada Post in the early 1900's, in southwestern Ontario. This is the notability of this person whose family came up through the Underground Railroad after the Civil War in the USA and settled in the area. It will be added onto. WayneRay (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)WayneRay''[reply]

I have already been given a week (see above from my talk page) to get the verifiable information from someone who has it, they are away right now and I nor they, made this up? Just relax your delete button and attitude , being the first postal carrier in an area is notable for people interested in Post office history as I am so when I get the archives or museum information I will put it in then. WayneRay (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]

Comment. Canada instituted free rural mail delivery in 1908, so there must have been hundreds, if not thousands, of people who became the first letter carriers serving particular routes around that time. Even if it can be established that Grayer was one of them, I doubt that the fact constitutes sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article. Deor (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an interesting life for sure but that is not enough for Wikipedia which requires that Wiley meets the criteria laid down at WP:BIO, particularly with regard to secondary reliable sources. Wayne, perhaps you could find a specialist website where this info might be more appropriate? Nancy ^talk 18:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment Wayne, what sort of materials do you expect to get? DGG (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 00:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete never mind I will stick to the NFLD articles I was working on I just thought I would add something new that seemed important to Black Canadian history, I don't care anymore, just delete it. WayneRay (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lloros del Alma

I had prodded this as a not notable book of poetry by a not notable author. It was deprodded with the edit summary, "adding information." There is no intimation of notability in the article. It's in Spanish. What I could piece out did not seem to indicate significance. I washed it through a translator program and posted on Talk:Lloros del Alma. Just a book review with a hint of promotional tone. No hint of notability. I don't think the 9 Google hits represent significant coverage in reliable sources. I see announcements, Facebook, totally unrelated pages, other poems with the phrase "Lloros del Alma" (tears of the soul.) I'd have speedily deleted, but there is no criterion that fits. Dloh cierekim 14:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Dloh cierekim 14:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: Self-promotional article based on an opera prima of an unknown 21 years old poet (claimed). The page is also written entirely in Spanish.--Darius (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While being in Spanish is not a suitable reason for deletion, this is a self-promo piece for a non-notable book. -Yupik (talk) 00:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OH my. I did not mean to imply Spanish as a reason to delete. Just wanted to warn others a head of time and lead them to the translation on the talk page. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 01:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Z-Sean Ali

Speedy deletion declined. Subject receives precisely 6 google hits, none of which verify notability, and none of which are the BBC as claimed in the article. Please delete. role^player 14:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - claims of notability not supported. Unsourced BLP. No ghits on supposed reporter either. Without verification of awards, fails WP:MUSICBIO. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 16:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: article reads like a PR promo, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 00:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. the wub "?!" 13:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That Handsome Devil

Band article whose main claim of notability is featured songs in Rock Band 2 and Guitar Hero II. Their only reputable reference is a review in Amplifier Magazine, the other two are links to amazon.com and their only website is their Myspace. I don't think that having songs featured in Rock Band and Guitar Hero sufficiently fulfills WP:MUSIC. However, given further reliable sources that would establish notability, I would be compelled to withdraw this nomination. Otherwise, the article should be deleted. TheLetterM (talk) 12:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and consider salting: This is too many AfDs on the same subject and the article has been deleted 5 times in less than 2 years. Each AfD has resulted in a delete or a redirect. Unless there is a very good reason why it should be different this time, I think the time has come to put a stop to it. I find it interesting that a band can be featured in two very popular video games aimed at rock fans, which must give them a huge amount of potential for publicity and promotion to their target audience, and still make almost no mark at all. Maybe they are just not very good. OK. That's unfair. I haven't heard them. They might be great, but they are still not notable. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: Still fails WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 14:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of coverage to justify an article, and I have expanded the article using these sources. See WP:BEFORE - there is no indication that anyone else here has searched for sources with which to improve the article. --Michig (talk) 14:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's because it's not my responsibility to do so. Schuym1 (talk) 14:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
!Vote changed to keep: Passes WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 14:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 16:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Multiple reliable sources with signfiicant coverage was added after the nomination. Schuym1 (talk) 16:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the references are enough to assert notability as well as fulfill some of the WP:MUSIC criteria. If no one else has an issue with the article that was raised by my nomination, consider it withdrawn. TheLetterM (talk) 19:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Evidently notable and withdrawn by nominator. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 19:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael A. Moodian

Non-notable editor of a non-notable book. Fails WP:BIO.

Note - Redirection pages also needing deleted:

Pyrrhus16 13:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. --Crusio (talk) 16:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not yet notable, though I note the books has been published and is listed in about 30 WorldCat libraries--but that is hardly enough. It might have been much better to wait before introducing this article. BTW, I do not think it is necessary to list redirect pages at the AfD, they will be attended to when the article is deleted. DGG (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a prof doing his job, but not notable. J L G 4 1 0 4 22:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Aside from issues mentioned in the previous comments, the subject has no refereed publications, according to a check of Web of Science using (Author = Moodian M*). Since the notability claim obviously rests on WP:PROF, the subject does not meet even this minimal requirement. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Web of Science is fine and all that, but it is possible to have a refereed publication somewhere in the universe without coming up there. WoS isn't the only database. Just a side note. J L G 4 1 0 4 02:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. WoS is not very strong in the humanities. Also, it is highly unlikely that someone would become professor (even at the lowest "assistant" level) without any refereed publications. --Crusio (talk) 08:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please allow me to respond to the previous two remarks. This sort of debate regarding Web of Science has come up before. WoS' name erroneously implies narrowness, but it covers all academic subject areas. (Thomson-Reuters indicates >8,700 journals covered, including strong representation in the Humanities.) Indeed, if I search for one of my favorite poets, Mary Jo Bang, I find her contributions (45 hits) in journals such as Poetry, The Paris Review, Western Humanities Review, etc. The confusion, I believe, really centers on the meaning of the word "refereed". I propose that what should be kept in mind when measuring against WP:PROF are the long-established conventions of academia. Specifically, not all "refereed" publications are considered equal, as anyone who has ever sat on a tenure/promotion committee will attest. Conference papers, posters, and even book chapters typically do not weigh equally with archival journal contributions (some sectors excepted, e.g. computer science) because the acceptance standards of the latter are appreciably more stringent. Academic committees largely presume that any truly notable work will have found its way into the archival journal literature. Google Scholar, a free database, is often used here as a substitute, but it has its own problems with incomplete coverage (as well as secrecy about what is covered). If we should want to judge WP:PROF notability according to the traditional academic definition of "refereed", then WoS hits would seem to set a very reasonable minimum standard for most cases. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 18:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. As noted above, does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF. Does not seem to pass WP:BIO either.--Eric Yurken (talk) 03:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 06:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dalola raid

Chad refugee camp raid by armed horsemen where "4 were killed and 6 wounded" and 1000 cattle were stolen. PROD removed because "significant enough, good news coverage, part of the historical record." The Amdjereme raid, which I'm also nominating just involved stolen (and recovered) animals. But WP:NOTNEWS, and these raids aren't going to get any more notable over time--otherwise, we'd have 200 new Wikipedia articles a day about fatal housefires and traffic accidents. Not even clear these events merit full paragraphs in the Darfur conflict article. The incident would appear even less notable if the article didn't violate NPOV by misrepresenting what news sources say about the incident; the Reuters report suggests it could just be banditry unrelated to the civil war (I have no opinion whether it is or isn't). THF (talk) 12:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Reuters report is fully sufficient for notability. I read it to express very strong liklihood tht the event was as the Wikipedia article describes. DGG (talk) 01:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge into a as of yet uncreated article. The Reuters stories are third party sources, their role in breaking of the Tripoli Accord and renewal of the Chadian-Sudanese conflict (as asserted in the article above) is a convincing assertion of notability. If this had re-ignited a low scale border war between France and Spain, there would be more detailed coverage on the internet, and no question of notability. T L Miles (talk) 03:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOT#NEWS unless there's some evidence that this had broader implications. Articles on similar skirmishes involving western countries have been deleted in the past, so there's no need to cite bias as being a problem. Nick-D (talk) 22:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: as I'm sure you are aware, WP:NOT#NEWS says nothing about "events having broader implications". What it does say, in total is:

News reports. Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.) While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews.

By the standard that this is not "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism" this clearly is Keep. The article need not prove, beyond your reasonable doubt that it will "get any more notable over time". The discussion of numbers of cattle suggests to me that you consider that aspect unimportant. That has no bearing upon WP:NOT#NEWS. As to notability, the articles both contend these events were escalations in a war. If you do not feel a) this is true, or b) if true, these do not merit an article, I would suggest we first fix the problem by doing some research and then integrating whatever is valuable in them into the existing article of the Chadian Civil War and/or the Darfur conflict. Then you can begin deleting things. Doing so would improve the topics in question. T L Miles (talk) 04:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I read the Reuters report and I don't see any misrepresentation in the article. The event is more than routine news coverage because it happened "two days before a highly controversial, scheduled presidential election". Wikipedia has a habit of omitting topics that doesn't occur in English-speaking nations, WP:WORLDVIEW. Maybe for us this is not a significant historical event but it doesn't mean that is not worthy of inclusion for Wikipedia. --J.Mundo (talk) 05:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Spinach Monster (talk) 05:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandwellers

Neologism referenced exclusively from non-RS sources. Not clear that there is an encyclopaedic subject here. If there is, then this is not the article it deserves. PROD and maintenance templates have been removed by the author. Google Scholar shows that the phrase is used occasionally but that "van dwellers" or "van-dwellers" is more common than "vandwellers". Possibly a redirect to RV lifestyle or to some other existing article on the subject is called for. DanielRigal (talk) 12:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I find the lack of non-RS sources to be the tipping point for me. ttonyb1 (talk) 12:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Schuym1 (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — neuro^(talk) 16:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colts–Patriots rivalry

Is this really a notable enough rivalry? The article doesn't appear to have any refs the prove this and I left some "citation needed" tags in the lead over a year ago, to see if anyone could find one and nothing has been done. BUC (talk) 12:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The absence of refs in the article doesn't exactly mean that they're not out there: Pats-Colts #4 all-time rivalry, Patriots-Colts rivalry resumes in AFC Championship game, [NFL Rivalries: Pats-Colts and four others (link blacklisted)]. Pats1 ^T/C 13:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please add them in then. BUC (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - this is a well-known, highly notable rivalry. The article itself gives plenty of easily-sourcable facts. Instead of being sent to AfD, this should have been sourced. AfD is not for notable articles that are in less-than-perfect condition. Here some of the bazillion sources: [21], [22], [23], [24]. SMSpivey (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Comment also, this is this article's second AfD nomination. The first was in May 2008. You should be able to link to it here:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colts-Patriots rivalry. It resulted in a keep.
Keep Belongs with the others in this category; Colts-Pats is probably the most important NFL rivalry of this decade. Colts-Chargers and Pats-Chargers are also important....--Mr Accountable (talk) 00:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see refs that directly address this rivalry, see #2, and Pats1, wanna add the ones you found?--2008Olympian^chitchat 02:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did... Pats1 ^T/C 03:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think we should keep it, but it definitely needs to be cleaned up. conman33 (. . .talk) 07:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because a page needs some work doesn't mean we should delete it. Instead of asking for deletion why don't you put some work into it? HoosierState^Talk 05:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a notable rivalry. The fact that the article needs improvement is not grounds for deletion. Rlendog (talk) 22:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boot Camp (film)

No Sources. Also poorly written (I know that is not a reason, but it was worth to note. The Rolling Camel (talk) 11:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This can be fixed. 698 G-hits for "Boot Camp" "Mila Kunis", and an IMDb entry with actual reviews and discussion. At minimum, it has also come out on DVD so notability is just met. Nate • (chatter) 11:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable cast and crew, DVD review in the JoongAng Daily [25]. It might not be the most notable film ever, but I'm not seeing a valid reason to delete. PC78 (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. with respects to the nom, this a WP:RESCUE I will be proud to WP:CLEANUP. My most cursory of searches found me lots with which to work. I can get to it in just a few hours, as I am currently at work. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much nicer now. I cleaned it up, sourced it, and even found two international reviews. Notability is a lock. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close per the improvements. The Rolling Camel (talk) 11:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The article has been improved and asserts the notability of the film. decltype 17:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NF. Bongo matic 20:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To expand, the criteria at WP:NF (along with my commentary why none is satisfied) are:

The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.
No suggestion of this. One review in a newspaper was cited. The rest fall under the excluded category of "trivial coverage, such as newspaper listings of screening times and venues, 'capsule reviews,' plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides."
The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:
- Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.
Not applicable--less than five years as of this writing.
- The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.
Not applicable--less than five years as of this writing.
- The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.
Not applicable--less than five years as of this writing.
- The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.
No suggestion of this.
The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.
No suggestion of this.
The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.
No suggestion of this.
The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.
No suggestion of this.

Hope that clarifies. Bongo matic 00:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Q. Schmidt has taken me to task for referring to these criteria, as they should be irrelevant if the general notability guideline had already been demonstrably met. The only coverage that could be claimed as non-trivial and in reliable sources for the purposes of notability is a review in the JoongAng Ilbo (the so-called UK review is a user's review on a shopping site!). This does not, to me, indicate notability. Rather, it is telling that there were no reviews in national newspapers in the home market for the film--despite the director having worked on numerous award-winning or nominated productions. Wikipedia is not IMDb (IMDb does a nice job as IMDb in fact). Bongo matic 03:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not "taken you to task", as your efforts to improve wiki continue to be excellent. I was simply pointing out that the criteria you quote above are those listed as indicators of when suitable sources toward notability might be presumed to exist and are not themselves used in guidelines specifically as a presumption as to whether or not notability exists. The two issues are related certainly, but seperate issues in guideline none-the-less and for good reason. That I found an in-depth review clear around the world kinda speaks volumes, and lets me presume that more such exist. Per guidelines, that should satisfy. And yes, wikipedia is not IMDB. We have an entirely different standard... not truth, but verifiability. Thank you. And now that I have been suitably prodded (ouch), I will seek out another review or two. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please expand your reasoning especially since this would be a Snowball keep, if not for your delete vote. See Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Just_pointing_at_a_policy_or_guideline Ikip (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep WP:PRESERVE Whatever you do, endeavor to preserve information. Instead of removing, try to... no active effort was made to improve this article before deletion.
Wikipedia:Notability states: "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself." no active effort was made to find sources before nomination.
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" "poorly written" (See Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Poorly_written_article) and "no sources" is not a justifiable reason to delete. Ikip (talk) 22:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With respects... don't scold. There must be thousands and thousands of reasons why an editor would not follow these simple guidelines before posting a 2-word opinion to delete something from Wikipeedia. For myself... I do a search and try to improve before opining at an AfD... but then, that's me. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closing Admin: To respond, and with respects, the section being quoted as a notability criteria is immediately preceded by the sentence "The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist". This specifically indicates that the quoted section is not about determination of notability, as the section being quoted refers ONLY to the possible availablility of sources and NOT to the notability of the film itself... making it a "source possibility criteria", not a notability criteria. I accept the good faith in which the quote is repeatedly being offered, but its use in this manner acts to confuse, not enlighten. It is like mixing sand paper and tissue paper... both useful items but not interchangable. For myself, and in using that section AS the guidline for which it was intended in my search for sources, I found that the film HAS has an International release AND has even had reviews in as far-away from each other places as South Korea and the United Kingdom. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Notable subject. The article improved since nomination and is now sourced. --J.Mundo (talk) 03:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC) Change to Strong Keep movie clearly meets WP:NOTFILM, produced in Fiji (major accomplishment) and distributed by Buena Vista. Hats off to Michael Q, this is what Wikipedia is all about. --J.Mundo (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further news... and all because I felt quite motivated to show that additional sources existed. I learned that the film was initiated under an original title of Straight Edge. Under that title, I found ample reliable sources that spoke toward its notability (now added) and even discovered that as Straight Edge it was the first film ever to take part in a Fiji instituted incentive program to develop its own film production infrastructure (information now included and sourced). If I has kept looking under Boot Camp I might have become quite frustrated. But having been able to source and document the change of names, everything else just fell into place. My hat is off to Bongomatic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There still doesn't seem to be a single citation that shows editorial content other than the JoongAng Ilbo. Note that many of two sentence summaries are identical, indicating that they were taken from promotional material--the epitome of coverage that does not suggest notability.

