Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 January 31

< 30 January (Friday)	1 February (Sunday) >

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 00:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Robbie Anderson

Almost 100% certain this is a hoax. I can find no sources mentioning his name, he is supposed to play for a team that hasn't existed for almost three years, and some of the details in the article look made up. Bonadea (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as HOAX. I checked the University of Colorado basketball rosters, where this subject supposedly won three MVPs, and there is no record of him playing there in the last 20 years. As noted in the nom, the subject supposedly plays for a team that has been defunct for years. The page creator User:Mike141414 has no edits outside of this article except for repeated vandalism of the Arriva North West page, which is prominently featured in this article. Baileypalblue (talk) 23:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax - can't have children because he ate infected pork? Ridiculous. Giant Snowman 14:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Can't find any mention of this person looking for the Sports Illustrated article in which he was supposedly mentioned. --Clay Collier (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Ate infected pork so he can't have kids anymore? Speedy delete as nonsense.--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 21:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snowman keep because it's way bigger than a snowball. (WP:NAC) flaming lawyer 08:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rome Catholic School (Rome, New York)

Not very notable school. There are plenty of famous schools in Wikipedia, private, public, or religious, either due to excellence or particular event. But this one does not claim any notability of the school, and just contains information that can be found almost in every high school in most countries. It is not yet for Wikipedia to have an article for this school. Wandering Courier (talk) 20:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep High schools are inherently notable. Mandsford (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note--I thought they weren't? (Not that I'm disagreeing with the 'keep.') Drmies (talk) 05:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Media coverage found on Google [1] confirms it is a notable school. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The standard for Wikipedia articles is not famous, merely notable. And there can almost always be found sufficient information to show that for a high school. DGG (talk) 01:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources are available to meet WP:ORG. No reason to delete. TerriersFan (talk) 04:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with the nominator that this "contains information that can be found almost in every high school in most countries". That's why almost every high school is notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am relisting this AfD to ensure its exposure for at least five days after undoing an incorrect non-admin closure made on January 27th. Sandstein 22:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep...I have made some changes and also contacted the principle to broaden the scope of the article, if possible. But should no further information be added, this school is still notable.--Buster7 (talk) 22:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep Ikip (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per everyone but nominator. High schools are inherently notable. Edward321 (talk) 00:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Listed in enough school reviews (Google search) to meet WP:N and WP:NOTE

Something tells me that we won't need "five more days"... Mandsford (talk) 03:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ant Records

Does not meet notability guidelines of either WP:CORP or WP:MUSIC. PK T(alk) 22:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC) WP:MUSIC doesn't say much about labels, but it does say, "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." Ant Records does not meet this. PK T(alk) 22:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no significant 3rd party notability WP:CORP. JamesBurns (talk) 06:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:CORP. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (talk) 17:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Music of Nova Scotia - I have been searching for sources. The Google footprint of Ant records is unimpressive. The only article I could find is in the local press at http://www.ffwdweekly.com/Issues/2005/0707/mus4.htm. It claims that Ant Records was small but had impact: In Truro, there was the tiny but mighty Ant Records empire. The label released early recordings by underground hip hop hero Sixtoo and was home to the freakishly introverted but influential group The Motes (guitarist J. LaPointe was in the original North of America lineup). If anything, the article seems to imply that the label can be mentioned in a sentence under Music of Nova Scotia, perhaps with this reference. gidonb (talk) 06:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Icewedge (talk) 03:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Study skills

Contains HowTo content, no sources, and pretty much completely covered by http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Study_Skills jftsang 11:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks more like Wikibooks content than an encyclopaedia article to me. 85.148.120.85 (talk) 12:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is in poor shape, but it has a potential for improvement. The subject is certainly important.Biophys (talk) 03:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just take a look at Google Scholar where you will see that the topic of Study Skills has itself been subjected to academic study - near the top of the list of over 35,000 papers are ones with titles such as Contributions of Study Skills to Academic Competence, Study skills and study competence: getting the priorities right, Research Synthesis on Study Skills etc. This shows that it's perfectly possible to write an encyclopedic article about the subject which is not a how-to guide, as most of the current content is. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sure its in bad shape but it is an encyclopaedic subject and there are plenty of sources available from which to rewrite it. We don't delete pages that need attention, we improve 'em. TerriersFan (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Try to rewrite the article before putting it up for deletion. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have undone a premature (Jan. 28) non-admin closure of this AfD and am relisting it to ensure that it is listed on an AfD page for at least five days. Sandstein 22:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lead paragraph is the only encyclopedic part of this article. Three and a half years after its creation, this article is so firmly established that the ordinary editing process is unlikely to make it encyclopedic. Drastic surgery is required. Therefore, stub the article or delete outright, with no prejudice to re-creation if an interested editor wants to write an encyclopedic article on this topic. Baileypalblue (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If the lead paragraph is encyclopaedic, then deletion is not the answer. You, using your ordinary editing tools, to edit the article, is the answer. If you want the article pared of inappropriate content back down to a stub, or rewritten, or improved, then do it yourself. All of those are cleanup actions that you can do yourself. The closing administrator is not an article editing service. Xe is a volunteer just as you are. {{sofixit}} applies. And AFD is not cleanup. Uncle G (talk) 00:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not inclined to stub this article in the middle of a discussion, because it's possible that others will disagree with my assessment and conclude that other sections are encyclopedic and should be kept. Alternately, a consensus could develop that the entire article, including the lead paragraph, is not encyclopedic, in which case I'm happy to let my !vote stand as an acquiescence to deletion. Conceivably a more detailed discussion of which parts of the article are or are not encyclopedic could reframe the view of the article as a whole. That said, if you are confident the article should be stubbed, feel free to {{sofixit}} yourself. Baileypalblue (talk) 02:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's enough sources through Google search (and I'll add some) that the article can be improved with sites (and a whole lot of cleanup). — Ched (talk) 03:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Get on with it!. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "hangon" tag added. Sources, copyedit, "How To" is being trimmed, section cleanup added, improvements being made. added, and article is being worked on. Concerns and questions can be posted to either the The articles talk page or My talk page. The subject matter is notable, and sources are verifiable. There is not a current wikipedia time-limit in effect for articles. Please consider closing this AfD with a keep. — Ched (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs a major rewrite and more sourcing, but the topic is notable and has many notable subtopics. -Neitherday (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Encyclopedic, and sourceable...and it's (literally) snowing outside.--Michig (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Phil Bridger. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 18:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paola Sebastiani