Disney: Summary of details with unsigned synopsis.
Reelzchannel.com: Summary of details with one-sentence unsigned synopsis.
cinema.theiapolis.com: Summary of details with no synopsis.
darkhorizons.com: Preproduction summary.
tcm.com: Summary of details with two-sentence unsigned synopsis.
Daily Variety (the one I was hoping would demonstrate notability): Preproduction summary.
NY Times: Summary of details with partial-sentence (but signed!!!) synopsis from All Movie Guide (a source specifically not conferring notability).
stack.net.au: Two sentence summary.
hollywood.premiere.com: Two sentence summary.
sportsshooter.com: Article about shooting still shots in Fiji by a member of the crew! Not independent, with almost no coverage of the film itself.
calgarysun.com: Reasonably long article with at most passing reference to the film itself.

I realize I'm in the minority, and sorry for killing your "speedy close" party (though I don't imagine this will even be closed with "no consensus"), but this film has among the least evidence for notability--despite some of the most strenuous searching--that I've ever seen. Bongo matic 08:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It meets one of the additional criteria (#2): "The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career. An article on the film should be created only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there." Since this film includes significant involvement of multiple notable individuals, we only need the references for verification and not to establish the notability.- Mgm|^(talk) 08:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mgm, from where do you draw the conclusion that this is a "major part of . . . [the] career" of any of the notable individuals involved in the production? Bongo matic 10:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is the first film EVER to use the (then newly) instituted incentive program initiated by Fiji to develop its own film production infrastructure. That notable and WP:Verfiable fact need not have been expanded into a 3000 word article in the New York Times. It exists. Either accept that is is notable or produce sources showing it is not. Further your repeated dismissal of the required WP:Verifications comes off as quite confusing when the entirety has been woven into an article that improves wiki.

The Disney source (did you notice just where it was in the article??) is used to WP:V the running time. Not to source notability.
and thank goodness for JoomgAng Daily].. the only source with which you had no apparent gripe.
ReelChannel is used to WP:V title, writers and director. Not to source notability.
Cinema Theapolis was used to WP:V title, writers and dirctor. Not to source notability.
Dark Horizons was used to WP:V the earlier title and shooting in Fiji. Not to source notability.
Turner Classic Movies was used to WP:V the earlier title. Not to source notability.
Daily Variety was used to WP:V the notable FACT of the film being "lured" to Fiji as part of their incentive program. The fact is itself notable and does not require a 3000 word document.
New York Times summary provided them by Jason Buchanan of All Movie Guide further WP:Verifies the fact that "Straight Edge was the first film to utilize the southwest Pacific Ocean island country's five-year-old incentive program that was designed to create jobs while building a solid film production infrastructure" This WP:V does not require a 3000 word document.

If you think Fiji's incentive program is notable, then write an article on it. Certainly mentions of films that have availed of it would seem appropriate (but that being mentioned there wouldn't be a reason for a standalone article). Bongo matic 09:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STACK was used to WP:V the "fact" that the film director asserts the film is based on a true story. Not to source notability.
Hollywood Up Close was used to WP:V the fact that some of the film shot in Calgary and some in Fiji. Not to source notability.
Helium is the source of the article that had been picked up by Ciao!. A nice bonifide review. (Oops... you forgot to list it above in your dismissals).

Didn't forget--this one (when I followed the link on the article page) sent me to a virus page. Anyway, now that I've been able to see the article, I wouldn't classify Helium as a reliable source. Bongo matic 09:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sports Shooter was used to WP:V that the film was shot in Calgary and Fiji... written long after the fact by the freelance photographer hired to shoot production stills (oops... you forget to read the text?). Not to source notability.
The Calgary Sun was used to further WP:V that the article was shot in Fiji as well as Calgary, as well as its earlier name. The article is ALL about the film, its shooting, and its locations. To say the film is only a "passing reference" in an article about only the film its actors and it locations... tells me you're hoping nobody actually checks your statement to see that it is in error.

The entire woven fabric of facts and verifications with sources covering the more notable aspects has made this article encyclopedic and worthy of wiki in all ways. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere did I challenge the facts verified. I've simply pointed out that with one possible exception, none of the coverage suggests notability. Bongo matic 09:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The film represents a unique accomplishment in cinema, is a milestone in the development of film art, or contributes significantly to the development of a national cinema, with such verifiable claims as "The only cel-animated feature film ever made in Thailand" (See The Adventure of Sudsakorn). That Fiji does not have a "film production infrastructure" and that this particular film was the "was the first film to utilize the southwest Pacific Ocean island country's five-year-old incentive program" gives it a WP:Verified and unique notability per guideline. I am not now required to write an article on Fiji, nor am I compelled to discover what films were second or third or fourth. I have made the assertion and per guideline have WP:Verified it. If you feel the guideline is in error, that is a topic for a different discusion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per solid arguments presented by MICHAEL Q. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 19:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

La Diva (trio)

Non-notable band. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 08:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: looks like this one fails WP:BAND. -- 68.183.104.7 (talk) 13:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant independent coverage WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. -- 128.97.245.2 (talk) 11:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin Brown

Delete. Fails notability through WP:ONEEVENT. Just another crim with a lethal baseball bat. WWGB (talk) 08:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with WWGB, meets the WP:ONEEVENT criteria. ttonyb1 (talk) 12:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete. if a fair number of people know his name then I guess there shouldbe a page. 86.21.13.183 (talk) 10:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. Local news story for an executed murderer. No evidence of sustained, non-trivial RS coverage to distinguish the perp or the crime. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
not to delete he has his page of why he was convicted and excuted for this is alot more than others — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.1.44.28 (talk • contribs)
Delete. Just another run of the mill WP:ONEEVENT killer. --Rodhull andemu 18:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. It's pretty much all been said. Cheers, CP 21:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - My vote is to keep this page. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- This is not a vote, but a discussion. MuZemike 03:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Pardon my improper semantics. I did not realize that we are prohibited from using the term "vote". Let me re-phrase. My ~~vote~~ opinion is to keep this page. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    - OK, now that we know your ~~vote~~ opinion, would you care to indicate how the subject of the article meets the notability guideline? WWGB (talk) 08:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - To answer your question ... Wikipedia has not only articles, but actually categories ... such as "Category:People executed by Oklahoma" and "Category:People convicted of murder by Oklahoma". Both of those categories contain several articles about several individuals ... all "more or less" in the same boat. That is, they were murderers from Oklahoma ... and they were executed by Oklahoma. This particular individual, Darwin Brown, is no more nor less notable than all of those many, many others. And ... as I stated ... those many, many others have not only pages/articles written about them ... but Wikipedia also has very focused and specific categories for this exact type of article. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Delete, there is nothing specific or outstanding about the criminal, the crime or the execution. Aecis·(away) ^talk 12:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per notability to get into the news. Im also against the nominators choice of words "Just another crim with a lethal baseball bat".--Judo112 (talk) 14:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Crime and criminals are routinely reported in the news. Notability is based on durable interest, which is not shown here, not just a burst of news coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The circumstances of the case are such that I wouldn't have been surprised had it become noteworthy by way of execution opponents pointing out he was so young (and, if the atorney is right, that others were the 'primary movers', whatever that means), but it doesn't seem to have. WP:ONEEVENT/WP:NOTNEWS seem to cover this. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Have to say Keep because of the high number of similar articles on wikipedia. And it seems sourced and not claimed.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notion that there are other similar articles is not a valid argument; those others need to be viewed individually, and many of them should probably be removed as well. If the above reason were accepted, we would also need to include ever single execution world wide, including those performed daily in certain Middle Eastern countries, and that's not the case on this site. Furthermore, there is no corresponding article that includes a biography of the victim, and given the logic of the previous argument, there should have been one before the trial even took place. The main problem, however, is the addition of this person is purely an act of political grandstanding, which is against the basic principles of Wikipedia. The use of this person, and similar people, as a soapbox is supported by many of the keep statements, but most notably by the unsigned comment on the article's talk page Talk:Darwin Brown. Bottom line: the person is not any more worthy of note than the millions of average humans who die of automobile accidents or heart attacks, and therefore has no place on this site. This information (and the corresponding link from the 2009 notable deaths page ) should instead be sequestered to a capital punishment debate site, not here. --ADWNSW (talk) 20:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The move to delete the Wikipedia entry of this person is not based merely on notability of the murderer, but more so on the effects of this tragedy that makes it notable. But please keep in mind that the deletion of the entry by no means marginalizes the victims.--TLD2000 (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 19:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jaimie Hutt, AKA Twig

Article does not assert notability as per WP:GNG. Google search also indicates that this person fails WP:PEOPLE, in both the basic criteria and the additional criteria. No third party, verifiable references can be found to indicate notability. As such, delete. ThePointblank (talk) 07:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent sources have been provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Only two independent google hits outside of facebook [26], one a promotion from her workplace and one from the acting school she attended. Work name "DJ Twig" has the same problem. Baileypalblue (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GNG and PEOPLE. Spinach Monster (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article fails to establish notability of subject.--70.63.155.173 (talk) 01:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Operational drag

Icky middle-management corporatespeak term with no (as far as I can see) evidence of common usage. Saying that it is 'used in the hedgefund community'=slight evidence of notability. Saying in the next sentence that it was first used by an author in a book less than a year ago = kicking the chair out from under the article. The references are all to do with Operational Risk rather than Operational Drag. Delete. Ironholds (talk) 07:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to respectfully disagree with the comments from Ironholds on the following grounds: 1) He begins his objection by stereotyping all so called "middle-management corporatespeak" as "Icky". To me this shows a pre-determined bias against any and all such terms which he lumps into this category. As such, it is clear that he has no rational basis for the rest of his objections and is solely stereotyping this term in an emotional manner

2) There is evidence of common usage of this term. I referenced the website of a hedge fund operational due diligence firm (Corgentum) which speaks in detail about the term Operational Drag. Furthermore, the term has been used in several subscription only hedge fund magazines which are unfortunately not linkable via the web

3) He cites that the fact that the term was first used by an author less than a year ago does not seem a logical grounds for automatic dismissal. Would wikipedia have not allowed a separate entry for the term "Value at Risk" until more than a certain minimum amount of websites or people used it? If so can you please cite me where in the wikipedia guidelines it states that a minimum threshold of people/websites must acknowledge a term before it is acceptable. Clearly by the fact that this term is utilzied in a book, on a consulting firm's website, used by practicioners and in hedge fund journals there is critical mass for this term within the hedge fund community, it is just outside of the Ironholds knowledge base and social network so he dismisses it.

4) Finally Ironholds goes on to criticize the references having to do with operational risk rather than operational drag. It is unclear to me the point he is making here. Operational Drag is a risk management metric used to evaluate the level of operational risk present in a hedge fund. As such, a definition of Operational Drag necessarily must contain references to opertaional risk. That's like saying I can't create an entry about peanut butter because it contains too many references to peanuts. The two terms are necessarily related. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrmiyahi274 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) so me not liking corporatespeak automatically invalidates the rest of my argument?

2) then provide evidence of this use.

3)My point is rather that it is unlikely to be 'common speak' as you so claim if it was first used less than a year ago, not that this is grounds for automatic dismissal. If it was the page would have been deleted by now.

4)References are designed to show where you got this information from; as such they must be to do with operational drag rather than operational risk. If the article about peanut butter only links to references that describe peanuts rather than peanut butter than yes, that would be an issue. Ironholds (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent sources. Jason Scharfman, who coined the phrase in his book is managing partner of Corgentum. These are the only two sources I could find that use the phrase. The Risk Glossary entry on operational risk, given as a source, does not mention operational drag. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) No that wasn't my point. But I admire your honesty and frankness in ackowledging that you do in fact not like corporatespeak

2) As stated, the vast majority of the evidence I have seen of this term is copyrighted material which is in print and not on the web. Further, a subscription is required to receive this material. In such a situation does Wikipedia not publish articles which refernce such sources?

3) It is unclear to me what expertise you have to judge the common speak of the field of hedge fund operational risk. I am not claiming to be an expert but merely that I read journals on such subjects. As I stated above, the coverage of this seems not to be via a media such as the web but in academic journals. I cannot scan such material and publish it as a refernce because it is copyrighted. So my question again is what are the Wikipedia guidelines for such issues? Deletion of items which cannot be verified as common-speak via the web. Seems a bit discriminatory to me.

4) I understand your point but once again do not see a proper analogy in this case. The Corgetnum link seems to be a viable external resource for me. I do not see how the author working for a particular firm invalidates the reference.

Mrmiyahi274 (talk —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

It causes a conflict of interest. The author working for the firm undermines the value of that firm using that phrase; they may be using it as a result of him being there, for example. See below for the results of searching 'academic journals'. I've got subscriptions to the ATHENS system that allows me access to a large number of journals; I'll go off and do a search now. Ironholds (talk) 01:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, A search for the term 'operation drag' through all the journals indexed by Cambridge, Oxford, Wiley and Blackwell-synergy finds a grand total of 0 results in either title or the full text of articles themselves. Ironholds (talk) 01:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The easiest approach to phrases that might be used in contemporary academic articles is Google Scholar. lt will find at least some of the articles using the term, though it may not lead to any easy way to get to read them except to go to a library. Searching for the phrase such search finds zero articles using it in a business context, and one possible book: "The Five Literacies of Global Leadership" By Richard David Hames, which uses it once. Scopus, a more reliable source to academic journal articles, finds zero. DGG (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input DGG. I do not have access to those databases. My question about those databases would be that since the journals/articles I have read recently are more of the hedge fund media type not sure if either they would fall into those databases or may be too new to be listed. It seems interesting to me that another author has utilized the work as well. A quick google search shows the terms has ammunition bag applications as well. It seems with these varied uses might be worth including with multiple entries. Mrmiyahi274 (talk —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voice chatter

Non-notable software. I can't find any evidence of third-party coverage or awards; delete Ironholds (talk) 07:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability not demonstrated, or even claimed, and all sources are primary. — neuro^(talk) 17:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Schuym1 (talk) 23:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nurarihyon no Mago

No assertion of notability. Google search under the Kanji title is not turning up any reliable sources. Author also appears to be non-notable. Prod contested using an WP:OSE rational relating to Star Trek and Buffy episodes. Farix (Talk) 04:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also included:

List of Nurarihyon No Mago chapters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete, fails WP:BK and WP:N. Unnotable manga series with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Article is pure plot. Also delete List of Nurarihyon No Mago chapters with it, which appears to have been an unnecessary split with no sources. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I missed that, including in with this discussion. --Farix (Talk) 05:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Collectonian (talk ·

contribs) 05:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not really sure when all manga in Jump started getting articles, but this does appear to be the one series in the lot that is stable and successful. The others are all canceled or going to be canceled soon. Doceirias (talk) 05:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it started from all of these nav templates listing every series that ran in Weekly Shōnen Jump. --Farix (Talk) 14:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment JA wiki articel is much more extensive and has five sources. I didn't check the Chinese wiki article, the spanish wiki article, or the Russian wiki article, but the fact that articles exist in FIVE different languages would seem to imply there's some potential notability. 76.116.247.15 (talk) 14:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How many wiki's also have articles is irrelevant. As for the sources on the Japanese Wiki, did you even check them? They are from the manga itself. Hardly independent sources. --Farix (Talk) 14:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Unlike most of Jump's recent titles (deservedly being sent to AfD), but like Toriko, this one seems to have some legs. There's even some merchandising out there for it. I'm not up for more extensive Japanese searches, but I'm very leery of saying delete. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its carried in a very notable and highly influential magazine for this genre, and has an ample number of readers. And when I Google, I get 210,000 hits for "Nurarihyon no Mago". Unless that translates to a common expression, I'll assume everyone is talking about that series. Dream Focus (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you should not that Google Hits are NOT an indication of notability at all. Nor is its appearance in a manga anthology, which the large bulk of all manga do, any indication of notability. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:17, 24 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 07:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No vote. I'm not finding anything by way of reliable coverage in English aside from the basic publication facts, so by objective measures this seems to fail WP:BK. However, the amount of notice this series gets, in multiple wikipedias and a wide variety of sources, some marginally reliable and a lot non-reliable, convinces me that the series is notable, even if I cannot demonstrate it. So while I can't convince myself to say "keep", I cannot say any form of delete, and there is no possible merge target that I can see. Therefore I recuse myself (at length). —Quasirandom (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify: that's a no vote on the main article. For the list of chapters, it should be merged back into the main article, and cleaned up by templating and adding volume publication information et cet. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chapter list merge done...who keeps doing these bad splits *head shaking*. If Nurarihyon no Mago is deleted, redirect should also go. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Give it time.andycjp (talk) 07:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The manga is really popular in Shonen Jump. It often gets a spot in the top 10 there. The first volume of the manga was 9th in best sales the month it was released in japan. It is also listed in many english websites like mangaupdates.com or mangahelpers which are some of the most popular one out of the many website related to Nurarihyon No mago. On mangaupdate it is listed as #97 out of (roughly) 38 000 mangas in popularity. In mangahelpers the manga has topics with more than 20 000 views. I believe given it's popularity in the english comunity this manga is more than qualified to remain on wikipedia.User:Skeith (talk) 10:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide actual sources for your claims of being the best seller in its first month of release. Also, we do not look at scanslation sites, period. They are illegal and are not reliable sources. A title appearing there and its so-called popularity is completely irrelevant. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was 9th place the week of release: [27]. The second volume failed to place, but the third was 5th: [28]. My feelings are much like Quasirandom's; this one is really borderline. It was probably created prematurely, but there are indications the book is on track to being notable in the near future. I'm inclined to Keep and delete later if things fall apart. Doceirias (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't meet WP:N or WP:BK; is a one-shot manga by an unnotable author. Page consists of fancruft list and would provide no useful information to an average reader. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a one-shot manga. Has three volumes out already, and is ongoing; badly written the page may be, but that is not a reason for deletion. Doceirias (talk) 22:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Doceirias said, it is not a one shot (anymore). It first came out as a one shot, and ended up popular enough to be serialized weekly in Shonen Jump as a full legit manga. There are now 3 volumes out in the market, and 43 chapters released in Shonen jump.Skeith (talk) 02:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I misread the article. Despite that, being serialized doesn't make the subject notable. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to not being a one-shot but a series, consisting of unuseful cruft is a reason to clean up, not delete. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. When the article is ALL unuseful fancruft, its usually better to delete and try again when and if sources are available. No amount of cleanup will make a topic notable. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, mostly due to TrulyBlue's reasoning. None of the keep arguments seemed to be based within policy. Smashville^talk 23:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Perelet

Minimal Google hits
Article unreferenced
Website provides little to substantiate claims
Appears article written by individual named in article

ttonyb1 (talk) 03:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep, for now. The article has only existed for a day, so the argument that only one user has edited it (made by user:Hoary in their update summary) doesn't carry much weight. Review and relist in a week or two if not improved in the meantime. Simon Dodd (talk) 03:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/question I think you're referring to this edit summary. NB (i) the fact that it was substantially written by a user called Perelet, and not the fact that it was written by one user, was my reason for adding a template; and (ii) this was a "COI" template, not an AfD template. (I do think that AfD is merited, but mostly for other reasons.) However, you may have some other edit of mine in mind. ¶ I don't understand what you mean by "Review and relist". Do you propose that this AfD should be speedily terminated as unfair or premature or whatever but with the announced possibility of a second AfD within a period of as little as two weeks? If so, well, I think that for a second AfD to be opened within two weeks of the closing of a first would have the second nominator hammered for boneheadedness at best and disruptiveness at worst. But possibly I've overlooked some subclause within a relevant policy page. -- Hoary (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, I'm trying to collect informations about famous people in Perelet family (see my profile). I'm trying to put seeds that other people can expand. Those are not ordinary people and mostly known from printed media. My other page about Alexey Perelet who was test pilot who 1st lifted in the air TU-95 Bear plane is also marked. Please have patience history is made by individuals and you guys seem to not like that.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perelet (talk • contribs) 05:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you don't even say what Victoria is. You have to use English, write complete sentences, and tell something that someone who is not already familiar about the subject can you to tell what you are writing about. "Victoria Perelet is an English photographer who was born in the Soviet Union." "Victoria Perelet is an English Springer Spaniel owned by Donald Trump." "Victoria Perelet was the first female truck driver in Sierra Leone to run the stop sign at the intersection of Main and Pierce streets."

Who is she? Why is she in Wikipedia? What'd she do besides get herself born in the Soviet Union in 1962? Please, please, please, write sentences in English that you could turn in in a paper--this is not a repository for press releases! Delete until it's known who she is--and the article doesn't say. --KP Botany (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody. I did some cleanup. Sure entry was created by either student or kid. Anyway

Birth Year. I have Jade Mag in our library - in interview it says 1969, original article had 1962 (I fixed to what interview says)
Cleaned up list of articles/publications, added ISBN's. Only for ones that we have in library
WP guys - your ISBN page does not work (I did cross checked ISBN's on Amazon)
Somebody please add earlier publications.
English - Check this out:http://www.amazon.com/English-Second-cking-Language-Effectively/dp/sitb-next/031214329X
Have a little bit of respect
KP your military background screams loudly:) But be @#$%^&* reasonable.
Keep, contact photographer to make sure stuff is right.

Kurtpb (talk) 23:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be reasonable about what, allowing the biography of a living person to look like a crappy press release? I edited it a bit for grammar. If you continue to write it, please do use complete sentences, and write in the style of an encyclopedia, rather than bulleted points. It's still hard to figure out what she's notable for. --KP Botany (talk) 00:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KP is always the voice of sweet reason, or anyway harsh reason. But maybe Kurtpb has a point: KP, do try to be harshly reasonable with old cynics like me rather than with NooBs. -- Hoary (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rose-cous panie my-orzhu. Okay, I could have said it nicer, like this: It's hard to understand the article because it is written more like a press release with bullet points than like an article. If you use complete sentences and take the time to write the article as if it were an encyclopedia article it could prevent a nomination for deletion in the first place by making the article easier to understand and more comfortable to read. It would also make it easier for other interested Wikipedia editors to ask that the article be kept, because they could see at a glance that is an encyclopedia article of the sort that belongs on Wikipedia. Press releases, by their nature, are meant to be scanned for facts or information, not to be read, as an encyclopedia article is. An encyclopedia article tells a complete story as a formal essay on a topic, including the necessary grammar and syntax of complete thoughts. --KP Botany (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The "article" is indeed starting to look like an article. But listing individual book covers smacks of desperation. It's something I've never felt the urge to do in any of "my" articles. Here for example is a moderately known photographer; the cover shown is of a book that's entirely his work (and an award-winning book to boot). To me, a few covers and a few articles here and there just don't add up to notability. -- Hoary (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:
Thanks for edits KP! There only few published photographers worldwide who pushed Goth/Latex from basement redeye/snapshots in to mainstream press. That’s rather big deal for some communities. Not that I’m part of it - it just happened that I’m doing thesis on that
.

Hoary, ‘press release’ (or just too pure statements) is what it looked originally and fricked me also – I changed that.

I’ll add/update as time goes and will try to add more coverage of culture.

PS. Most of contributors (both fashion designers and photographers are still alive – whole thing started only 15-20 years ago)

Original submitter – please get in touch with me on birth date.

Kurtpb (talk) 01:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, be sure to move it into your user space if it does get deleted. --KP Botany (talk) 01:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment " Conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article although other problems with the article arising from a conflict of interest may be valid criteria for deletion." Anarchangel (talk) 02:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, this appears to be one of the most abused policies on Wikipedia, nominating articles for deletion because of a conflict of interest, even though the COI policy clearly states that it is an insufficient reason. This one, though, is just one problem in a list of alleged problems with the article. --KP Botany (talk) 05:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

Addressing original Concerns

Minimal Google hits

107 (11 pages) google hits on same individual "1st lastname" (no other names) with 1st GOOG link hard pinned to individual name -> studio name (also on MSN & YHOO) – no 1st/last name in page tags or html, what GOOG knows?

Article unreferenced

Are ISBN’s not enough, one can add links to Amazon or Magazine web pages referring books & mags (who needs that - no content on Amazon pages?)

Website provides little to substantiate claims

True, more info in other hits – do we care about website?

Appears article written by individual named in article

Look at his/her other entries – relative or student is going over family tree. Also see other comments on COI

Kurtpb (talk) 14:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as n-n. Whenever I see individual covers listed in the bio of a photographer, I see desperate clutching at straws. Only minor discussion is cited for this photographer, who's had no books or solo exhibitions and whose known work is limited to just a few pages in some magazines. -- Hoary (talk) 15:20, 23 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 07:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article and references suggest no more than a regular photographer who has had pictures published in various magazines, and the odd spread of several pictures together. There is no suggestion of her having contributed to the art of photography, and nothing we see constitutes "substantial coverage in secondary sources". TrulyBlue (talk) 09:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I still don't know what she did. Also, frankly, I shoot people with large format cameras, and I bet I use a larger format than she does. --KP Botany (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note:I find language of this comment unethical and not professional. Please try to restrict your comments to subject of this article. AnneSholher (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Victoria Perelet is icon of Alt fashion photography. One of few professional photographers who promotes Alt fashion. Her work pretty much speaks for herself. Published by most prestige European publishers and has been displayed in boutiques/galleries in Europe and US – google has planty links to confirm. AnneSholher (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Anderson (artist)

Fails the general notability guideline and the notability guideline for creative professionals. Cannot find significant coverage of this person or her company in independent, reliable sources. Since creating this article (and Melodic-art and Melodic-art design studio) there have been no improvements made except deletion of valid tags by single-purpose accounts with a likely conflict of interest. They haven't proven she's notable, and I've tried to, but neither can I. Somno (talk) 05:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. —Somno (talk) 05:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Somno (talk) 05:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete borderline speedy delete A7, probably a vanity article. --neon white talk 05:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not happy with the article and I think it is a self-written, and I can find very little on the Artist when doing a "Google". The Wikipedia is not for self-promotion and there are no verifiable sources.--BSTemple (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. WP:CRYSTAL permits articles about scheduled or expected future events if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. This article falls into that category. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United States Senate special election in New York, 2010

Topic inappropriate for an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. See WP:NOT#JOURNALISM and WP:NOTABILITY. WP is not the place for spot news, for tracking current events such as contests in sports or politics, celebrity gossip, or "human interest" (e.g., child has fallen down a well, here's the latest on rescue efforts). Except in rare cases, encyclopedias should not have articles on events that haven't happened yet. Some of the information in the lead to this article may be appropriately merged with an article on, say, New York State congressional delegations. Hurmata (talk) 04:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hurmata, please do not try to delete 95% of the article's content, as you did with this edit. Let commenters here see the full article as it exists, and decided for themselves on the merits of the AfD. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. We have many, many articles on upcoming political elections, including for example 37 articles in Category:United States Senate elections, 2010 about 2010 Senate elections (both regular and special). We have many articles about campaigns in progress: for example, all 32 of the 2008 presidential election campaign articles in Category:Campaigns in the United States presidential election, 2008 were written as those campaigns were happening (they then get further revised after the campaigns are over and additional sources are available on what happened). Furthermore, most of this United States Senate special election in New York, 2010 article in question contains a description of something that has already happened, the appointment process to replace Clinton as senator, which concluded today with Paterson's choosing of Gillibrand. This was a major event, heavily covered in the mainstream news media (as you can see from the cites) that featured many campaign-like developments and the involvement of well-known figures such as Caroline Kennedy. There is absolutely no reason to delete any of this. One might argue that the appointment history should be placed in an article of its own, rather than be combined with the subsequent special election, but at the time I and others felt that it made more sense to keep them together (since one leads to the other) and not have an extra article. As for the notion that Wikipedia doesn't track current events, that might be true of conventional encyclopedias, but is not true here; all the pages have a navigation link to Portal:Current events for example. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Unquestionably notable, well-sourced, comprehensive article. There is a mountain of precedent for an article like this, and I am amazed that this one has been brought here. This nomination makes absolutely no sense and should be closed. Tvoz/talk 05:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Tvoz and Wasted Time R. LotLE×talk 07:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong, strong keep - per everyone above. We have plenty of articles on upcoming elections, and this is a decent article - just looking at the refs, this has 47. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 05:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Previous non-admin closure reverted per WP:NAC as there were not six votes for keeping and the process had not gone on for at least one full day. Jclemens (talk) 05:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not only does this pass WP:CRYSTAL, it's parent article is actually cited as an example of the type of article that is allowed. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 08:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Deleting it makes no sense at all.—Markles 14:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. As my NAC has been reverted, I'll repeat my comments from there. Near-future elections are listed in WP:CRYSTAL as a specific example of the kind of article that we should have about future events. On that basis, there really are no policy-based grounds to delete this extremely well-sourced article about a clearly notable event. JulesH (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. per WP:SNOW. This article clearly passes WP:CRYSTAL, and we already have an article on a similar topic in my home state. Jonathan321 (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy and Strong Keep: per above. We have plenty of similar articles, and have had plenty previously. Jo7hs2 (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy and Strong Keep: Why is anyone nominating this article for deletion??? --Muboshgu (talk) 20:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW Tone 19:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Humanart

Again, the band doesn't pass WP:BAND in the least: not on a major label, no studio albums, no major touring and unreliable (and useless) "references". FireCrystal (talk) 04:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In addition, the author of the article seems to have a conflict of interest as he appears to be a member of the band and I geolocated the ip 87.196.xx and it is based in Portugal. FireCrystal (talk) 05:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7, article does not indicate why the subject is of any note. --neon white talk 05:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: many of the asserted references appear to be misleading. Article fails to establish notability WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 05:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BAND, WP:RS. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. kur ykh 04:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Stevens (songwriter)

Could not locate any significant coverage for this individual for any of his careers -- acting, singing, songwriting, or religious. Tried "Mark Stevens" + variety of disambiguating terms. Seems to fail WP:BIO; tagged as such since September 2007. Jfire (talk) 04:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:06, 24 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) 00:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely no sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no substantial independent 3rd party notability. JamesBurns (talk) 00:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW or maybe a speedy... anyway, delete. Tone 19:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Politism

Dictionary-definition stub of a protologism. Non-germane, non-notable, and deletable per Wikipedia:NEO#Articles on neologisms and WP:DICTIONARY. --Dynaflow babble 04:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating a sibling article to the first one:

delete Direct copy from answers.com, a quick google search does seem to show some usage but not widespread (many hits are for cosmopolitism). Also, the supposed meaning of the word differs from place to place, giving the impression that it is indeed a neologism. If kept, the article should be rewritten to describe a/the phenomenon instead of just giving a definition. Examples of usage I found: 1, 2, 3 (for some reason they all are quite old, the first one from 1907) -- NathanoNL [ usr | msg | log ] 05:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a 'non-notable neologism'. Ironholds (talk) 07:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G12) as blatant copyright infringement; a copy-and-paste from the answers.com page, which is under copyright of the Answers Corporation. MuZemike 19:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:A7 - Non-notable web content Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Best Boyfriend Award

Non-notable award from non-notable website whose own page doesn't seem to really have any links to this supposed award. Tag team SPAs are editing the article and repeatedly removing the speedy deletion tags, therefore I'm forced to bring this here. AnyPerson (talk) 04:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notes: One of the SPAs blanked this page, and a yet again third new SPA deleted the AFD tag from the article. AnyPerson (talk) 04:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the AfD tag twice now. AnyPerson (talk) 04:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as non-notable web content. Didn't I put a {{db-web}} on that thing, like, an hour ago? --Dynaflow babble 04:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but one of the SPAs removed it. AnyPerson (talk) 04:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Wikipedia is not a boyfriend-lauding site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Runningonbrains (talk • contribs)

Speedy delete as speedily as possible, no redeeming qualities whatsoever. ukexpat (talk) 04:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PinkyTagger

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 03:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 05:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability not asserted. — neuro^(talk) 17:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Matador

The article reads like a PR-esque bio, not exactly of encyclopedic quality. On Wikipedia, notability is demonstrated by reference to intellectually independent, reliable sources --- typically newspapers, magazines, or books which are not written by the subject of the article or his associates. They all reference Mystery, but not Matador himself. The book revelation cannot be cited as notable and reliable source. The official company website, venusianarts.com, does not testify to the existence of any good sources, just blogs and forum posts. The articles on the website do not act like a reliable source. A brief quote in a newspaper or working for a television show is not a sign of notability. Walled garden, all supposed references actually go to the venusian arts web site and there is a circular linking all pointing to either Mystery or Matador articles on Wikipedia. No non-trivial third-part sources which establish notability have been demonstrated. The only edits so far came from single-purpose accounts. Handrem (talk) 03:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 1) Written by obvious single-purpose account(s) which appear to be sock puppets for each other. 2) Written as a PR piece, not remotely neutral. 3) Subject's notability is not proven by sources referenced. 4) Very heavy on external links to Matador's website, venusianarts.com. 5) Heavy reliance on Mr Matador's own blogs and self-published writings, which are neither neutral nor notable.Camera123456 (talk) 03:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about playing himself in an upcoming film featuring Michael Madsen and Stephen Baldwin on top of everything else (I added a reference to his credit in IMDB)? If more sources are needed, then isn't there some sort of template to add to the top of the page that says that more sources are needed? If a rewrite for this article is necessary, then can't someone rewrite it? James Matador is one of the most well known Pick-Up Artists both in the seduction community and in the United States in general. He has spoken at Yale on the topic of seduction, was the second person EVER to lead his own live programs (does Askmen.com count as an independant, reliable source? Because that's mentioned there), and been featured on CNN (even though the video seems to be gone). Can someone tell me how those specific points do not make him a notable person? Vitasmortis (talk) 05:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The tag you need is {{refimprove}}. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You should avoid editing pages that are about you and your business. Please see WP:COI and WP:NPOV as well as a good link here to FAQs if you are a business owner that wants your business to be featured in Wikipedia. I hope this helps.Handrem (talk) 04:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Stinks of self-promotion. If notable at all, is only within the hopelessly sexist "seduction community". — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I share your view of the community, but the nature of it is irrelevant to notability.DGG (talk) 01:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advertising, only notable to a small community. Not much for Google searches [29] and [30] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin Dominic (talk • contribs) 19:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Complete and total advertising, with little notability truly established.--EmperorofPeopleEverywhere (talk) 02:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Pick-up Artist (TV series) for above noted reasons. Plastikspork (talk) 02:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 PublishAmerica. If it's not there, I'll port the one sentence that makes up this article over to the target. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Willem Meiners

Non-notable business person.