Nothing here to suggest notability. ~~She has obviously had a bunch of students generating a number of publications of which she is co-author.~~ —G716 <^T·_C> 22:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is normally what senior professors do: they direct research. The usual principal credit is for the person whose idea it is, which is generally the supervisor. The art of teaching and research at this level is in knowing what topics to pursue and in what way to pursue them. DGG (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could not agree more, I did not mean my comment to seem as harsh as it does. I retract my comment and apologise to Professor Sebastiani. —G716 <^T·_C> 03:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <^T·_C> 22:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <^T·_C> 22:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <^T·_C> 22:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF. Salih (talk) 05:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question, perhaps Salih could explain just how this person meets WP:PROF? At the same time: I just had a look at this person's website and I see a large number of publications in good journals. Of course, number of publications does not say anything about notability, but almost always people with many publications turn out to fulfill at least some of the criteria of WP:PROF. So I don't agree when the nom says "nothing here to suggest notability". Perhaps the nom would care to explain just why there is no notability here. --Crusio (talk) 09:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think DGG below has answered your question! Salih (talk) 10:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has published already 48 peer reviewed papers. Of these, the most cited have counts of 107, 70, 64, and 35 in Scopus (as usual, about 50% higher in Google Scholar, which does not limit itself to citations in peer-reviewed journals). Many of them are in journals of the highest quality. associate professors are not necessarily notable, but with a record like this at this early point she is clearly to beconsidered as an authority in her field. I added the citation data to the article. DGG (talk) 09:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Her important and highly regarded accomplishments in her fields of expertise mean that her papers should be cited in Wikipedia articles on genetics and genomics. Her papers cannot, however, help in the construction of a neutral Wikipedia article about her. What DGG and other editors have constructed so far resembles a resume or a second university homepage for her. Without substantial, independent sources about her, it will not be possible to write a good article here. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 14:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Arguably meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Google Scholar citations, although not exceptional, seem to indicate notability.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found this article in the condition that Wikipedia biographical articles are often in when their creator makes the usual clumsy mistake:

John Xmith was born in 1942. He attended XYZ Secondary School where he did very well and went on to attend the University of Somewhere. Then he went to graduate school at the Massachusetts Institute of Whatever, where he earned a master's degree.

So far we don't know if he's a politician, a scientist, and artist, a journalist, a theologian, a professional athlete, a stage actor,..... We don't even know whether he's still alive or not (maybe after we scroll down several screens it says at the end "He died in 2006.") It should have begun by saying:

John Xmith (1942–2006) is one of the major founders of modern omphalology.

This article wasn't that bad, but it discussed what degrees she'd earned before getting to what she's notable for, and that in a later paragraph!

So I reorganized it. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). I am also an Associate Professor at an American University and happen to come across this page while looking up Dr. Sebastiani on Wikipedia. I see above that someone is concerned that the article about her does not add much, but actually, I find it very informative. For someone who wnats to find an expert on Bayesian Statistics and its applications in the biomedical field, this article is very helpful. Also, I know fo Dr. Sebastiani's work and the high regard her colleagues hold for her... I can tell you that she is incredibly respected and is highly sought after by academic meeting organizers and editors seeking reviewers. The fact that she has a number of articles first authored by her students speaks to her fairness and desire to give proper credit and to promote their careers. I couldn't agree more with the person above who indicated that this is what senior academicians do! I also know that she has first authored vanguard/cutting edge articles such as the one in Nature Genetics and from meetings I have been to, she is currently leading other very cutting edge efforts that will no doubt be published soon. Well I have written alot, but as an academician myself, and given the few completely uninformed objections that I saw concerning the entry about Dr. Sebastiani, I just had to say something!Viking249 (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC) — Viking249 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment I am surprised that an Associate Professor thinks that it is unusual or even exceptional that Sebastiani has students figure as first authors on her papers. This is completely normal and no researcher would want to be first author with her/his students as last authors: it is the last author position which is the most prestigious one. --Crusio (talk) 15:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on what field you're in. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking Biostatistics here and Life Sciences in general, that's what I am referring to. --Crusio (talk) 09:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please remove citation tallies from the bibliography list – this does not follow convention, nor is there any guarantee that these tallies will be kept up-to-date. If the cited articles are indeed notable, they will be recognized as such without these numbers being attached. It also leaves the impression that perhaps the text is trying a little too hard to convince the reader of the subject's notability. Please also keep in mind that sentiments such as "desire to give proper credit and to promote [her students'] careers" are irrelevant to whether the subject is notable. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep despite the overblown SPA vote and overhyped article. Web of Science actually lists more articles than Scopus (67, excluding a number of abstracts), although the citation counts are lower: 86, 65, 56, 44, 33 (with Sebastiani being first author on #1, 2, and 4). Total number of citations to date 660, h-index of 14. This is a little below what I usually would judge notable, but the trend for all these articles and citations is clearly towards a rapid increase (currently 160 citations/year). Without using a crystal ball it seems clear that even should she miss the notability bar at this moment, she'll be over it very soon (even if she stopped working right this moment). --Crusio (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW. Lenticel ^(talk) 02:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How to play deathmetal

Essay and How To guide. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Nonsensical and no encyclopedic content. Originally tagged for speedy deletion. sixtynine ^{• spill it •} 22:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment doesn't meet speedy criteria, I'm afraid. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Its a Howto and we don't allow them. It is also far from informative. I pity anybody trying to work out how to play Death Metal from these instructions. ;-) --DanielRigal (talk) 22:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete essay,/how-to, not an encyclopedic article. —Snigbrook 22:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as elaborate HOWTO. Baileypalblue (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: I know we can't speedy it but I think we have a snowball here. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Falls afoul of: (1) Original research, (2) unreferenced, (3) how-to manual. Let's delete it quickly before someone uploads all those red-linked media files. •••Life of Riley (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's (a) a howto, (b) an essay, and (c) contains serious inaccuracies.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A how to guide. Schuym1 (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SNOWBALL IT Tavix (talk) 00:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete silly/dumb and unwelcome. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 01:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World Threats

This appears to be a non-notable website article, possibly added to Wikipedia in order to promote the subject. Jehochman ^Talk 21:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. "Stories from World Threats have been picked up on World Net Daily" is hardly an assertion of notability. PhGustaf (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:WEB. Schuym1 (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:WEB and WP:RS. Filled with WP:POV. Delete, and start over if need be. Bearian (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth Kirkham