This article was created nearly 2 years ago, and since then has remained a single-sentence unsourced stub. A search for sources turns up a lot of ghits, but these are uniformly one of the following:

Sales material for Meiners' many self-published books, none of which appear to me to be notable
Other self-published self promotion
Trivial mentions in sources that are about Meiners' company, PublishAmerica. While PA is notable, Meiners himself does not appear to be.

For these reasons, this article should be deleted. JulesH (talk) 11:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete.~~ (see below) No news hits, no Google hits beyond the commercial. Notability is not inherited, and while PublishAmerica is clearly notable (I still laugh when I think about Atlanta Nights), Meiners is not. Graymornings_(talk) 12:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect (see below). ~~Keep.~~ No Google hits? Check this out--articles from between 2002 and 2008. I'm not going to rework this article to include the references (I'm a bit ashamed of my countryman), but the dude is clearly notable, IMO. Drmies (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I don't mind being proven wrong here. Drmies (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw those news hits, but most of them are trivial and/or in reference to PublishAmerica. If his only claim to fame is PublishAmerica, we might want to merge/redirect instead of giving him his own article. Graymornings_(talk) 21:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm all but the first one, yes. I think you have a point there--if merge/redirect is a motion of sorts, then I'll second, and change my vote (up, up). Drmies (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed mine, too—I vote merge/redirect to PublishAmerica. Graymornings_(talk) 23:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 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, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Publish America, as there is no notability outside of his relationship with his company. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Aeroméxico Flight 498. MBisanz ^talk 01:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Wong

Disambiguation page for three entries, none of which has an article on Wikipedia. AnyPerson (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are active links for different notable people of the same name that go there. Why not be a disambiguation page? 70.17.179.127 (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages are for articles on Wikipedia, not for external links. AnyPerson (talk) 03:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is not what disambig pages are for, and none of the three look particularly notable (You could possibly make an argument for the first, but even if he is notable, that only leaves one person with the name, so a disambig page still would not be required). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

How do you list a peson of common name? like George Bush. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.91.141.56 (talk) 03:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George Bush has articles. AnyPerson (talk) 03:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are many George Bush. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.91.141.56 (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And there is a disambiguation page at George Bush which lists all of the articles Wikipedia has on people and things with that name. This article has no links to any real articles. AnyPerson (talk) 03:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We just need to add real articles like so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.91.141.56 (talk) 03:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But they must meet WP:BIO and have reliable sources. AnyPerson (talk) 04:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until such a time as we have three or more non-speedyable bluelinks. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aeroméxico Flight 498 (the page's state before 16 January 2009). No objection to deleting the dab page first. • Gene93k (talk) 11:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We can't redirect to an old version of the page. If Jason Wong is not listed there in the current version, redirecting there would be a surprise, and avoided.
Delete. No (current) Wikipedia articles to disambiguate. Or revert removal of the name from Aeroméxico Flight 498 (with consensus) and redirect there. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Artene50 (talk) 03:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There seems to be ample evidence that sources are readily available from multiple places. No overwhelming reason (other than sourcing) given to delete. Keeper | 76 05:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC). I meant to add, there doesn't necessarily need to be three articles. The two album articles could (should?) be combined with the artist article to make one, more complete, and better sourced article. Two cents. For now, I'm leaving them. Keeper | 76 05:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Autumn Tears

WP:MUSIC; the band broke up without ever doing anything notable. Also proposing deletion of two related album articles. THF (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "without ever doing anything notable" - is highly subjective opinion. I think nominator should try to use Google first, if he cannot judge personally. Nomination contradicts WP:MUSIC "For composers and performers outside mass media traditions":
- Reviews
- popularity last.fm online Radio - 380,370 plays; 23,483 listeners --Ilya K (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ignoring the fact the nomination comes across as WP:IDONTLIKEIT, here are a few more reviews or mentions to help it pass WP:MUSIC#C1, [31], [32]. Merge the 2 albums into the main article. However there are more than enough sources out there for The Hallowing album to have it's own article. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:17, 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, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, would appear to meet WP:MUSIC through secondary coverage. Keep in mind that as a band in a niche genre, you may have to look a bit harder to find references than you would with the latest radio rock band, but they seem to be there. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)>[reply]
Delete notability requires reliable sources, i doubt a single one of those passes as a reliable source. Blogs, self published fanzines and websites are simply not acceptable sources. Fame, popularity and genre have no relevance to notability, every subject needs to pass the same criteria. I cannot find anything in rolling stone nor allmusic. --neon white talk 05:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: no significant independent 3rd party notability. JamesBurns (talk) 00:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Chronicles of Chaos and Blabbermouth.net are reliable sources and have been used as such on printed books here and here. Both have multiple articles on Autumn Tears: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here. One of these sites provide interviews and album reviews while the other provide news coverage. In both cases, their focus are on heavy metal music but despite this focus, they nonetheless feature multiple articles on this non-metal band. A third reliable source Rockdetector provide a biography for the band here. --Bardin (talk) 06:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i dispute that any of those is conclusively a verifiable source. Both Blabbermouth and rockdetector's reliability has been questioned. --neon white talk 20:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slum Brothers

No evidence that this group meets WP:MUSIC. I could not able to find any references in major review sites, and the group has not released anything on a major label as far as I can tell. Mosmof (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, after a bit of a look around Google, I was not able to find anything that wasn't just an offhand mention in a blog, or a copy of this article. Would not seem to meet WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: no significant independent 3rd party notability WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 04:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FreeMat

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 02:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep. There are a few Google books that mention it [33], and a fair number of websites describe it, e.g. [34]. Sort of notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - quite a few reliable sources can be found, which I have added to article. Specilaist but notable. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 2 of the four sources where unreliable. 2 reliable sources with significant coverage might be enough. Schuym1 (talk) 15:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am the original author of the article. I wrote it because this program is one of the alternatives to Matlab. I think it is a great for any student who is taught matlab to be able to implement algorithms at home, without the need to pay and be even able to tinker with the program itself. I think this should also count as notability. Ben ^T/_C 09:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If the article is deleted, I'd propose that the content be worked into the Matlab article -- I'd hate to see an open-source alternative trampled under simply because the proprietary closed-source application is more 'notable'. 198.82.167.78 (talk) 06:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mucoid plaque

AfDs for this article:

Sigh. Please accept this renomination in good faith.

I will pretty much repeat MastCell at the second nomination. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mucoid plaque (second nomination)

This article fails notability guidelines per WP:FRINGE. No reliable independent sources can be found to establish a coherent sourced article. Without this base, wikipedia can not create an article within its own guidelines.

This is not for want of trying, several neutral editors have attempted to clean up this article, but can not as the sources just do not exist to create it.

A lot of the good-faith support for the article, and insistence of editors that they will "watch" the article, contribute and ensure it becomes a good warning of the faults of mucoid plaque have come to naught.

The article is doomed to fail as it is about a non-notable condition not accepted by the medical fraternity (see WP:FRINGE) that was admittedly created by "some guy" on the basis of some reports he read in early 20th century journals (see guidelines on neologisms, and Things made up one day by "some guy"). Independent coverage comes in the forms of self-labelled unreliable websites. (see Heelop's comments here [35]).

Using questionable sources like these results in overuse of ugly weasel-like terms such as "allegedly", "claims to", "speculates that" etc. and/or reliance on citing authors credentials promote a POV about their status as an expert ("M.D") or non-expert ("entrepenuer").

Wikipedia does not serve to be a watchdog, and has no duty to expose frauds. Wikipedia is a tertiary resource that accumulates information from reliable sources to create a database of neutral information on notable topics.

At present this article

Cannot be reliably sourced
Cannot be made neutral
Is not notable, as established by the absence of independent coverage by neutral reliable sources.

Bottom line. Fails notability + Unable to be appropriately sourced = Unencyclopedic content.

ZayZayEM (talk) 02:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that is obviously a controversial topic. Several editors actively engaged in the editing of this article have suggested renomination for deletion.

Please consider some of the Arguments To Avoid in deletion discussions. Votes without substance and/or fail to address valid concerns brought up by the nominator and subsequent contributors may be counterproductive to wikipedia's processes. If you claim there are reliable sources, please point them out. If you think it is notable, please qualify that statement.