Appears to be a hoax article, the references are not specific enough to verify and there are no useful results via Google. According to the article he plays for the Cornish Pirates but he is not mentioned on their website.[2] —Snigbrook 21:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also not mentioned on Sale Sharks website.[3] —Snigbrook 21:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax - not mentioned in the references or on the web-site of the club he's supposed to play for. Fails WP:V. For what it's worth, several IPs have comments on the talk page like "this page is utter garbage". JohnCD (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sign of any reliable sources, and the user contributions of the original creator do not inspire confidence: a flurry of edits to create and wikilink this person, up to and including a delightful account of him opening an imaginary local zoo (which was deleted 8 days later), and nothing else before or since! Looks like an ingenious little hoax, which no-one has noticed for too long. PamD (talk) 08:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete As hoax, no evidence he's a real person.--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 21:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Myths & Legends of Kamelot

This is a page based off a bootleg album and therefore, does not meet the guidelines--F-22 Raptor ^IV 21:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I see no reason why a bootleg cannot be notable, I also see no evidence that this one is. Yes, it's available for download from a hundred or so torrent sites. There are a few bloggers talking about it. Neither of these things suggest notability. JulesH (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep While most mentions are in blogspots, there are multiple mentions elsewhere. Here, here, here, and here. Also, the first links claims to it having been released on SPV. Undead Warrior (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The first, second and fourth are user-contributed sources, which are explicitly disallowed by WP:V. While I can't read Russian, the third appears to be a bittorrent download source, which is clearly not a reliable source. JulesH (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage found. Band is notable. Is this really a bootleg? - appears to be on the band's (former?) label. Allmusic doesn't list it.--Michig (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My guess is that some of the non-reliable sources don't realise it's a bootleg, so list it as released by the band's label at the time of release. The fact that reliable sources don't know about seems to confirm this; if it was an official release, they would. JulesH (talk) 08:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant 3rd party notability WP:NALBUMS. JamesBurns (talk) 04:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, no significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Með suð í eyrum við spilum endalaust. MBisanz ^talk 20:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All Alright (Sigur Rós song)

Song fails WP:NSONGS, it isn't covered by any reliable sources (the one reference is to a fan forum and fails WP:SPS). The article would be very short and contain nothing noteworthy should the original research be removed. JD554 (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —JD554 (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Með suð í eyrum við spilum endalaust, the album which the song is featured. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 21:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the album.--Michig (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no 3rd party notability WP:NSONGS. JamesBurns (talk) 02:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect to album no independent notability here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ace of Spades (junction)

There is absolutely no assertion of notability. The long comment on Talk:Ace of Spades (junction) puts it better than I ever could; in particular User:Ren Sydrick says "Generally speaking ( I doubt there are wikipedia guidelines for junctions ), I would consider a junction/road notable if it was really long, really dangerous, really safe, really large, really old or anything else that would make it stand out." Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see nothing at all notable about this intersection of two highways. Google turns up nothing. As for the two references provided, both mention this junction only as a reference to the ___location of another place. In fact, if this intersection did not happen to have a common name, the article would would have to be titled "Rotary at the junction of highways A3 and A243" or something similar. I have no doubt that would be deleted very quickly. If anyone turns up any information that demonstrates the notability of this intersection, I will be glad to change my opinion. •••Life of Riley (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keeep - Google gives several links, including House of Lords Hansard [4] (bottom of page). PamD (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that reference is provided in the article. However, it is merely a footnote that identifies the ___location of a stretch of road. •••Life of Riley (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claim to notability. ¨¨ victor falk 06:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No different to any other roundabout. There is picture of the next roundabout along Image:Tolworth Tower.jpg, the photographer obviously deciding that the Ace of Spades roundabout was not worthy of a photo. MortimerCat (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of road junctions in the United Kingdom: 0-A. No evidence of non-trivial coverage, probably not enough written about the junction for it to have a separate article. —Snigbrook 00:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AD (Finnish band)

No assertion of notability per WP:MUSIC. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching pulls up no reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 00:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BAND. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia ST

Article about a hoax, or fake counterfeit cell phone. Has absolutely no sources to backup the unreasonable claims, and the creator has made up hoax pages before. Plus the history reveals he took of prod tags many times before without giving reasons. --Jupter-manzana (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hoax. Cannot find any sources to verify that this phone exists in any reliable sources. The Hoaxer has apparently submitted his hoax widely, but official sources know nothing about this phone. There is a product that is commonly known as "Nokia ST", but it is a piece of software for the S60-series phones, and its full name is Nokia Sports Tracker. JulesH (talk) 09:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Based on the research I did for this AFD, I have now created Nokia Sports Tracker, which this article should be a redirect to. JulesH (talk) 09:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Not real. Tcrow777^Talk 10:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Green Car Motel

Fails WP:BAND. As a band, they have only had one single, which didn't chart, and have released no albums. The albums listed on the page are from a prior band that the founding members were in. A google search for notability returned with nothing of value. -- Darth Mike (join the dark side) 18:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Half the article talks about where they grew up (twice), or the other band they were in, or how many songs they wrote for huge movies. But there's no evidence, no hits, no albums, no notability. Drmies (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: myspace band. Only reference link doesnt even work. Nothing of note on Google WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 06:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BAND. -- 68.183.104.7 (talk) 08:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky (song)

Does not meet the notability standard for songs: "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album" Omarcheeseboro (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they do not meet notability standard for songs:

Delete both--these are not notable songs, despite the fact that one of them has been on a MySpace page. 19:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs)
- Comment - sorry for the confusion, I've added more songs. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the rest of them too. None of these songs asserted any kind of notability and the articles really mentioned only trivia. There are no references, and they didn't chart. Someone is writing an article on every song the guy ever wrote? That is not a good idea, as my 3-year old might say. 75.76.162.50 (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm that sounds familiar--sounds like me not logged in. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 06:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: non-notable album tracks. No assertion of notability WP:NSONGS. JamesBurns (talk) 05:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the lot, they fail notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canoe (band)

No evidence of notability per WP:MUSIC Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: cannot find any notability regarding their releases, nothing on allmusic.com that matches the band's description WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 06:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Couldn't find any evidence that the band is notable.--Michig (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BAND. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Nominator withdraws AFD Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Glebov

I am currently workig on List of Heroes of the Russian Federation and I can find absolutely zero references to Glebov having received the Hero of Russia award, on various websites, in ukaz databases and the like. Considering this information was added by User:HanzoHattori a banned user who repeatedly comes back with socks, the veracity of the claims have to be doubted, particularly as nothing can be found which confirms this person's claim of notability. Russavia ^Dialogue 18:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep without prejudice. The nomination does not contain a valid reason for deletion, apparently being based on an argumentum ad hominem instead -- this article was created by that person, therefore it is bad.

The merits of the nomination can only be considered when a proper reason for deletion is offered. And by the way, not having received that particular award does not imply non-notability, either. He could be notable for other reasons -- but again, the nomination says nothing about it. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 20:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. In my book a possible mistake in the text and the nominator's personal dislike of the author are not valid reasons for deletion. HanzoHattori was banned for incivility and not for hoaxes, this is totally irrelevant here. Shame on the nominator. The subject is notable, certainly not a hoax. Sources: [5], [6], [7], to name a few. Colchicum (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, per Colchicum. Martintg (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:BAN, and WP:BIO. No prejudice if its recreated with sources. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How does WP:BAN apply here? The article was created with sources in September 2007, when HanzoHattori wasn't banned. If I am misinterpreting WP:BIO, I promise that when you get banned I'll make sure that the contributions you have made be deleted. Colchicum (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"A banned user who evades a ban, may have all of their edits reverted without question (with the exceptions listed here). Any pages that they create may be deleted on sight, per WP:CSD#G5 (though care should be taken if other editors have made good-faith edits to the page or its talk page)" the policy states "all their edits reverted" HanzoHattori did try to evade his ban using User:Captain_Obvious_and_his_crime-fighting_dog so all his edits can be reverted. Plus, the article is completely unsourced. By the way, what exactly do you mean by "when you get banned"? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page was not created in defiance of a banm if was created long before any ban. In 2007 HanzoHattori was an editor in much better standing than yourself (and IMHO he still is). The article is not completely unsourced, it is sourced better than 99% of Wikipedia stubs, even after your "cleanup". Colchicum (talk) 10:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But if anything, we certainly have to delete 2008 South Ossetia war, which was started by a sock of M.V.E.i. in defiance of his ban. Colchicum (talk) 11:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008 South Ossetia war was written by many different authors so its not a good comparison to this article which was written primarily by HanzoHattori. Also, I don't know who you are and I don't recall interacting with you in any way so I am truly puzzled by your hostile behaviour with commments you've made such as "When you get banned" and claiming that a banned user is in better standing then myself. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a notable person who was described in many publications, as one can see from the refs in article. All Heroes of Russian Federation are probably notable as people who received the highest honor of their country.Biophys (talk) 04:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Out of the four sources, one is a dead link that was already there. The next two don't look reliable. The 4th was already there as an external link and it should remain as an external link as it seems like further reading but doesn't provide a source as to what is written in the article. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - PBS is reliable enough, just as Russian sources, like "Three wars by colonel Glebov". If you have concerns, please ask at WP:RS noticeboard.Biophys (talk) 05:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see anything wrong with the article. It didn't take much to fix the allegedly "dead" Jamestown link, I do wish people would take the two minutes to fix rather than tag and contend perfectly valid reputable sources are broken. PetersV TALK 05:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Will people stop accusing me of wanting to delete things because I don't like them, because that is an ultimate demonstration of lack of good faith on your parts. I am here to help build an encyclopaedia, not to engage in advocacy of nutcase theories, and in general just hateful, spiteful things. The Jamestown source is incorrect. I can find absolutely ZERO sources which indicate that Glebov had ever been awarded as a Hero of the Russian Federation. This award is bestowed upon the person by way of Ukaz from the President of Russia. Due to it being an Ukaz, it is released out into the public arena. As one can see from List of Heroes of the Russian Federation, a list which I am developing on my own (with some help from other editors in developing articles), one can see that these Ukaz are available from a wide variety of sources, including the dates, the ukaz number, and even the text of the Ukaz. After doing searches in both English and on Runet I can find no other information which verify Jamestown's claim. Due to this information being inserted into the article by the foul-mouthed editor HanzoHattori (who is still defended by numerous editors to this day), and due to his repeated sock-puppeting, there is ZERO reason to WP:AGF with anything that this editor has done in the past. Now Jamestown claims that RG said that he received the award, there is no other evidence of this from Russian sources, including RG itself. Are we assume that somehow ALL Russian sources have removed all traces of this information? For we all know that everyone in Russia is in the employ of state security services, so of course that must be it. But there are enough Russian nuttery sources which can source this information, NG, grani, etc, so they would have info on it, but they don't. --Russavia ^Dialogue 12:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- RG archives from 2001 is mostly not online. HanzoHattori has never created hoaxes. He was banned specifically for incivility, there is ZERO reason to assume bad faith with anything other he has done. The subject's notability, however, stems not only from this alleged award, and AfD is not a proper venue to correct mistakes. Colchicum (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further reasoning and response to Colchicum. Yuri Budanov is verified as having received the state award, and it is also verified that he had it stripped from him. There is no evidence as to Glebov ever having received it in the first place, except for a think-tank which is quite possibly misquoting RG. The photo at this article doesn't show the Gold Star, and the text mentions only the red star and order for courage being awarded. The only verifiable fact in the WP article is that he was a military official and he was a "suspect". There is a major WP:BLP issue here. If all him being notable for is being a suspected criminal, and only this fact is verified, the BLP issue alone warrants that this article be deleted, and I am almost inclined to approach an admin to have it speedied. This does not mean that I am not against the creation of a well-sourced notable article in the future, but until such time as that it done, being in the army (is not notable) and being a criminal suspect and that's all the article can say about him (is BLP), the article should actually be speedily deleted. --Russavia ^Dialogue 15:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 00:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Him not having had the Hero of Russia award is not a violation of WP:BLP and even if it is you could just remove that information instead of trying to get the page deleted. On a side-note, there's nothing surprising with "Hero's of the Russian Federation" awards given out to war criminals. I can count a large amount of such cases happening in the past 15 years. There's more information on this person and his actions, and this article can be expanded. Grey Fox (talk) 01:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, it is not a violation of WP:BLP, but having an article which only states that he is a suspected criminal is WP:BLP. That's the difference. And if anyone here is like me and can read and understand English, I have clearly stated that I am not against an article if and when sources are provided which give this BLP notability aside from being a suspected criminal, that is a major WP:BLP violation in itself. Russavia ^Dialogue 01:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, This discussion of the need to delete the article because banned user HanzoHattori created it is totally surreal, you only need to check the edit history to find that this article was created by Zscout370 and the second and third edits where done by Alex Bakharev and Irpen. Note also that this article has now been edited by many other editors since Hanzo was banned, so any change he may had made has long been absorbed by subsequent edits. Martintg (talk) 02:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep - I have expanded and NPOVed the article a little bit. Marginally notable individual, much less notable then Budanov. Still his partisipation in the Battle of Grozny might be notable as well as his alleged military crimes (if any reliable info can be provided) Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Based upon Alex's expansion, and as the article no longer accuses the BLP of being a war criminal without sources, he is now marginally notable - not fully but marginally - and as it is not possible for me to change my own opinion to "weak keep", I am withdrawing on that basis. If accusations of war crimes are included, they need to be sourced, otherwise I will remove them without hesitation, WP:3RR or not. --Russavia ^Dialogue 14:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Capture of the Green River Killer