Wikipedia has no obligation to provide responsible health advice to its readers. Wikipedia is not a warning system. Wikipedia is not mythbusters. Wikipedia is neutral, objective, impartial and is limited to those sources that are available.--ZayZayEM (talk) 01:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, no vote. To contributors: Please remember that it is not the fact this is a fringe theory that may make it worthy of deletion. There are plenty of fringe theories and wacko ideas covered in Wikipedia. Discussion should be centered on (1) Whether or not this theory has garnered enough publicity from independent, third-party sources to make it notable; and (2) Whether or not there are reliable, third-party sources to verify its notability. •Life of Riley (talk) 02:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – it may be nonsense, but a quick check of the sources shows that there are indeed multiple independence reliable sources that discuss this topic. If the article is based on the sources, I don't see why it shouldn't stay. If it's not, fix it. (I haven't read it). Dicklyon (talk) 03:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please provide some of these sources and the content they contain. MastCell and myself, as well as mucoid-plaque advocate have been unable to locate these. Without actually being able to access these sources, we will be unable to create an article.--ZayZayEM (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This reference by a mainstream scientist justifies inclusion. If someone reads about this item and wants to be informed, they come to Wikipedia. The article appears well written and properly sourced, with over 73,000 ghits. That something is a fringe theory is no reason for deletion in itself. Crum375 (talk) 03:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The quackwatch article may be the best independent source we can provide (which I think it may actually be). It consists of a 60 word response that are the opinion of an accredited teaching doctor that the condition does not exist. This is not enough to create more than a stub. Wikipedia needs to have enough reliable material to create more than a stub. Please provide more sources, it will be appreciated by those of us who have tried.--ZayZayEM (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, I'm convinced that it's a fringe idea only believed in by cranks and quacks, but there seems to be enough reliable material from organisations dedicated to debunking potentially harmful fringe ideas like this for the subject to pass WP:N. I respect where the nominator is coming from, I just don't agree. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Thank you for appreciating where we are coming from. As active editors have been unable to locate the "reliable material" you speak of. Could you assist in locating it?--ZayZayEM (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still going on keep, and my !vote in the 2nd AFD continues to reflect my opinion on the issue. Yes, WP:FRINGE does apply, but it does explain the hoax in decent detail. It's one of those cases, I think, where WP:IAR very much applies. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, please please please. This will never be a decent encyclopedia article, because the profile of this "disease" is so low that there are few or no good sources. If this article is kept, then I would like to ask the keep !voters to all watchlist the article. It is consistently patrolled by an agenda account, Heelop (talk · contribs), dedicated to promoting this concept, so just maintaining it is kinda painful. More eyes would help, though I still think this fails WP:FRINGE and should be deleted. MastCell ^Talk 04:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Something does not have to actually exist to be notable. it just has to be discussed. I would be extremely surprised if this were in any sense real, but it is still the subject of significant references. I think we have all the more reason to provide decent information about medical nonsense--I'd almost word it as an obligation, considering our prominence. Basically I follow Crum's view very closely. DGG (talk) 06:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia has no obligation to discuss anything.--ZayZayEM (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG, you're a librarian, and you have access to a fantastic level of sources. Can you provide a list of sources that properly describe this subject and which will allow the article to be developed from sources that specifically talk about this concept (instead of from the primary literature about the individual features of the idea, which is what the article primarily seems to do now)? If you can't find sources, then I'm willing to believe that they don't exist. I will wait for your response before making a judgment myself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the present sources sufficient for an article. I do not understand what you mean by speaking about the concept, not the features. scientific articles normally talk about specifics. A history of the delusion of there being mucoid plaques is what you are asking for, but i do not see why it is necessary. Most WP articles are sourced by references discussing specific points. DGG (talk) 15:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So in your opinion, while there is significant coverage of, say, the characteristics of normal mucus membranes, there is no significant coverage of this specific concept in independent, third-party reliable sources? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think. Yes mucoid plaque is a fabrication by unscrupulous quacks, but it appears to be a notable fabrication. And it is also something that people want to know about: [36] for example, refers them to the QuackWatch article. Yes, it can be sourced, albeit that there are not many reliable sources to balance the promotional nonsense. Addendum: I have nothing against a merge to another article, provided we don't lose the sourced fact that mucoid plaque is an invention. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is a concept that really only does rounds on random quack websites and websites that respond to such websites really notable. I have no problem with mucoid plaque being reasonably portrayed on other articles. But there is not enough accessible reliable content to develop even a consensus on hat mucoid plaque "is" to justify an article.--ZayZayEM (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete ASAP pro forma :see my comments on previous AfD's. Having trouble understanding how this is notable when, outside from promotional stories, there is nearly no article on this "phenomenon."Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Oh please, MastCell is spot on. This article will never be reliably sourced, and therefore notability can never be established. Please delete. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 12:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes there are sources. But there are very few good sources, which makes it hard to write a balanced and neutral article. If the article is kept, I ask that those voting "keep" reciprocate by putting the article on their watchlist to help us rein in the ongoing promotion of this hoax. DGG, Guy, others -- will you help us? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fair, and I've watchlisted the article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. This is a very notable fringe subject and reliable sources have criticized it. They can be used. While Wikipedia's primary purpose isn't to debunk weird and false ideas, it often can serve that noble purpose. Wikipedia's main purpose is to document reality as it is presented in V & RS, and part of that reality is the fact that idiots, scammers, fools and jerks spout off their ideas and people get deceived. We document the situation and provide the facts about it. Heelop should be dealt with as an SPA who misuses Wikipedia for advocacy. A topic block might be a good idea. Articles like these need patrolling and guarding as long as Wikipedia doesn't establish a system of stabilising (some form of protection) articles that reach a certain point of being "finished". GA articles need that type of protection. That doesn't mean they can't be edited, but it should be controlled. -- Fyslee (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See comments above. Wikipedia has no obligations to cover any topic. Also please assist in establish notability and RS-coverage by actually locating such sources, rather than insisting they exist.--ZayZayEM (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- If its a hoax, its a notable hoax, and needs to be covered here. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not follow this logic. Are all hoaxes inherently notable? Again, wikipedia has no obligation. Admitting everything just because it is a hoax is letting terrorists win - you are giving attention whores the satisfaction of credibility.--ZayZayEM (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - My point is that the hoax itself has become notable, which is certainly not unheard of. At the risk of sounding like i'm just saying What about X, Piltdown Man is an example of what I mean. It was a hoax perpetrated on the scientific community that became famous AS a hoax, and was therefore notable. I think this is notable in a similar fashion. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please qualify "has become notable". How exactly? ( WP:IKNOWIT, WP:INHERITED ) Being promoted on the internet is not notability. Being called a load of crap by non-notable doctors on the internet is not notability. There has been no featuring in notable sources from either the CAM-side (eg. NCCAM or international equivalents) or critical side. No significant coverage by independent media organisations exists of "mucoid plaque" in any detail outside of the context of greater "purging" "cleansing" practices.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot envisage how a neutral article can be written on this. It is extremely unlikely that any mainstream studies will be conducted and published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Furthermore, by keeping this article, credence would be given by simply having an entry in a respected encyclopaedia. It's not just nonsense, it's dangerous nonsense. Graham Colm ^Talk 19:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, I've added some sources that discuss the real mucus layer in the gut, but couldn't find anything much in good sources that discusses this hypothetical mucus layer. I think it just scrapes into notability by being mentioned so widely in quack publications and fad diet books. In terms of real sources this article places these products in historical context, and this article deals with colonic irrigation. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a very good example of how little coverage this concept gets. A throw away comment in the last section of a non-specific colon-related article. The best this can contribute to the article is "Today, herbal and alternative medicine magazines carry ads for ``cleansing programs that promise to rid the body of toxins that linger in the intestines in a slimy layer of something called ``mucoid plaque." The question to consider is, can a reliable article (not a stub) be developed in this manner. If we are discussing mucoid plaque, mucoid plaque needs to be central to this discussion. See JFW's merge proposal.--ZayZayEM (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd support a Merge to Colon cleansing. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - With some effort I think I've now added enough sources to this article to establish notability. In particular this newspaper article discusses the topic in depth. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. From reading the above, the result will be keep or no consensus, and there's no point dragging this out. Cf WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED; consensus can change but it clearly hasn't.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could I ask the above "keep" please be considered a comment, and not counted, by the closing admin. It contributes nothing to the discussion on why this article should be kept or deleted, other than abiding by consensus. Consensus should be abided by anyway, but by joining a side of a debate insisting that it should win because it is winning, and then contributing to its winning potential for that very reason, is quite clearly preposterous.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree: unless S. Marshall makes it clear that SM supports keeping, and gives a reason, it appears to be only a comment. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. This article just discusses the underlying premise for colonics/colonic irrigation, on which we have articles. JFW | T@lk 20:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, no vote. If you are going to consider this a notable fringe subject, then the WP: Fringe rules apply which says that “Theories should receive attention in Wikipedia in proportion to the level of detail in the sources from which the article is written” and “Criticisms of fringe theories should be reported on relative to the visibility, notability, and reliability of the sources that do the criticizing” and “fringe theory proponents are excellent sources for describing what they believe” and “critiques of [criticism of the fringe theory] can likewise be gleaned from websites and books that are not peer reviewed”. This means that Anderson’s very long and detailed arguments in support of his theory should receive attention and that if there is no criticisms of it available, well, you are out of luck. Tim Vickers, Anderson’s scanning electron microscope sources that discusses this hypothetical mucus layer can be found here. Would you like me to add it to the Wiki article like you did with the other journals you added or should we zealously suppress it? Heelop (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the sources, one is a review from 1978 that hypothesizes that mucus might change in structure during disease, a topic covered in detail in more recent reviews such as the ones I added, and a primary research paper, which can't be used as a sole source in a medical article for a controversial claim that contradicts the better sources on the topic. You really need to read WP:MEDRS. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really Tim? The topic of normal mucins undergoing a pathological transformation into either a viscous gel or an insoluble precipitate (a.k.a. plaque) is covered in detail in the reviews that you added? Your reviews say no such thing, Tim. You really need to read WP:FRINGE which says that this mucoid plaque article is not considered to be a medical article and WP:SYN which says that you cannot synthesis published material to advance a position. Heelop (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reviews I added cover the real changes in intestinal mucus during disease. You are entirely correct that they do not discuss the "precipitate hypothesis", since this is not a real clinical finding and there is no data to support this idea. These reviews also fail to discuss unicorns or the Loch Ness monster, for similar reasons. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because researchers choose to play peek-a-boo by not studying the precipitate aspect of mucus on the intestines does not make it magically not exist. I’m saddened that a PhD would think that a journal article on the mating habits of African dung beetles somehow disproves that African dung beetles don’t feel pain. That 1978 study makes it very conceivable. As a reminder, the WP:SYN rule prevents you from using your reviews to synthesis a critique of Anderson’s theory. Heelop (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to be a dick on this. But I agree with Heelop's interpretations of SYNTH on this. Unless your sources directly discuss a concept of "mucoid plaque", using them in this article, and interpreting them as such, goes into original-research territory. Yes, there are sources on intestinal physiology that deal with mucous secretion and health, but they do not mention a concept "mucoid plaque" - this means interpreting them in context of "mucoid plaque" requires, well interpretation, or going beyond the sources, in order to make it relevant to the article at hand.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The SYNTH part of NOR means that articles that do not mention "mucoid plaque" cannot be used to support or attack this hypothesis, they can however be used to describe what is known about the normal function of mucus in the gut and genuine changes in this mucus during disease. This provides context for the reader and helps them understand the other parts of this article that discuss the hoax. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But what is the relevance of regular mucus-health to mucoid plaque. The language is vague enough that no credible link between natural mucous and mucoid plaque (or toxic bowel settlement etc.) is made. It is claimed to "mucus-like", not mucus, by "some guy" no less. Given that it actual cases might be blood clots and/or synthetic polymer masses, this isn't surprising that it lacks actual connection to reality. This runs the risk of straw-man attacks. No clear concept exists to create a viable critique or even context for critique from non-specific sources. No significant reliable third party discussion of mucoid plaque concepts have been identified, only a mottley throw away sentances from questinable, and semi-questionable sources (ie. websites)--ZayZayEM (talk) 01:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While we are at it, we can add that scanning electon microscope study that Anderson is so fond of to provide “context.” We can tell the audience that a rather thick layer of mucus that impairs absoption and digestion is encountered quite often in certain diseases but pathologists often miss it because they use a light microscope. Tim, you are cherry-picking obscure highly technical research journals to counter Anderson’s theory. This is original research just like a PhD thesis paper is original research. The problem you have is that Anderson’s thesis paper is also original research but not in the wikipedian sense. Heelop (talk) 02:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss content issues at the article talk page, please. This is a deletion discussion. In general, though, this does highlight the problem. Either a) sufficient mainstream sources exist to satisfy WP:FRINGE, in which case the article needs to actually reflect those mainstream sources. Or b) since mainstream sources do not call out "mucoid plaque" by name, the topic does not satisfy WP:FRINGE and should be deleted. MastCell ^Talk 04:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heelop, you hit the problem on the head when you accurately call it "Anderson’s theory". We don't just publish unproven theories here, and certainly not as if they were fact, which Anderson happens to claim and make a killing off of by selling his videos, books, and products. It looks more like a scam. If it's not a scam, then its sheer ignorance. Stop and think about it. The guy's a naturopath! I'd trust my dog for a better medical diagnosis. ;-) His homemade theory based on ignorance and a misinterpretation of what he's observed is only a theory. Somehow all those who know far more than he are somehow wrong, and he only is right.... This theory needs to be treated like what it is, a widespread idea in alternative medicine that has become an enormous industry, and people are buying into it. They need to know that medical science does not buy it at all. It's nonsense. It's a fringe idea and we treat fringe ideas by not giving them credence and by exposing them, AND we don't ignore them. Why? Because it is Wikipedia's job to document what's happening in the world, and (unfortunately) this happens to be a very notable idiotic view in alternative medicine. We would be violating the purpose of Wikipedia to delete this. We need to fix this and if it means blocking you from the article, so be it. You are using Wikipedia for advocacy, which is forbidden. If you were struggling against pushers of fringe POV, in defense of commonly known facts, it would be a different matter, but you are the pusher of a fringe POV, and it's time to stop pushing it. -- Fyslee (talk) 08:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ The actually reliable sources do not treat this in sufficient detail to write an encyclopedic article. There might be enough for a merge to detox in alternative medicine or something. - Eldereft (cont.) 22:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Colon cleansing. The aforementioned lack of detail is resounding enough for us to treat it only sparingly, but I guess this does come up pretty frequently in certain circles. - Eldereft (cont.) 00:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please qualify. Notability has been disputed.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a separate article, or (second choice) as a redirect. There is enough material from “reliable sources” for at least a brief article. And this isn't merely nonsense; it's important nonsense which can be actively harmful, can divert people from proper treatment, and is exchanged for significant amounts of money. —SlamDiego_←T 13:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Deletion is not being asked because this is nonsense. It is not notable nonsense. Wikipedia has no obligations. Please point out reliable sources. Active editors are unable to locate these.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No one claimed that it was nominated for being nonsense, but in saying that it is not notable nonsense, you are at or about the claim that it is merely nonsense, and it isn't. The article already has some “reliable sources”; these are sufficient to maintain at least a brief article. I used the word “brief” advisedly when I originally expressed my view, and I repeat it here advisedly, because it seems very plausible to me that the article does need to be pared-back significantly. —SlamDiego_←T 09:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nonsense is serious business. Take Intelligent design, Expelled, Chiropractor etc. The issue here is plainly notability, not nonsense. I am unsure how one can attempt to enforce a limit on material to include in a topic. Notability is not content, and while this does point to limitations on content material, if you feel up to it, you could offer some suggestions for what to trim/avoid including in the article at Talk:Mucoid plaque]. The current sources are not reliable - this is an issue related to WP:FRINGE that is produced by insufficient coverage by independent secondary sources (which contributes to its notability fail).--ZayZayEM (talk) 13:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I remind you that I originally said “this was this isn't merely nonsense; it's important nonsense”, yet your first reply was as if I'd claimed that the article were being nominated qua nonsense. One limits content by limiting it to that which is supported by reliable sources. Just pare away everything that isn't supported by “reliables sources”. Don't say that don't this would leave nothing; do it (with the principal page or in some workspace), and show participants that nothing is left. —SlamDiego_←T 16:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems to me to be particularly important for Wikipedia to cover alternative medicine topics like this one, essentially as a public service. The topic is clearly notable within the alternative medicine community (as the hundreds of ghits + 74 books in google book search suggest). It is even discussed in health books published by mainstream publishers (e.g. Calborn The Wrinkle Cleanse: 4 Simple Steps to Softer, Younger-Looking Skin Avery 2006, Garner The Feel of Steel Picador 2001, Brantley The Cure: Heal Your Body, Save Your Life J. Wiley & Sons 2007, Grady The New York Times Guide to Alternative Health: A Consumer Reference Times Books 2001). It's important that when somebody has read one of these books, if they try to find out more about this subject they can come here and see what scientific validity there is in the theory. JulesH (talk) 15:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia has no obligations. Given the prolific promulgation typically seen in altmed communitus, ghits in the 100s and <100 book mentions to me seems a fail on notability. Publishing something is very easy.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely fringy, but it seems notable enough. Jim62sch^dissera! 20:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please qualify. Notability has been disputed.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep there are all these easily found mentions in published sources [37][38][39] I loathe it to death of course, but it passes WP:NOTE due to having sufficient mentions in books by well known presses etc. We should have it here so we can debunk it for those people that hear of it. Having an article doesn't mean we endorse, au contraire, we can damn it rightfully and with reliable sources backing us up. Sticky Parkin 01:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is why Google searching is not a reliable way to establish notability. If you follow those sources you will see that they provide little or no useable content. They are mirrors of Anderson's own claims on his websites. These are not reliable secondary sources. At Google news.co.uk - 6 hits are direct copies of the same statement under the heading "A common mistake that prevents most people from losing weight ... and..."[40], one is a letter to the editor[41], one is quite clearly adcopy for a product "So Easy!" [42], one is a Natural News article with a motley of unscientific and unsupported claims www.naturalnews.com/025229.html ^{[unreliable fringe source?]}, remaining is a straight.com article that has been used in the article previously, but provides very little beyond non-expert commentary on the quackwatch article already used and Anderson's own claims [43]. See my above comments. These seemingly large numbers of google hits do not mean anything for a topic of this nature. Notability is a very subjective criteria. When dealing with fringe topics amongst prolifically publishing industries, little over 100 mentions in self-help health books and magazines is not an acceptable level of of notability.
- Oh, and I just noticed. Wikipedia has no obligation to "debunk it for those people that hear of it".--ZayZayEM (talk) 01:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No but we aim to document the sum of all human knowledge, according to Jimbo himself, and that includes sharing scientific/sceptical opinions if ideas are nonsense. It is mentions in over 100 flakey books [44] some of which however are published by well known presses, hence it passes WP:NOTE, i.e. it is something notable enough to include. Sticky Parkin 02:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please look further than Google. Many of these sources at Google books.co.uk are not books. There are magazine articles (which suffer from the dilating of effect of press release mirroring alredy discussed). [45][46]. Other hits appear to respiratory medicine[47], coronary health[48], and dental health (actually quite a few of these, seems its synomous with dental plaque [49]. If you would like me to similarly dissect the web hits (which include any number of anectdotal accounts, web-forum discussions, personal weblogs, blatant advertising and other forms of unreliable sourcing, I will do so on request.--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed in principle but... could you put this on your watchlist please? If more people are watchlisting this crap (ahem) it won't be as frustrating for those of us trying to rein in the promotional stuff. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No probs, has it been a real prob, the article looks good at the mo. I commend you all. Plus there is actually a mouth thing also called mucoid plaque, (maybe just dental plaque?) [50] which accounts for a lot of the hits I think. Sticky Parkin 02:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is informative and sufficiently sourced. It meets all minimal requirements.Biophys (talk) 03:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well written, balanced, well sourced article which meets WP:NOTE benchmark. I see no reason for deletion. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we take a closer look at the General Notability Guidelines at WP:NOTE, there is this "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."

Significant coverage. This asks that "sources address the subject directly in detail ... coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive". Most sources do not describe the subject directly, nor in detail that I would say is more than "trivial".
Reliable. We have avoided WP:RS which asks for "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", in favour of WP:FRINGE, which lowers the bar for sources considerably.
Sources/Independent of the subject. Most of the semi-reliable information found on the interwebs can be traced back to 2-3 sources. Anderson's website and sales material (hardly independent) and two critical web articles from Quackwatch and Straight (not exactly overwhelming).
Satisfying these criteria (which I do not think this article does) is presumptive, but not a guarantee of notability.