No evidence of notability established per WP:N. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Gary Ridgway (there's a brief mention in it there anyway). No indication that this was a notable TV movie, and though it doesn't merit its own article, it should be referred to in the article about the killer. Mandsford (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 00:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
EXTREME keep After a very cursory search, notability and significant coverage in reliable sources was suprisingly easily to find. The film series was the most-watched-telecast ever for Lifetime. The film was twice nominated for a Gemini Award. It was named one of the top 10 television productions of 2008 by Variety. So, I expanded the article and added and sourced the assertions of notability. They were easy to find. The article now deserves its own place on wiki. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete: copyvio. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Oliver, Bank Planning Consultant

This is a tough one, and frankly I'd be just as happy with rescue as deletion. On the surface, this autobiography seems like it might have some notability, but unfortunately it's not backed through independent, reliable sources. My attempts at a gsearch are overwhelmed by noise from the comedian with the same name. The faculty positions seemed promising, but not only can I not verify them, the Community Bankers School and CUES seem to be more trade organizations than actual educational institutions. Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--I see no notability and plenty of vanity ("proven ability"..."highly respected"..."extensive management development training experience"--all of these accolades unverified). Drmies (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio of the bio at his company site [8]. Looking for copyvio often solves the problems of what to do with spammy unsourced articles like this. DGG (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

40 Oz. (song)

This single fails WP:MUSIC, which notes that songs are not generally considered as requiring their own articles. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete... since this is a non-notable song. Drmies (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC#SONGS. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and lack of WP:RS. --Artene50 (talk) 04:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicktoons: Experiment Gone Wrong

The article creator contested the prod. This is a non-notable game that was made by the article creator and the person's sister. Schuym1 (talk) 17:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable, unpublished game. JohnCD (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN fan-made game. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 21:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fangame Nickcruft. Nate • (chatter) 05:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a relation between this article and Super Smash Flash (see [9])? MuZemike 16:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fangame, the end. JuJube (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems like spam --Peephole (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endless Adventures

Non-notable game. Article does not assert notability. Rnb (talk) 15:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endless Adventures LARP "IS" a notable game. I am an avid LARP enthusiast and enjoy playing Endless Adventures, a game that rivals european LARP groups. I positively hope this page is not deleted, it would crush the co-creators and players alike. Wikipedia is just one landmark of many to come for Endless Adventures LARP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.30.124.131 (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the game is notable, verifiable sources should be provided to establish notability. Rnb (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - A simple Google search reveals this game is notable. Anti venin 16:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a quick look at [Category Live-action role-playing games] and see that there are several games which seem to be similar to Endless Adventures. Perhaps the problem with Endless Adventures is that it is centred on Kansas City and does not seem to be known elsewhere. But is this a reason for deletion??? - Ipigott (talk) 16:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:N. The google search above doesn't show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked through the first 100 google results on "endless adventures" + larp and was unable to find any sources more significant than forum postings, game listings, and myspace/youtube videos. Significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, please, per WP:N. Maralia (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N; no significant coverage by reliable 3rd party sources. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The X Factor (UK). Cirt (talk) 13:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The X Factor (UK series 6)

Delete unreferenced speculation about the judges and presenters of a future television series per WP:CRYSTAL Mayalld (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The X Factor (UK) until we have hard evidence about the show (which will probably be announced in Juneish). DitzyNizzy (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect as per DitzyNizzy. Anti venin 16:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:CRYSTAL; keep the redirect for now and flesh out later when there is something actually worth writing. Requires an article soon, but not right now. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Will need an article soon anyway, waste of everybodies time deleting it now. Arnoutf (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:CRYSTAL. JamesBurns (talk) 05:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per DizzyNizzy until an official announcement is made. TheRetroGuy (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced speculation about possible future TV series. It'll happen, but that's not reason enough for an article. Not useful as a redirect as far as I can see.--Michig (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The X Factor (UK) due to WP:CRYSTAL. Dalejenkins | 22:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing is known about the series yet. BUC (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The MA Obstacle Course

No assertion or evidence of notability for an obstacle course. No Google hits and no notable references — blogs do not count as notable refs and the academy's official site has no mention. A new name 2008 (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if a few others agree, a good case for SNOW as a classic Madeupinschooloneday. I would have been tempted to call it a test p. and speedy, as it clearly has no serious purpose here; or even vandalism, as people playing with Wikipedia. The user name of the original contributor was "Onalark". He or his friends removed the prod.DGG (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:MADEUP. Schuym1 (talk) 15:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. This is the absolutely perfect illustration of Made up in school one day. Also, as soon as the article is deleted, the accompanying image (File:MA Obstacle.jpg) should be nominated for quick deletion. •••Life of Riley (talk) 22:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for reasons stated above - article said the course was created less than 24hrs before first tagging, thus had no chance of becoming notable in that time. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Merkin ASCII art