I am also aware that NOTE also states: "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate ... deletion should be a last resort." I think this is the main issue that needs to be resolved. In that ellipses lies, "unless active effort has been made to find these sources". And while all the quick google checks yield numerous hits, they fail to yield any actual substantial information that satisfies wikipedia's guidelines on material for inclusion. There's all this background noise, but no signal. --ZayZayEM (talk) 12:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to ZayZayEM Yes, I am very familiar with WP:NOTE. I still believe that the references in the article clearly demonstrate notability. I see there has been extensive discussion on the article's talk page; if there was consensus that these sources were not appropriate, then I am sure they would have been removed by now. You say that most of the information can be traced back to 2-3 sources, but a common origin does not disprove notability; most of the sources on special or general relativity will mention Einstein, most of the sources on evolution will mention Darwin. The key point is that the term has been independently used and the concept has been discussed in multiple sources. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison between Darwin and Anderson is not really fair. The successive expansive multi-journal works available build upon Darwin's works (like where in Darwinism is genetics...) There is no real innovation in having multiple alt-med news websites that have exactly the same press release ad verbatim. I mean as in three sources that deal with the subject directly. Successive incarnations provide no additional information or intrepetation beyond further marketing claims. These sources have been elected to remain by editors involved (which include myself) by following wikipedia's stance on fringe material. Despite working to the best of our ability, we decided it was still pretty shit and not going anywhere because there was no real information out there to carve a reliable objective article. However stripping down content and wildly deleting chunks of an article in order to nominate it for deletion would be considered rather dick/disruptive behaviour. In my mind this is the GNAA[51] of alt med articles. Except much much much worse (I mean GNAA has national media coverage). Article size and presence of a multitude of poor standard references should not trump wikipedia's standards on notability in a deletion debate.--ZayZayEM (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Gandalf61. Notability in the real world is not limited to sources we would choose to cite. For this subject, it happens to exist to a great degree in the fringe world of alternative medicine, and that potentially affects millions of people. We then deal with it as a fringe subject and use two types of sources: (1) self-published sources about the subject (Anderson); and (2) V & RS from mainstream and other non-fringe sources. We should be able to do this with ease and stop the editing and more or less freeze the article by reverting the many "Heelops" out there, who misuse Wikipedia for advocacy and promotion. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But these aren't even sources that have notability in the CAM world. Wikipedia is not the "real world". The notability guidelines clearly ask for coverage in significant sources, independent of the subject that have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, that cover the topic directly and in detail. These have yet to be located. --ZayZayEM (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the sources enric refers to below. The Guardian etc and other well known newspapers. Sticky Parkin 19:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You misspelled Grauniad. HTH. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. I think someone typing in "mucoid plaque" as a search term should find some information, whether it's a whole article or a section of another article. Re notability: there are 13 paragraphs in the article, supported by 15 references, including skeptical sources. That seems enough to me. The fringe guideline allows us to use self-published sources etc. when discussing fringe topics. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But, why...? Why do we have to have somewhere to direct a person to. There has to be line somewhere where we say: Hey, you know, this really isn't encyclopedic content. This is an extension of Wikipedia must cover everything and Keep it cos its useful.--ZayZayEM (talk) 11:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (sorry, MastCell) I was about to vote deleted because many of those sources appearing at google books and scholar are describing dental plaques and other types of plaques, and sources are sometimes self-published stuff[52] (from lulu.com). However, this subject is mentioned and even promoted (!) on the pages of many newspapers: The Guardian [53], New York Times[54], San Francisco Chronicle[55], Sunday Mirror[56], Daily Mail[57]. I think many people will go to wikipedia to find what the hell this is, and that we need to have at least a description here so people won't be mislead about what mucoid plaque really is (an inoffensive stuff caused by the medications that suppossedly cure it) --Enric Naval (talk) 13:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ooh aren't you a gem at finding sources? I didn't look through google news far enough past the "better nutrition" magazines or whatever. That's (depressingly) definitive to me. Happily some of those cites are questioning the idea. Sticky Parkin 18:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enric, no hard feelings (as long as you watchlist the page to help keep it from deteriorating) :) MastCell ^Talk 21:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I'll do that. Nothing as refreshing and educative as editing articles about what feces should look like :D --Enric Naval (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Enric. The NYT and SFGate articles are in fact the same, and discussed earlier. They do not provide more than a sentance on mucoid plaque. Similarly the "self-experience" articles in the Mail and Mirror do not have any real discussion on what mucoid plaque actual is, other than a term sued by dodgy 'health spa'-style advocates. Google books one though, I think is definitely more the sort of stuff we need. It is self-published material though, it can be used sparingly to build article content, but can't be used for establishing notability.--ZayZayEM (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into colon cleansing. While I appreciate the hard work many people have done trying to find sources for this, I'm just not convinced it passes the notability test in its own right (most of the references in reliable sources cover it in passing, as part of an article on a broader topic), and would be better covered as a subsection of a longer article on alternative medicine ideas about the colon. If it is kept, it should probably be renamed to 'mucoid plaque theory' or even 'mucoid plaque hoax' to make it absolutely clear to readers that this is not a real concept. Terraxos (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no objection to the use of 'alleged' and 'they say' in a case like this. The subject has a probability that people will want to look it up. Do you want an article promoting this stuff as fact, or showing that some people believe in it (or maybe promote it?) but that there is great doubt? Doubt is hard to quantify and nail down. This article states the case promoted by the 'believers' and also lists the doubts. Peridon (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article should be altered but not deleted. Mucoid Plaque is a reality, and is rebutted by many professionals in the medical profession. I have personally experienced the benefits of cleansing and seen first hand the results of the elimination of Mucoid Plaque.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JRobyn (talk • contribs) (moved from talk - ZZM) — JRobyn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- We're not here to talk about whether it exists or not, we're here to talk about whether the article is worthy of deletion. If you want to discuss whether it exists, take it to the talk page for the article. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into colon cleansing. There is so much overlap and the name is secondary to the concepts expressed at colon cleansing. Anyone looking for info on mucoid plagues will find everything they need via redirection to the colon cleansing article. ZayZayEM is right in all his comments but policy is just a guide and in this case I think we should have something on the topic, if even just a redirect or subsection in colon cleansing. But a standalone article doesn't seem warranted given the "made up one day" nature of the name, the lack of a precise defintion, the preexisting phenomenon of colon toxicity and cleansing (which Anderson merely slapped a name on, a name rarely repeated in RS), and the lack of coverage in RS about this *particular* phenomenon (as opposed to the larger topic area of colon toxicity). Phil153 (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Gwen Gale (CSD G4). --Malcolmxl5 07:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paris For President (Paris Hilton album)

Rumor and/or hoax, no reliable sources. I can find nothing that says that this is the next album. AnyPerson (talk) 02:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reliable sources yet. Can be recreated if and when they surface. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete': per WP:CRYSTAL. Schuym1 (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete CSD G4 repost of material deleted after discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paris Hilton's Second Album and which does not address the reason why it was deleted. --Malcolmxl5 03:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Speedy Delete As Malcolm said, this is an exact duplicate of an article deleted just a few days ago. TJ Spyke 06:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Gwen Gale CSD G7, the author of the only substantial content blanked the page. --Malcolmxl5 05:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Taki

Non-notable son of a possibly notable businessman. A7 declined, as there are plenty of claims of notability here, but I believe them all to be perhaps a little exaggerated. There are plenty of sources, but they boil down to a listing on IMDB, a listing on "biggeststars.com" that I suspect was written and posted by the subject of this article, and an article in a university newspaper. Google doesn't appear to have heard of him (Google News does have a few hits for an Adam Taki from Japan, who seems to be a different person to this Adam Taki), and I was unable to locate any of the various media appearances that are claimed in the article.

In short, I believe this is is just a vanity page for a young man starting out in business, and while one day he might reach the big time and meet our notability guidelines, I don't believe he does right now. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Simcoe, Ontario. MBisanz ^talk 01:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Street (Simcoe, Ontario)

No sign of any notability AndrewHowse (talk) 01:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very close to a G11 as spam, but better to discuss it. DGG (talk) 06:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm usually kind to streets, but I don't see anything distinctive about this one. No historic value and not an important route. It looks like an add for a development. --Oakshade (talk) 06:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anythign worthwhile to Simcoe, Ontario and then Delete. I do not think we normally need articles on streets, only on very special ones. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this information should also be merged into the Simcoe, Ontario article. However, I difer from Peterkingiron because this article should also be redirected instead of deleted. Articles about individual streets should redirect to the respective town article no matter what. GVnayR (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Simcoe, Ontario. Per my own personally devised policy and experience with minor details in small communities, the first choice should be to merge a landmark into the most local place. We did this for a traffic circle earlier. --Triadian (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

unfortunately, most of the material is a spammy list of businesses, and I don;t see how that is usable anywhere at all. DGG (talk) 03:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just made the article less spammy. Now I hope it's suitable enough to be merged and redirected. After all, Triadian had the right idea about merging a traffic circle into the most local article. GVnayR (talk)

Delete nn street. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — neuro^(talk) 16:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OGame

AfDs for this article:

Article has come up twice for deletion already. There are still no multiple, reliable sources able to establish notability. Delete as per WP:WEB. Peephole (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There's a reliable source and it's failed two AfD's previously.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wikipedia policies require multiple reliable sources. --Peephole (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "No concensus" is not a "failed AfD". Marasmusine (talk) 12:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response--Wikipedia guidelines require multiple reliable sources. And "no consensus" is a de facto "keep" decision.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Google search returns more results for OGame than browser game and browsergame. --Joshua Issac (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I get 427 unique hits for "Ogame", 486 for "browser game" and 532 for "browsergame". Marasmusine (talk) 12:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - How do you find out whether the hits are unique or not? Do you go through every single page? OGame (12,800,000), browser game (7,560,000), browsergame (7,690,000). --Joshua Issac (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Here's another source that is somewhat decent. I'll try and look for some more. SharkD (talk) 01:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've removed the reference to heise.de as it was referencing Wikipedia. The br-online citation appears to be dead. PTD Magazine looks satisfactory. The notability guideline (not policy) suggests multiple significant sources, so at the moment I favour "inclusion in an article on a broader topic" (List of multiplayer browser games or somesuch.) Marasmusine (talk) 12:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see Talk:OGame#heise.de. --Joshua Issac (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- web-archive.org brings it up here. MuZemike 04:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is a well written article, and it provides a lot of information you could not find elsewhere. Also, there are several reliable third-party sources about OGame. -electric Rush | Sign! 18:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per ElectricRush. This is an article with a lot of important and well-written info. It does not deserve to be deleted. Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 21:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but definitely cleanup — there exist, apparently, two reliable sources establishing a minimal degree of notability in SharkD's find and the one found in the previous AFD. Actually, it is not that well-written, and some cleanup is necessary (that is immaterial as to whether or not this should be deleted, however). MuZemike 04:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per MathCool10 and ElectricRush. I would also invoke IAR to combat the web notability guideline, because I think it's a pretty notable strategy browsergame, alongside with Travian. Also, the fact that it placed 3rd in the 2006 Superbrowsergame Award elistabishes some notability, as per the guideline. Nyme (talk) 12:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfied to User talk:Horrorfan80/sandbox (Birthday Bash). I've left the redlinks in the event that userfication is succesful in developing the article. brenneman 04:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Birthday Bash

AfDs for this article:

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. The first AFD is here. Fails WP:NF. Schuym1 (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no significant independent 3rd party notability WP:NF. JamesBurns (talk) 05:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ nothing has changed since the last AfD except for a name change as its release nears. No reason to renominate 7 months later simply because a name has changed, as the arguments toward keep are the same now as then and notability is NOT temporary. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not nominate it because it changed names and I would never do it for that reason. My nomination said I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. The last AFD didn't go by any guidelines so I don't see what you mean by that. I did multiple searches for both names and I came up with nothing that shows notability. Editors are allowed to nominate articles for deletion after several months. Concensus can change. Schuym1 (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The last AFD was withdrawn because of lack of consensus, not to keep. Of the 7 arguments for keep/delete one of the keep arguments held water, the other 4 were:

We kept Snakes on a Plane
Movie actually exists and is verifyable (the comment about Pirates of the Carribean III was unfounded as it would have received substantial coverage long before it was made, thereby passing the general notability guidelines).
please it exist and is verifiable too.
the movie was in post production as of February (the release date is irrelivent if it doesn't pass film guidlines or general notability guidelines).

The one argument that was reasonable references a Fangoria article establishing notability, but it is no longer present. --kelapstick (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent note. Sometimes sources that once were available disappear. The reasonable atrgument supported by that now-gone reference still applies, even though that source can no longer be found. That's why WP:NTEMP is around... to prevent deletions simply because once valid sources are no longer available. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That guideline has nothing to do with one reliable source being missing. Schuym1 (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are both right on this one, the guideline states that the subject does not have to receive "continual coverage" (i.e. there doesn't have to be an article written about it every year, and even if no one remembers the movie 10 years from now it was notable at one time) and doesn't have anything to do with references that are unavailable anymore, however MQS makes a valid point that even though the references is not available online anymore, it was still a valid reference at one point (I am sure that must be a part of some other policy, but it would be nice if someone had a hard copy of the magazine to cite from). My arguement below is still that it probably was never valid to establish notability--kelapstick (talk) 21:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Fangoria article was 2-3 years before the film was actually produced, which means that it was likely (I admit I am speculating here) an interview with Reuben Rox about his "upcoming movie" (which didn't upcome for over 2 years), which would not classify as 3rd party coverage and therefore couldn't have been used to establish notability. It is clear that the article was not reviewing the film (which would have made it pass WP:NF) as it hadn't been made yet. Having said that, I think that it will pass WP:NF in the future and support Mr. Schmidt's proposition to Userfy it as to not lose the content and it can be improved.

Userfy ~~Delete~~ as there is no notability along the notability guidelines for films yet.--kelapstick (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy article to User:Mattdvdtv/sandbox or User:Horrorfan80/sandbox so it may continue to be improved. A difficulty in finding sources is that this film has had several false starts over the 3 years the article has been on Wiki. Originally to be released as Chubby Killer the film met production problems and filming was halted. Production began again with a name change to Birthday Bash and online trailers use some of the originally shot footage from 2006 and 2007. Further, its writer/director has plans to release it to Europe under the name Return of the Chubbby Killer (of course, how could he "return" is he was never released). These three different titles toward the same film make searching for sources difficult at best. However, I was able to find an in-depth interview of the writer/director and used it to source certain information within the article. However, and with regard to the previous AfD, there has been no NEW information made available outside the blogs and fansites. I ask the closing Admin to WP:USERFY this to its major contributor/author so it may continue to be worked on as sources become available and release nears. Allow it a return without prejudice. Thank you, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy I find this the most logical solution. In an 2008 interview Rueben Rox states that production began in the fall of 2005 and that it will finally be released this year (2008). The current status is post production. At this time there are no reliable third party references, it fails WP:NF and Wikipedia is still no crystal ball. Userfying seems the best solution because circumstances may change.—Sandahl (talk) 04:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistics and the Book of Mormon

AfDs for this article:

See discussion immediately below, basically trivial subject matter and lack of scientific verifiability Taivo (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at this article and it seriously has no place in Wikipedia. The subject matter is utterly trivial. First, there can be no serious linguistic discussion of the BOM because the "original text" (was taken back / never existed), therefore any discussion whatsoever must be entirely based on the English version. That is no discussion at all. 90% of LDS "linguistic studies" consist of discussions of chiasmus (which is not uniquely Hebrew) and different types of sentence connectives which may or may not be reflected in the "original language" and may or may not be an artifact of the deliberate use of Early Modern English "King James" style in Smith's finished work. Second, if we take the "Pro-" position that this is a translation, what is it actually a translation of? It would not be a translation of Biblical Hebrew, it would be a translation of Hebrew as it developed and was spoken in isolation 900 YEARS (550 BCE to 350 CE) after it separated from Biblical Hebrew as a language. In other words, it would not be a translation of any language that we know anything at all about. Living languages do not remain stable over 900 years, they continue to develop and evolve, so that "American Hebrew" would be as different from Pre-Exilic Hebrew as Modern English is from late Old English. Try reading Beowulf in the original language and you will see how much language usually changes over the course of 900 years. Therefore, any comparisons between the English text of the Book of Mormon and Pre-Exilic Hebrew style are completely and totally unreasonable and unscientific. Therefore, I would like to suggest that this article be deleted from Wikipedia. The subject matter is just too narrow and there is no serious linguistic underpinning to it. (Taivo (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Delete. Major POV fork. The article reads like an essay that has been popularly photocopied and passed around LDS churches for decades, to bolster the claim that the Book of Mormon is genuine ancient scripture written by prophets. No one outside the LDS religion lends this any credibility whatsoever. Reswobslc (talk) 01:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, POV fork, as cited above. Merge anything useful and neutral back into Book of Mormon, and then redirect this article there. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —J.Mundo (talk) 04:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not sure I entirely understand what's going on here, but to me the nomination above sounds like it's saying "these reliable sources are wrong, so we should delete an article discussing their conclusions". But, from a brief read of the article it appears that the arguments both for and against those conclusions are presented, with references to reliable sources on both sides. Therefore I don't understand why this would be considered a POV-fork. These seem to be notable viewpoints which should be discussed, and as long as the coverage is balanced between both sides of the argument I see no problem here. JulesH (talk) 10:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- RE: Comment. That's not the entire issue. There just isn't any such thing as a truly reliable source in this issue. The whole article hinges on assuming that the BOM is a translation from some language about which we know nothing other than it was (perhaps) a descendant of Pre-Exilic Hebrew 900 years later. If we had an Arabic translation from Aristotle, we could discuss the underlying language because we know that language and have other texts in that language. We could discuss the features of that text based on Greek because we know the Greek that Aristotle spoke and we could prove that it was a translation because we could compare Greek with the Arabic text. We cannot do this with the BOM text because we have no idea what the "original language" was (assuming it was a translation). The issue is also a classic WP:Fringe position--only LDS scholars are interested in the issue and even they are divided on how much importance to place upon "linguistic" studies of the BOM. Non-LDS scholars just aren't interested in a topic with no scientific basis and don't spend time publishing on the topic. Thus, a bibliography of the topic includes many LDS references and virtually no non-LDS references. (Note that this comment has nothing to do with the BOM's value as a book of faith.) We don't have articles here on other non-linguistic "linguistics" such as "Hebrew as Adam's language" or "All languages spring from Sanskrit", even though there are surely many publications by partisans espousing these POVs "scientifically". (Taivo (talk) 11:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Keep The article has problems that require intensive copy editing. However, it is a serious subject that many theologians continue to debate. I don't see a problem in having it remain as a standalone article, as long as someone familiar with the subject is willing to rewrite it. Pastor Theo (talk) 14:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We can't reject all articles that don't have a "truly reliable" source, as the his would essentially eliminate most articles on the origins of the various religions, where a great deal rests on the disputes over the authenticity of the founding documents. We would lose most of our political content too, as there is no absolutely sure conclusion for great many of the questions. We do not mean by RS a source whose conclusions are known with certainty--most religious people would argue that such certainty is a matter of faith at least s much as ordinary knowledge. We mean in these contexts by RS a source that give an accepted presentation of its viewpoint. Saying "truly reliable" makes it a matter of truth, whereas we only want verifiability. It is--fortunately--not our job to determine the truth of religious doctrines, or of anything else. The article's quite evident bias can be fixed, and the material presented. It is not necessary to make a judgment on which side is right; all that is needed for clarity is to give the Mormon or non-Mormon affiliations of the authors discussed. DGG (talk) 17:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm confused as to how an article that prominently referencs the Tanners can be considered a pro-LDS POV fork. Looks like there are plenty of RS to me. Jclemens (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article could make it clearer that this is an academic argument within a religious context, the study of the language used in the Book of Mormon is notable. Are we going to go delete all theology articles now? Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The wp:Lede should be cleaned up to spell out concisely and clearly what the article is about. WP:Fringe concerns are also clean-up issues and not really an AfD concern. I would ask for guidance on the fringe board if there is some ownership or seemingly insurmountable POV concerns. This does seem to be a notable subject as well as one for which reliable sources are available. -- Banjeboi 09:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The argument here is a well sourced article based on incorrect sources should get deleted. Once an article is well sourced it is notable. Deletion is a not a solution to minor NPOV issues. jbolden1517 ^Talk 18:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the problem is that the article is not well-sourced. Nearly all of the sources would fail WP:RS if that criterion were applied exhaustively. (Taivo (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

It seems to me that most of the sources are acceptable for the purpose they're being used for. There's a couple of self-published sources where I'm dubious of the expertise of the author, but mostly they seem good to me. Large chunks of it are sourced to books published by university presses of well-known universities. I'd suggest you start by removing the content supported by sources that aren't reliable, rather than the entire article. JulesH (talk) 08:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW Tone 19:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dannny Douberly

Obvious hoax. There were no Tennessee Titans in 1987. No ghits (even for correct spellings). No refs. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 00:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I suspect WP:BOLLOCKS applies here, and even if it doesn't, WP:N will kill it.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--CyberGhostface (talk) 02:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a blatant hoax. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per my original prod nomination. -- role^player 14:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of reliable sources establishing notability and verifying facts. (I suspect the nominator is correct regarding it being a hoax.) Wiw8 (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX. --Artene50 (talk) 03:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1 (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States Presidential pets

00:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC) User:Ragib placed a {Notability} tag on this article, and provided an explanation on its talk page for his/her believed absence of notability. That included:

Except for a few of the pets, none of the others are notable. Even those which are famous (say Checkers), they are only "notable" in reference to the biographies of their owners. There are probably some squirrels living around WhiteHouse, will they be notable as well? Also, there are thousands of people working as WH staff, will that automatically make them notable? Or a first daughters kindergarten teacher? --Ragib (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify that I have nominated this article, even though I support keeping it. The Nobility tag by itself does not seem well suited to attracting discussion of the actual notability of the article. Attracting more editors here on AfD allows a diversity of opinions to emerge. LotLE×talk 00:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. The nominator doesn't feel it lacks notability, and the editor raising the issue wasn't calling for deletion, so I think this is WP:SK#1. At any rate, this is a fairly blatantly notable topic. Presidential pets have always been the subject of much media coverage (since at least Teddy Roosevelt) and though some attack this as "frivolous" or "fluff" that's actually a fairly ignorant critique. The First Family are cultural trendsetters in the United States--this applies from the first ladies' dresses in the world of fashion to the first families' pets in the world of, well, pets. It is encyclopedic. It is the subject of not just numerous but nearly innumerable independent and reliable sources. It is part of American history. It is part of American culture. It is fundamentally encyclopedic. If not Speedy Keep then Strong Keep. There is no real question. --JayHenry (talk) 00:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My opinion is that this list is indeed notable. It's a bit of a frivolous thing to get the amount of media coverage that it has, but presidential pets have been a perennial favorite of "human interest" article writers for 100 years. Not all of the pets have their own articles, but a fair number do; the others also got at least a notable amount of press coverage, and seeing a comparison of the various pets is worth putting in one place. It's not an earth-shaking topic, but then, neither are most articles on WP. This one seems a bit more worthwhile than, e.g. "List of all the fictional characters on Some TV Series" (which we have lots of). LotLE×talk 00:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. Otherwise we wouldn't have articles for most of these pets. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 01:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Smiling Man

Short, low-budget, Internet-distributed film that doesn't seem to come near satisfying Wikipedia:Notability (films). The main claims for notability are its selection for a local film festival and a mention of the film in a review of something else. --Dynaflow babble 00:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added four more external references to The Smiling Man, including an hour long interview with the film makers on the Bay Area Filmmakers Podcast, and two mentions on a national blog, VH1 Game Break. I am the primary author of the article and would really like to see it stick. Astrobeej (talk) 02:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources are provided. None of those listed meets the requirement. AnyPerson (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep... but perhaps it might better serve to have an article about filmmaker B.J. West and include all his films. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant independent 3rd party notability. JamesBurns (talk) 01:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kane's Hedge

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kane's Hedge

No sources. I couldn't find anything meaningful. Possibly hoax. SilkTork *^YES! 00:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hoaxalicious. A female co-author for LotR? Say what? Plus the fact that the two 'sources' are Wikipedia pages, one of which is simply Hedge. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as complete bollocks. A female co-author for LotR would be a potentially interesting idea, but this article suggests she lived in the 1700's. Game over: it's nonsense.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kuroko no Basket

No assertion of notability. Google search is not turning up any reliable sources. Author also appears to be non-notable. Contested prod. Farix (Talk) 04:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BK and WP:N. Fairly new series that just started last month, not even a single volume released yet. No significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just started, no buzz yet that I can find, not (yet) notable. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you'r going to delete these pages then I suggest you do the same for every single useless page thats been on wikipedia Meister and the other new shonen jump series will eventually get enough to do one volume or enough for you people to actually leave it; as well as the other pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.50.3 (talk) 16:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point out that other bad articles exists is not a valid reason to keep a bad article. Nor is it required to go after them all at once. --Farix (Talk) 18:09, 19 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, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Weekly Shōnen Jump reason, once again. Dream Focus (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, appearing in WSJ does not give it any notability what so ever. It was published. And? That isn't notability, nor does a single solitary guideline support that claim at all. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not yet notable, doesn't seem to have much traction. Doceirias (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Diamond Way Buddhism. MBisanz ^talk 01:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Nydahl

Reasons for deletion

Notability?
No sources
Not NPOV, reads like an obituary and news release.
Seems more about promoting Ole Nydahl and his Diamond Way group than about the person herself.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Robinson Scott (talk • contribs) 2009/01/18 22:11:11

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will improve the article, including sources. Know that the person nominating this page has been blocked for Sock Puppetry. Because of the edits of these user I have been reluctant to edits this page, as edits on the related pages Ole Nydahl and Diamond Way Buddhism did evolve into an edit war. Siru108 (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siru108 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article: No reason for deletion. Sources are now added. I think it is NPOV, she really was deeply respected, even by those who criticised her husband Ole Nydahl. Siru108 (talk) 16:50, 21 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, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Diamond Way Buddhism. Relation to notable people does not establish notability. twirligig^{Leave one! ⋄ Check me out!} 02:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I fail to see the lack of notability. Two books, several official letters from leaders of a religious organisation and a newspaper article? Ok, the books are autobiographies of her husband, but her role is specifically mentionend. She is also specifically mentioned in Eric D. Currens Buddha's not smiling, and Tomek Lehnert's Rouges in Robes. Articles and interviews are also available, as well as appearance in movies like Buddhism in the Modern World See trailer on YouTube (Despite not appearing in the trailer), and Recalling a Buddha by Tendrel Films (clip on YouTube). Mentioned also by Journal of Global Buddhism, Article by Jørn Borup, Department of Study of Religion at University of Aarhus, Denmark. 2008, based on research from 2005: About Buddhism in Denmark: “The most lasting influence on the Buddhist practice scene in Denmark was triggered by Ole and Hannah Nydahl, backpacking in the spiritual East during their honeymoon to Nepal in 1968.“ The article is a stub and may be needs expansion, surely this is no reason for deletion. Siru108 (talk) 09:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge: This article lacks third party sources and is very one-sided. The majority of the sources are from the following:
Ole Nydahl's books
Tomek Lehnert's book - he is a close disciple of Ole Nydahl
Erik D. Curren's book - he is also a close disciple of Ole Nydahl
Ole Nydahl's website.

Showtime At The Gallow (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you could merge it into a new Teachers section on Diamond Way Buddhism page. Or Keep. I'll just point out that the person who was blocked, and who nominated this article, repeatedly have created new accounts to support the claims of former accounts. When deciding, therefore be very careful that this is not just another Sock Puppet who think deletion is best. Erik D. Curren is not and never was a student of Ole Nydahl, and official letters from high Rinpoches does not disqualify just because they are publicly available on Ole Nydahls personal website. This is just the written proof of what they all say about the subject. Siru108 (talk) 09:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article was nominated by sockpuppet and wikispammer (we deleted his article about Shamota Tala on pl.wikipedia also). Now article is sourced, person is - in my opinion - notable. She was wery important translator of buddhist texts, sometimes called "female lama". -- Tadeusz Dudkowski (talk) 21:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Dorico Alonzo Tyree

Artist is non notable. Hasn't commercially released one song or any albums; has not charted, and has made no notable contribution to the music industry. There is almost zero coverage of the artist in independent sources, except those replicated from Wikipedia. Text in the body of the article is original research. Orane (talk) 02:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no independent 3rd party notability. Google is turning up mostly blog posts and wikipedia mirrors. JamesBurns (talk) 02:25, 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, — Aitias // discussion 00:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked Google News archives, and searched a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, but found no sources that would help to establish WP:N notability. I looked for clues on his MySpace blog but nothing there hints at any third-party coverage either. Delete. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 02:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eila Kaarresalo-Kasari

It is not clear whether the subject of this page is sufficiently notable to require an encylopaedia entry. To an external observer, these accomplishments may not be sufficiently remarkable, from the perspective of a global encylopaedic project, to require a Wikipedia entry.

Of course it may well be the case that the subject of this page is already a highly-established and internationally renown figure. In this case, the page may be more authoritative if it is re-written in a more restrained tone and without use of excessive personal opinion.Astral highway (talk) 14:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC) Text copied from article talk page. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a reasonably good buy 19:40, 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, MBisanz ^talk 03:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--promotional article; not a single source is provided, and I couldn't find any either (not for the person, not for the book). Drmies (talk) 05:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:V. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Autism Treatment Trust

I am fairly borderline on this nomination since there are a number of blog mentions and the organization's founder (not that Bill Welsh) gets quoted in the news occasionally. Still, I have not found coverage in reliable sources of the organization itself that is not trivial, self-published, or both. Links to homesite; Google News search. - Eldereft (cont.) 16:17, 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, MBisanz ^talk 03:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you hit the "All Dates" link for Google, you will find more coverage: [58]. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, wrong link - updated above, thank you for pointing this out. - Eldereft (cont.) 03:35, 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, — Aitias // discussion 00:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 08:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I searched the Google "all dates" link. Almost all the items were not about the Autism Treatment Trust; they were letters from Bill Welsh or quotes from Lorene Amet. The only article I found about the trust itself was this one which contained fewer than 300 words about the trust and their clinic; that's not enough to establish notability. Eubulides (talk) 23:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HLstatsX

Delete. WP:SPAM, WP:N. THF (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. Well, looking through the policies, I suppose it should be deleted. However, It's not spam nor written as an advert. Indochinetn (talk) 18:16, 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, MBisanz ^talk 03:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:52, 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, — Aitias // discussion 00:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources to support notability. twirligig^{Leave one! ⋄ Check me out!} 02:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - this is definitely not spam, and a brief google search suggests that this might actually be close to notability. However I'm not sure how you establish notability for a software add-on like this. Without any independent reliable sources asserting notability, I don't think we can do much with this, sadly, hence my !vote. No prejudice against recreation if this gets ever discussed in reliable sources. Wiw8 (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This add-on's notability should be obvious to anyone who has ever played a source engine game. The majority of popular Counter Strike: Source, Team Fortress 2, etc servers employ it. The most major gameserver salesplaces include it with a server or provide it for their users. Find sources for this by searching Google for "buy Team Fortress 2 server" or the like. My two cents! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.175.132.243 (talk) 03:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inumaru Dashi

No assertion of notability. Google search is not turning up any reliable sources. Author also appears to be non-notable. Contested prod. Farix (Talk) 04:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BK and WP:N. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the general and specific notability guidelines. Themfromspace (talk) 08:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being in a major publication makes it notable. Weekly Shōnen Jump counts. The article is fine for a stub. Dream Focus (talk) 14:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being published in a manga anthology, along with several dozen other series, is not a bases for notability. That's akin to declaring all manga notable. --Farix (Talk) 14:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While being a stub is not a crime, failing to even assert (let alone demonstrate) notability is. Even aside from that, I'm not finding anything that indicates this passes WP:BK. Delete —Quasirandom (talk) 14:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not yet notable. Doceirias (talk) 21:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meister (manga)

No assertion of notability. Google search is not turning up any reliable sources. Author also appears to be non-notable. Contested prod. Farix (Talk) 04:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Weekly Shōnen Jump publishes it, so plenty of people see it. That makes it notable. Dream Focus (talk) 04:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnotable series that only recently even started running. No significant coverage in reliable sources, unnotable author, and obviously unlicensed and unadapted. Completely fails WP:BK and WP:N. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the general and specific notability guidelines. Themfromspace (talk) 08:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just started, no real buzz yet, not finding sources to indicate notability = delete —Quasirandom (talk) 14:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you'r going to delete these pages then I suggest you do the same for every single useless page thats been on wikipedia Meister and the other new shonen jump series will eventually get enough to do one volume or enough for you people to actually leave it; as well as the other pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.50.3 (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point out that other bad articles exists is not a valid reason to keep a bad article. --Farix (Talk) 18:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point out that WP:OTHERSTUFF is an essay, not policy, so please do not wave it in front of newbies as if it were to cow them. 64.80.89.15 (talk) 03:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Estemi (talk) 03:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- But the essay is relevant to notability guidelines and how concensus is determined. Schuym1 (talk) 03:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BK. Schuym1 (talk) 01:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not yet notable. No prejudice against recreation should it prove successfully, but too soon to tell. Doceirias (talk) 21:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's an ongoing series, and it's too early to tell if this article's notable or not. KokoroTechnix (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John S. (Sterling) Lucas (comics)

Doesn't meet WP:CREATIVE. Self-promotional. Very few Google hits. No refs. Graymornings_(talk) 04:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

internal links added to article - references coming - maybe resubmit entire and re-edited version later? - 70.227.176.165 (talk) 14:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colstu520 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:CREATIVE. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 08:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 08:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as self-promotional. However, subject seems to meet notability, and an actual article on this topic (preferably with a more appropriate title) would not be a G4. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ben Nelson. MBisanz ^talk 01:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benator

Single serving nicknames - nothing worth having a disambiguation page over. bd2412 T 04:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge info in, and delete disamb page - The odds someone searches for these nicknames is low, but the sources appear legit and the information's worth a sentence in each article. LH (talk) 10:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 08:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ben Nelson. No mention of "Benator" on Ben Affleck. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as JHunterJ suggests - anyone searching for this name is most likely to be lookiing for references to Ben Nelson. pablo :_{: ... hablo ...} 23:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bari Haken

No assertion of notability. Google search under the Kanji title is not turning up any reliable sources. Author also appears to be non-notable. Prod contested using an WP:OSE rational relating to Star Trek and Buffy episodes. Farix (Talk) 05:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BK and WP:N. Unnotable two volume manga with no significant coverage in reliable sources. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to author's page...oh, there isn't one. The author is notable - he did Mr. Fullswing, which was a successful series. Creation of an author's page seems reasonable, and would allow coverage of his less successful follow up. Doceirias (talk) 05:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An author's article does seem to be in order for the creator Mr. Fullswing as well as some other less notable works, of which this is one. (Claims that because there isn't an article, he must not be notable will be met with derision, given our huge gaping holes in mangaka coverage. Hell, we don't even have stubs for half the Year 24 Group.) Merge to Shinya Suzuki and then convert it to an author's article stub. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there any specific reason for all these random manga series nominations? Is their existence destroying the website's servers from the inside out or something that I'm not getting? - Norse Am Legend (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment wreaks of bad faith. --Farix (Talk) 22:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A nice dodge - now what's your answer? 76.116.247.15 (talk) 01:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Norse Am Legend : Tell that story to those who decided that every single failed serialization deserved one wikipedia article or the publisher who wanted its catalog on wikipedia regardless rules & guidelines --KrebMarkt 22:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is featured in Weekly Shōnen Jump. That many readers makes it notable. Having a regular column/series in a major newspaper or magazine, makes something notable. Dream Focus (talk) 00:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just plain wrong. Being in WSJ, a magazine with some 15+ series does NOT make it notable at all, period. Not a single guideline states this anywhere. Nor can you claim it has "many readers" as you have no idea at all how many people actually read it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being published in WSJ is not in itself a marker of being notable, and arguments that it does has been shown by other AfDs this week to not hold water, at least around here. Ya gotta have something more to show us than that. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You should really stop claiming that everything that appears in WSJ is notable, that's just not right. How do you justify this position? I don't see anything that would lead someone to believe this is a valid interpretation of existing policy. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CLC bio