This is an ascii art image of Michelle Merkin, rather than an encyclopedia article. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 14:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is, but I found it to be the only way of presenting it in a proper way. Iceblock (talk) 14:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you think that it had to be presented at all? Wikipedia already has picture formats that can illustrate articles in colour, and with high resolution. It has no need of picture formats that do neither. File:Michele Merkin 1.jpg already exists, without need for any conversion such as this to a practically useless, and certainly not helpful to readers, alternative format. Uncle G (talk) 14:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It gives a new way to think of ASCII art. Iceblock (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is a project to write an encyclopaedia. What relevance did you think what you did had to that goal? Uncle G (talk) 23:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. Why was it not marked for speedy? Jofakēt (talk) 14:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is this spam? Iceblock (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't, unless you're Michelle Merkin... Peridon (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's NOT an article, and Wikipedia is NOT an art gallery. Perhaps delete by WP:SNOW ?Wuhwuzdat (talk) 14:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It cannot be put at Commons as they don't accept TXT files. Iceblock (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; possible speedy G3. Deor (talk) 14:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In what other way could this be presented? Iceblock (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Go to ASCII art where you have already edited. Look at the numerous examples presented there. Edward321 (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - It deserves to be its own "article"; the examples presented are simple, or picture files of ASCII art Iceblock (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not an article at all. Edward321 (talk) 15:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not an article, but why delete it because of that? Iceblock (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not encyclopedic. Would be fine as a website, *.nfo file or even a dos/historic site, but wikipedia is not the proper venue. — Ched (talk) 15:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Where else in Wikimedia's projects? Iceblock (talk) 16:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete firstly Wikipedia doesn't use editors' ASCII art to represent people, we use photographs or significant artistic representations, secondly if something is in the article namespace it should be an article, redirect, list or disambigation page, and this isn't. This page is unencyclopedic and should be deleted. Hut 8.5 16:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a featured picture, but I didn't find a way to present it as a derivative work of only one file. It can be found at File:Michele Merkin 1.jpg Iceblock (talk) 16:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why did you add the ASCII art then? The jpg version will be much better in the article. Wikipedia isn't a web host. Hut 8.5 16:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ched also says it is unencyclopedic. Iceblock (talk) 16:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - So what? I agree with them. Hut 8.5 16:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - True. Move it to a better place. Iceblock (talk) 13:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOT the National Gallery DitzyNizzy (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't heard that before. Iceblock (talk) 16:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But it is a good point. (Look at what you wrote in the source code too; click Edit this page and scroll down ;-) Iceblock (talk)
- Or better, use the diff Iceblock (talk) 13:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not trying to flog a dead horse, but this is not an article and it is not encyclopaedic. (I'm not even sure it's art.) I don't know where it should go--that's not my job. And about "not an article," encyclopaedias contain articles, not other things. Drmies (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Encyclopedias contain articles, that's right. But in this case, all the characters make up the picture, and they cay be copied and pasted into another document. It is a supplement to the article about ASCII art – I believe we should move it to a subpage of ASCII art when this discussion is closed. Iceblock (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not a supplement to anything. It's a simple conversion of a picture that we already have, in a useful format, into a format that isn't useful to readers at all. Uncle G (talk) 23:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. It's snowing and there's no point dragging this out.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy move Iceblock (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the name "ASCII art/Michele Merkin ASCII art"? Iceblock (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Iceblock (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why move it when it should (and looks like will) be deleted? It's not an article and serves no purpose. Not an article, no indication as to why it should be on Wikipedia, etc. I would have tagged it for speedy deletion instead of bringing it here. TJ Spyke 20:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article under discussion has been moved to ASCII art/Michele Merkin ASCII art. It should still, obviously, be deleted (along with the newly-created redirects). siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Michele Merkin picture = hot. Michele Merkin ASCII = not. Balkan Fever 01:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True, still I think we can do something about this or split the two. Iceblock (talk) 03:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC), updated 13:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment transkwiki to WikiSource? Dunno, do they take these? 76.66.196.229 (talk) 04:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why is this ASCII art not using ASCII? What is it, Unicode art? 76.66.196.229 (talk) 04:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ℓ_°ℓ! An excellent point that I totally missed. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 05:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I chose the oldest name. Iceblock (talk) 13:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete DeviantArt is the third door to the left. We're not a Maxim babe letter art gallery. Nate • (chatter) 05:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True. Iceblock (talk) 13:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article under discussion has been moved to ASCII art/Michele Merkin. Iceblock (talk) 13:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

76.66.196.229: As a library, I believe Wikisource takes this, but strictly, it is not textual. Iceblock (talk) 13:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikisource only takes source text that has previously been published elsewhere, not editors' ASCII art. Hut 8.5 07:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nate: Wikipedia has never been that, rather a place to read about DeviantArt, as well as Maxim babe letter-art galleries. Iceblock (talk) 13:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DitzyNizzy: I have a comment and a hint to you; please scroll up and read them :-) Iceblock (talk) 13:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very clever, I suppose, if you like that sort of thing. Not encyclopaedic. Peridon (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absolutely no value, as an encyclopedia article, as ASCII art, or anything. Nuke it from orbit. JuJube (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sikandar (2009 film)

I believe this article fails WP:NFF, as I cannot find any reliable sources on this future film. Although it has an IMDB page, this doesn't strictly indicate that an article should have it's own page, especially when IMDB doesn't list reliable sources which can be used. If someone can provide a reliable source, then I'd be happy to withdraw this nomination for deletion. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 14:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable and no sources or google results. Jofakēt (talk) 14:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources added. Looks reliable. Universal Hero (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw - Good enough for me, should have looked further for sources, clearly. Thanks for Universal Hero for his/her work in sourcing the article. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 18:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manichaean paranoia

Manichaean paranoia is essentially one mans (Zbigniew Brzezinski's) neologism that did never catch. After 22 months, a phrase search for "Manichaean paranoia" on google gives less than 300 hits, the most important being copies of Wikipedia or references to wikipedia such as forum discussion links. The phrase has a definition (from Brzezinski) which is very confused as regards to real "Manichaeism", whereby it is very unlikely this topic will ever become notable according to wikipedia criteria WP:N. Before all this, it is not notable now. It has no substance, and can get no substance. For a precise analysis why I think this article is doomed to remain confused, see the talk page of the article! ... said: Rursus (bork²) 13:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NEO#Articles on neologisms. JohnCD (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a neologism or even a redirect, it was doomed from the beginning, since most of us aren't confident about correctly spelling "Manichaean", let alone "Zbigniew Brzezinski"; even "paranoia" can be troublesome. As a concept, it's not that original -- Brzezinski wasn't the first person to comment on Dubya's "good vs. evil" perception of the world. In fairness, the article should probably be judged on the version prior to the nominator's so-called "suicide paragraph" edits. Mandsford (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable neologism, unless evidence of notability in reliable sources is provided (which seems extremely unlikely here). Terraxos (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--non-notable neologism, for which I can find only two instances of usage, and no coverage. Drmies (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-- for reasons stated above. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while I think Brzezinski is notable and the phrases he coins are generally significant, I do not think this phrase is significant enough to warrant its own article. It's a description he used once on television, and not in any of his major articles or books. As such, its definition and applications are limited to the one very brief mention, and cannot really be articulated further. If the phrase had caught on, and other people had used it and applied it and developed it, then it might have enough substance to warrant an article. As it is, however, I think this can be safely deleted without any loss of value.—Perceval 08:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Some content might be salvagable for a "Popular Culture" section of the Manichaeism article, but there isn't enough evidence that the phrase is specifically notable enough to merit a separate article. John Carter (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I considered Zbigniew Brzezinski for that, but it's too good an article for me to mess into. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 07:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge either with the Brzezinski article or an article on Bush criticism. No sense in wasting such a memorable quote by such a major public figure. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 16:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no objection to a redirect to Zbigniew Brzezinski like Nattering Nabobs of Negatism redirects to Spiro Agnew. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete fails WP:BIO. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Hedges