AfDs for this article:

CLC Bio does not fulfill Wikipedia's notability policy for companies. It is not a listed company; searching in Google news turns up a single (non-press release) reference (as of 19 January 2009). The article itself is pure advertising, telling us nothing useful about the company itself, instead noting how many users they have and how portable and fast the products are, without any attempt to provide precise encyclopedic detail. While I wish them well, Wikipedia is not an appropriate platform for corporate promotion, and hence the article should be deleted. Daen (talk) 06:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Third party sources here, here. The work they have done is evidently good enough that it is used by the Beijing Genomics Institute, Venter Institute, the University of Copenhagen and involves collaborations with minor companies such as microsoft. Ironholds (talk) 08:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The first "third party source" you link to is explicitly (look at the bottom) sourced to the company's VP. The second is in fact a press release. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough, this brings up whether an org with significant enough clout to get its press releases published in BusinessWire is notable; I'd say yes. Ironholds (talk) 06:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - In fact, other than the Medicon Valley article, all Ironholds' links are CLC bio sourced press releases. Press releases are specifically mentioned in Wikipedia's notability policy as not constituting a secondary source, and hence not counting as notable coverage. Issuing them is typically done by the company's PR manager or agency, and is absolutely no indication of anything worthwhile (come on, we have all read so many press releases which are simply hot air) Daen (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The use of citations here takes judgment, as it is the practice to specify the suppliers of every non-trivial material used. But the information here from other sources is significant. A key factor in notability is market share, so the number of people using a product is a very important factor. DGG (talk) 22:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That they have customers is not the issue here. Wikipedia policy states that "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources." As has been amply demonstrated by Ironholds, there is way too little non-CLC bio sourced material to make this a credible company for a Wikipedia entry. This company should not be allowed to be unfairly boosted into notability on Wikipedia when much more important and notable Danish pharmaceutical and biotech companies such as Neurosearch, LEO Pharma, Bavarian Nordic, Santaris and Symphogen (to name but a few) have no entries. Daen (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pointer; just as other stuff exists is not a valid argument, neither is other stuff does not exist. To be blunt if you have a problem with Wikipedia not having articles on some topics, stop moaning and write them. 'Request a new page' is a function, not a directive. Ironholds (talk) 18:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for pointing out the blindingly obvious. Can you please stick to the discussion in hand? Daen (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  I am; part of your argument was 'This company should not be allowed to be unfairly boosted into notability on Wikipedia when much more important and notable Danish pharmaceutical and biotech companies such as Neurosearch, LEO Pharma, Bavarian Nordic, Santaris and Symphogen (to name but a few) have no entries'. My comment was in response to that. Ironholds (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As Daen probably noticed, the one reference he links to in his nomination is not even about this company. With zero independent sources about this company, the content of this article can never be more than a reflection of what the company says about itself, and therefore the article can never be NPOV-compliant. So the page and its history should be hidden from view using the "delete" function until suitable sources emerge. As for Ironholds and DGG's arguments--I don't see why the quality of the company's work, its collaborators, or its market share have anything to do with whether the page should be kept. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 01:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What makes something notable is importance in its area. For a business, the importance in the area can be presumed to belong to the leading companies, which is business terms is the companies that do most of the business. That's why market share is an objective iindicator. Other companies can be notable also, if there is reliable specific coverage of something positive or negative. DGG (talk) 03:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, notability, as defined by Wikipedia's own policies, not by DGG or Ironholds, is nothing to do with market share and everything to do with reliable and independent secondary references of which next to none exist for this company. CLC bio issues many press releases, as do many other companies. As a bioinformatics company, I don't care how many customers they claim to have: until they start to show up in the likes of Nature or the Financial Times, they are not eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia. Interestingly, googling for references to the unstarted Danish biotech and pharma company articles I mention above on the nature.com ___domain vs CLC bio (omitting blog entries for higher quality hits) produces the following results:

Neurosearch 73

LEO Pharma 59

Santaris 53

Bavarian Nordic 52

Symphogen 32

CLC bio 6

The same search against the FT yields the following:

LEO Pharma 1050

Neurosearch 113

Bavarian Nordic 102

Santaris 4

Symphogen 4

CLC bio 1

I also searched for CLC bio in the Oxford Journal of Bioinformatics, the Association for Computing Machinery website and the ACS Journal of Chemical Information and Modelling and found nothing.

Santaris and Symphogen look weak using the FT test, but secondary source support for these companies can be found elsewhere. Meanwhile, the case for including CLC bio in Wikipedia is, in my view, still unsupported by any evidence.

To be fair, a couple of the hits for CLC bio against the Nature journals are for a short review article on metagenomics in Nature (the rest are in general 'methods' and 'about the author' paper/article metadata) but still only comprise a single sentence describing the Workbench and a reference in a table of suppliers. I once again contend that one sentence in one short article in one high-impact journal absolutely does not constitute notability. Daen (talk) 13:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- DGG, conceding for the sake of argument that the company is indeed important, it nonetheless appears from Daen's search for sources that the article itself cannot be brought into line with NPOV, Wikipedia's fundamental content policy. One of the problems that I see with the idea that notability=importance, which you seem to be advancing, is that we get articles like these: 160.39.213.152 (talk) 14:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no NPOV problems, and I hope for many more articles on companies like these. DGG (talk) 14:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you persist in believing that this company should be included in Wikipedia, in spite of the unambiguous and extensive Wikipedia notability policy and a significant amount of objective evidence that I have provided demonstrating an almost complete lack of notability, in Wikipedia policy terms? Daen (talk) 16:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV doesn't just mean neutral tone, it means presenting all significant views on a subject. Here, there is only one significant view--the one presented by the company itself. So the POV problem is that the article is totally sourced to the company's website and/or press releases. On your view of NPOV, NPOV would seem not to bar a Wikipedia article about, say, me, if it is totally sourced to my autobiography, as long as the tone is neutral. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 08:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cody (TDI character)

tons of false info, such as death, not much that can be made into an article, not really a major show, etc. Jeremie Belpois (talk) 05:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable character. JamesBurns (talk) 01:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to Total Drama Island. There is no death mentioned in the article.Schuym1 (talk) 02:35, 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, — Aitias // discussion 00:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of characters from the Total Drama Series - BTW, "death" was mentioned in the Infobox when I first looked - but then it was removed [59] --DaveG12345 (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 08:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no redirect as the current name is an unlikely search term. Non-notable with no supporting sources, and add a heaping of original reasearch (yes, I know that alone is not a reason for deletion). Yngvarr (t) (c) 11:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Already a decent amount of fan fappery over at the Wikia wiki and even there it doesn't seem like the character is notable enough for us to justify an article. Burn it with wicked cruel insults. treelo _radda 13:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now Dance 2007 (Portuguese series)

Irrelevant hits album. Damiens.rf 15:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: article fails to establish why it is notable. JamesBurns (talk) 01:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. twirligig^{Leave one! ⋄ Check me out!} 02:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This particular album is obviously part of the international Now! series, which doesn't establish notability in itself for this album, but which does differentiate it from Now That's What My Buddy Calls Music. :) Also, after a bit of digging around, I notice (assuming "Associação Fonográfica Portuguesa" means what I think it means, writing as a pure monolingual here), that this particular album seems to have made #8 in the Portuguese "compilation charts"(?) - which seems to indicate that the album has national chart-wise notability of some sort at least. I'd obviously like someone to verify my (100% amateur and babelfish-based!) translation/cultural work - my source link is here [60]. And I personally suspect there are better ones too. But, since I can't be certain, my Keep stays Weak right now. --DaveG12345 (talk) 21:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If there aren't any English-language sources I believe it belongs on the Portuguese Wiki rather than the English one. twirligig^{Leave one! ⋄ Check me out!} 03:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair point. BTW, I also note there are a lot of related articles of a similar format (i.e., containing a basic description and track listing) (see the blue-links in this list). Same applies to some other countries in the list too. Primary function of all these articles may be to provide input to the "album chronology" section of the Infoboxes?--DaveG12345 (talk) 12:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Aervanath (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the Precious Star

Article has very little content or context; a Google search reveals little information about the Order. Further, the entirety of its contents are unsourced. Positronic (talk) 16:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No ghits that don't appear to have taken their content from this article. No books in google books. No scholarly articles in google scholar. JulesH (talk) 16:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, I'm finding no evidence that the "order of the whatever" pattern for naming awards was used in China, or in fact any other part of the far east, during this period. I think this is almost certainly a hoax, and if so, is well-deserving of a mention on User:Shii/Hoaxes. JulesH (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've added the hoax template to the page. Positronic (talk) 16:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep it's not true that it hasn't been mentioned in WP:RS- a normal google search cannot be relied upon as it's only what people on internets want to write about. See the 70 hits in published books [61], including at least two encyclopedias. At lest some are for this award, I'm going out now, but here's one [62] Sticky Parkin 19:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't don't know how JulesH managed to miss those Google Books hits. It's a pity that Google only displays snippets in most cases, but there seems to be substantial coverage here, which indicates that this was later known as the Order of the Imperial Dragon, and this book has the order name as a section heading, so it would appear to amount to substantial coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 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, — Aitias // discussion 00:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Sticky Parkin and Phil Bridger. Sufficient RS's at gbooks, clearly not a hoax.John Z (talk) 00:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While the order exists, the article does not (as yet) have any reliable sources nor any evidence that this award is notable. — ERcheck (talk) 00:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It obviously IS notable, so whether it is currently verified as such in the article is immaterial. Just because an article is unencyclopedically written does not mean it should be deleted.Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 14:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Delete: unless it gets some expansion and references added, it fails the minimum criteria to be kept as an encyclopedic article. Maybe is has some notability, but the article must assert that notability. Should it be deleted, it would hardly be a big loss: it's only a single sentance and stub template. bahamut0013^words _deeds 16:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:N, WP:V. I've added some detail and references. There are many more sources available, including sources that discuss historical individuals who were decorated with the award. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Shiva (Judaism). Aervanath (talk) 17:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shiva Etiquette

Delete Wikipedia is not a HOWTO guide Mayalld (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikihow. Doesn't belong here. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 17:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that this is not possible due to incompatible licensing (wikiHow content is licensed cc-by-nc-sa). the wub "?!" 00:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A how to guide. Schuym1 (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, an There's material here which could be suitably rewritten and put in the min article. DGG (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge sourced material and redirect to Shiva (Judaism).--brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge to main article on Shiva (Judaism). JoshuaZ (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to article on Shiva (Judaism). Pastor Theo (talk) 00:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge (I guess merge means keep in this case)Warrington (talk) 11:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Shiva (Judaism). I don't think a redirect is necessary as no other articles link to this one. twirligig^{Leave one! ⋄ Check me out!} 02:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Shiva (Judaism). The contributor seems to have just not been familar with the over-all Wikipedia lay out of these kinds of Judaic topics and how they are dealt with. IZAK (talk) 10:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How-to guide. If anything bears merging with as proposed above, perhaps it may be sourced? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Aervanath (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lonnie Chisenhall

Not even close to notable. Highest level of "professional" play is short-level A, which is not a real professional level as one cannot make a career out of playing at such a low minor league level. Ergo, fails WP:N and WP:V. Wizardman 18:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. minor league players are not notable; also this article could face future WP:BLP concerns, although said negative material is not yet in the article. Better to nip it in the bud. Baileypalblue (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - did you seriously just suggest that an article should be deleted because someone might add something negative to it at some point? matt91486 (talk) 15:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Chisenhall is notable simply because he was drafted in the first round of the 2008 Major League Baseball Draft. If you direct your attention here -> 2008_MLB_Draft#First_Round_Selections, you will find that of the 30 first round picks, 50% of them have wikipedia articles. Why is Chisenhall singled out? Bat ears (talk) 20:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of them aren't notable. I'm not going to overload AfD with a bunch at once though. Being drafted in the first round is not auto-notable in baseball. Besides, as you said in a sepearate AfD, "Once Reid Santos is a MLB player, only then should there be a Reid Santos article." Same idea here. Wizardman 20:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn minor league player. Secret ^account 16:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources; doesn't meet notability criteria. BRMo (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Aervanath (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of abbreviations in the CIA World Factbook

Wikipedia is WP:NOT a WP:DIRECTORY, or WP:NOTMANUAL of another organization's abbreviations. Most on the list are simply copied from [63] . Reywas92 ^Talk 18:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - the page is pointless for an encyclopedia. Delete (or perhaps remove everything but the redlinks and move to somebody's user/project space as a list of potential encyclopedic articles). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--that is one long list, and reads like a directory. Drmies (talk) 19:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Know why the authors of the CIA World Factbook put this list online? So nobody else would have to. Mandsford (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Question Maybe a silly question, but if this is what's available online, I'm not seeing a list of abbreviations easily accessible. I'm asking, because accessibility to such a list might be useful for those interested in CIA terminology (in which abbreviations, or, probably more accurately, acronyms, figure prominently). J L G 4 1 0 4 23:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, didn't see the link above, to the appendix, which features the acronyms/abbreviations. J L G 4 1 0 4 23:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Selectively merge the list contents into List of acronyms and initialisms, then delete the page. A document-specific list of abbreviations belongs in the document, not in an encyclopedia. However, the abbreviations, acronyms, and initialisms may themselves be worthy of doucmentation here. Most of the acronyms and initialisms appearing on this list are already on the suggested merge target list, but some of the entries might be useful additions to add to the larger list of acronyms and initialisms. --Orlady (talk) 20:13, 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, — Aitias // discussion 00:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not the CIA Factbook's appendix. -Atmoz (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Aervanath (talk) 17:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amaris

Delete another unsourced one-liner with nothing to indicate that this name is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as dicdef. Baileypalblue (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: I updated the article and included name variations. If you would like, I can rewrite the article. WM-86 17:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this belongs on Wiktionary. AnyPerson (talk) 03:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ayesha (name). –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aeysha

Delete contested prod. NN name. Prod remover stated that notability not an issue that the article is here for informational purposes. Well, WP:N applies otherwise, we could be the phone company and publish phone numbers for informational purposes. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:47, 19 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, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to keep articles on names, so I'm not sure why this one out of the many we have should be deleted. However, it is probably best merged with Ayesha (name) as whatever difference there may be in the names can easily be described within the article. SilkTork *^YES! 00:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per SilkTork. twirligig^{Leave one! ⋄ Check me out!} 02:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per SilkTork and Twirligig above. --Lost tiree, lost dutch :O (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Michael Crafter#Confession. Aervanath (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confession (band)

Australian band that has been around for less than a year. It claims to have been signed to a record label, however the band does not appear on the record label's list of bands on it's website. The only other external link provided is myspace. role^player 23:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment yes it is, it's a featured release of the record label. That said, I don't know enough about whether that meets WP:BAND, but it's certainly enough to avoid a speedy. StarM 00:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 00:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 00:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Michael Crafter#Confession. Non-notable band in its own right. WWGB (talk) 07:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient notability WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 08:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per WWGB. twirligig^{Leave one! ⋄ Check me out!} 02:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge. Ottre 10:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete - not notable, fails WP:BAND. A-Kartoffel (talk) 07:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Aervanath (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wapsi Square

I have been unable to find any reliable, independent sourcing which could establish the notability of the comic. Currently the article is made up of a lot of plot and character detail, sourced entirely to the comic itself and an unreferenced section about its creator. The long sections on trivia, running gags, characters and other specific plot element all contain original research, with editors interpretation of the source material being used in order to hold much of the text together. Without any third party coverage such as descriptive or critical commentary I do not think the article will currently be able to expand beyond what is essentially a long plot summary. Guest9999 (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; no evidence of notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've not yet had time to do an exhaustive search for readership numbers, but as a member of Blank Label Comics it must be up there. Here's an article on the strip: [64]. Also won 2004 Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards#Outstanding Character (Visual) and has been nominated multiple times. Powers ^T 15:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure if an article by an old friend in a local newspaper can be used as the basis for establishing notability. The Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards are questionably notable (the 2004 awards didn't even have a ceremony) and even with that taken into account they are voted on by on-line cartoonists, without any other sources that makes it seem like a bit of a walled garden. Guest9999 (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's sufficient for me, but I freely admit the measures aren't objective; that's why we have these discussions. Powers ^T 18:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well said. Guest9999 (talk) 20:36, 23 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, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guest9999 (talk) 17:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notable webcomics should have made the news a few times, but this one hasn't. Themfromspace (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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