Article appears to have been written by subect and subject does not appear to be notable Jonesy (talk) 12:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:BIO standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete Pastor Theo has not explained what criteria of the WP:BIO standards have not been met. Please explain before simply suggesting it for deletion without explanation. I think that the Richard Hedges page is very appropriate, I very much idolise Richard Hedges (as do many other people)not only for his work, but also for his tutorials on web development and design. If you know anything about computers, you've heard of Richard Hedges --81.79.79.226 (talk) 12:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the above question, you generally only need to pass one criterion listed in WP:BIO to get an article on wikipedia, so if it's being nominated for deletion, that means the nominator thinks it fails all the WP:BIO criteria. I won't go into every details, but the basic criterion is that he has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. At the moment, all we have is one article from Compuweekly, which isn't enough. Coupled with the fact that I can't find any hits on Gnews and I know a lot of about computers myself and I've never heard of him, I'm going for Delete. As always, I will reconsider if you can present coverage from other sources. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 1.)The article fails Objectivity at this point. 2.)The only reference is a message board rather than a new article. Moral Support - Keep working, you're young and have a promising future ahead, I have no doubt you'll be able to accomplish great things. ;) — Ched (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I won't stop fighting for this page to be kept on; How can you not have heard of Richard Hedges? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.79.226 (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter if we have heard of him until now because he doesn't pass WP:BIO. Chris Neville and I were unable to find multiple reliable sources that show notability. The thing that you need to do to get this article saved is to find multiple reliable sources with significant coverage. Schuym1 (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't seem to find any reliable sources to establish notability. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 18:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't these sites proof enough?: http://www.the-sketch.net/site/ [see also:] http://the-sketch.net/portfolio/ [see also:]http://www.computalk.net/showthread.php?t=3602 [where he is being elected a very important person on computalk forums] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.79.226 (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Those sources aren't independent of the subject. Schuym1 (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, though I think the Sam Martin thing is the stuff novels are made of--pretty exciting! BTW, I've never heard of this guy, nor has the rest of the internet (well, the part written by others). Drmies (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment going out on a limb here, and I'm not making accusations, but perhaps a read of COI bio would help our defendant. — Ched (talk) 21:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment 2 and no offense intended, but I've been working with computers since the early 80's, had my first ___domain by 97, and I'm sorry, but the only Richard Hedges I've ever heard of is the police officer that got killed in a car chase. — Ched (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - One vote, (probably you) on a little known forum is hardly an item that makes you notable! If you spend your time working on your websites, then MAYBE, one day someone will write an article about you here. Articles at Wikipedia must be sourced by verifiable sources. Meaning Newspaper, Journals, and published material. Forums, chat rooms, blogs, and sites of this nature do not qualify for verifable sources that show you to be notable. I'm sorry, but this dog just won't hunt (meaning that this page won't survive). — Ched (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, 81.79.79.226, whoever he/she is, removed four delete votes (now restored) whilst claiming it was removing some basic typing errors, here. Just thought you should know. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Chris. I think, given that this IP has made early edits to the actual article, that we can guess who this is. This calls for, at the very least, a stern warning (if not a block) for the vote-deletion alone, and perhaps a charge of sockpuppetry. Chris N-S, how about it? Drmies (talk) 22:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you like. I'm afraid I don't have time to formally report Bad Things at the moment. Feel free to do it yourself though. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris frost

NN entrepreneur. A Google search does not confirm the article's claims of importance. Does not meet WP:BIO and WP:RS standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable. Jofakēt (talk) 14:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cannot find any references giving any detail of coverage to this person, hence not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Hut 8.5 15:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Congratulations to what seems to be a very successful entrepreneur, but he fails WP:BIO, and his businesses fail WP:CORP. Success does not equal notability. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for non-notability. Drmies (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 00:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Hidalgo

This article is about the CEO of a NASDAQ-traded company, but that is basically all that the third-party reference sources provided say. I'm not convinced that simply being the CEO is sufficient to pass the requirements of WP:BIO, and the subject does not appear to be sufficiently notable in his own right to justify a biographical article like this. The previous AfD result in 2006 was "no consensus". DAJF (talk) 12:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although I consider being the CEO of a major company sufficient, not all NASDAQ companies can really be considered as major companies, even if they just manage to pass as notable for Wikipedia. With 500 employees total, this construction company does not seem to qualify as major enough to make the CEO a notable position. DGG (talk) 15:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability provided or easily apparent. tedder (talk) 02:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UKTV Style Homes

The article includes no sources, and UKTV have never given out a source that they will launch this as a channel. The UKTV Press Office also includes nothing on the channel just the sub-brand used for UKTV Style and nothing on its launch [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 12:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not a channel, just a section of the UKTV website. DitzyNizzy (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:CRYSTAL. Schuym1 (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 FA Cup appearance (19 minutes of fame is 4 more than to be expected)

Eddie Anaclet

AfDs for this article:

He has never played in a fully professional competition so his notability is in question Skitzo (talk) 12:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Skitzo (talk) 12:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The consensus in the last discussion is that he wasn't notable enough, and I don't see what has changed since then. Fails WP:ATHLETE as he has not competed in a fully professional league. Bettia (rawr!) 12:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bettia. Giant Snowman 15:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep following new info below that he has played in the FA Cup. Giant Snowman 14:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having played in live televised games (BBC and Sky)(Leicester 3-0 Stevenage ; Oxford 0-0 Southend) and a few other Conference games on Sky. Having a full professional contract in a Semi-pro league. Having established notability in Conference football with Oxford and Stevenage. Playing in the FA cup which is a fairly good professional competition. Govvy (talk) 16:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the F.A. Cup isn't fully professional and simply playing in a televised game doesn't bestow notability, had he done something to draw attention on himself in those games maybe you would have an argument, the fact still remains he's never played in a fully pro competition. Skitzo (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep He has played in the FA Cup for Chester, a League Two team at the time. This therefore means he passes WP:FOOTYN. --Eastlygod (talk) 04:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he played for Chester in the FA Cup when they were a league team (i.e. a team in a fully professional league). WikiGull (talk) 12:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, however he only played against Halifax Town - who were in the Conference at the time. Thus, not being in a game competed by both teams from fully-pro league. --Jimbo^[online] 02:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that general consensus was that playing for a Football League team in the FA Cup was sufficient, irrespective of who the opposition was......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my view on it as well. If this is deleted, we will at some point have the anomaly of a page on Chester City's 2004-05 season with Anaclet's name in black/red despite being listed as having played a first team game for them when they were a league side. WikiGull (talk) 10:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He only played 19 minutes in that FA Cup match. Is that really enough to automatically make him notable? Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 10:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, yes. If a player has played at all for the first team in a competitive game etc, then they are of interest. This then allows anyone (and not just those of us that edit footy articles) to see what happened to him after playing for Chester etc and allows a complete record. I really don't understand the deletion frenzy approach in these cases - he is ok by the rules as I understand them and adds to the information on wikipedia that may be of use to someone. Surely that's what wikipedia is supposed to be about isn't it?WikiGull (talk) 11:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a first-team match for a FL team is enough, regardless of who it's against. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per FA Cup appearance. matt91486 (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uday Dutt

The only third-party reliable source I can find covering anyone with this name is [10]. Writing an article on the basis of this would violate WP:BLP1E. According to this blog entry, the subject has "use[d] SEO to get his name out there on the internet through Google. Then he had to build some sites and profiles to ensure he has lot of backlinks. He also maintained profiles on social media sites which helped him to flush out other irrelevant results on the SERPs", which implies the article was started to improve the subject's profile on Google. Hut 8.5 11:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 13:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Am not sure if the Uday Dutt accused of financial fraud is same as the "investor banker" described in Uday Dutt. That aside, the article subject fails WP:BIO with his linked-in page and personal website being the only available sources. Abecedare (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable astroturfing. Maralia (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, fails WP:BIO. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OnePL

Article about a very simple programming language which is "early in development and is still very primitive" and for which "nothing has yet been released." No source is cited, and a search finds no evidence that it exists. Likely hoax or something made up one day, certainly not notable. PROD removed by IP. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 11:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't sign who you are! Noname4Million (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, an esoteric programming language with no real world coverage, as far as I can tell. Maybe when the interpreter is finished, someone will write about OnePL in a reliable source, but until then the language will fail WP:N. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Clearly non-notable: article states it is still "early in development", with no evidence it will ever get any further. If it ever gets to a stage of development where there are reliable references to it, then will be the time to create such an article. Anaxial (talk) 12:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if it ISN'T a hoax (as claimed by the anonymous IP) it is original

research and clearly has not reached a state of notability yet. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete I admit it, I created this language, but I am actualy working on an interpreter, I can't cite sources because this is my invention. All the things I state in this article are the actual syntax! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noname4million (talk • contribs) 15:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Noname4million (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment If it's your own invention, with no third party sources, it's Original Research, and, as such, will have to be deleted anyway. Sorry. Anaxial (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG Delete, non notable, probably HOAX language with no useful purpose...syntax includes no logic or program branch statements. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment,article authors recent actions include the desperate act of editing others comments on the articles talk page, as well as inventing a home page for this alledged language. Said home page simply states release will be 2/1/2009 (tommorrow), and refers reader back to the wikipedia article for more info. Circular logic! If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, somebody better hope it's not duck season....oh wait, it IS Duck Season!!!! Wuhwuzdat (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment,per WP:SNOW will somebody please pull the trigger and put this hoax out of it's misery? Wuhwuzdat (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded Peridon (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very primitive? Stonehenge's software was probably more advanced. Hoax. Remote possibility that someone is re-inventing the wheel, but unlikely. Peridon (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if an interpreter is released, it still won't be notable. Midnight Madness (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete due to utter lack of sources and original research. —C.Fred (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. Also, keep an eye on Noname4million (talk · contribs). JuJube (talk) 00:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by User:Kbthompson under WP:CSD#A1. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

L.A.D SOC

Delete non notable student organisation. Possible WP:HOAX Mayalld (talk) 10:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment This supposed society isn't even listed on the Cardiff SU website Mayalld (talk) 09:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any evidence of notability, or even of existence. Here are a couple of the searches that I tried: [11][12]. I would expect any notable contemporary UK student organisation to have a noticeable web presence. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If someone feels like merging the content to TTC yards, call me and I'll userfy them. yandman 08:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eglinton Bus Garage

AfDs for this article:

Those 3 articles were nominated for deletion, deleted, restored, again deleted and the deletion has been contested. Since the previous AfD was closed early (after I, the closing admin, considered it a resonable move), I list the articles here again in a single nomination. The initial reason was lack of notability. Thank you for your consideration. Tone 20:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into an article about the garages (and car barns?) of the TTC, like Bus depots of the New York City Transit Authority. These things do get coverage in reliable sources, often because they contribute negatively to the neighborhood, but also for other reasons. --NE2 21:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Notability is established through the book described at http://www.leonardshoup.com/si/131681.html and other resources such as http://transit.toronto.on.ca/bus/8307.shtml -- Eastmain (talk) 01:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Again. A bus garage? We argue sometimes about whether some things are inherently notable, but I think some things are inherently unnotable, and bus garages are among them. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments to keep so far are not based on inherent notability, but notability guidelines such as WP:N.--Oakshade (talk) 07:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But I don't see the substancial coverage that makes it meet WP:N yet. Passing mention on books isn't one. Secret ^account 18:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources indicated by Eastmain. The article on Danforth Carhouse and Bus Garage is substantial and I will assume good faith that the pages of the other source indicate non-trivial coverage. --Oakshade (talk) 07:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely Strong Delete per the sources provided by Eastmain. The source on the Danforth Carhouse and Bus Garage is far from substiantial. It's from the Toronto Transit website! and it's a bus garage on their system, not independent of the subject, The other is a picture book on the Toronto Transport System, doesn't explain the bus garages in general. Not everything that is mentioned in a source deserves an article. If not I, along with millions of others people, places, events, celebs clothing, cats on trees, etc will get an article. Secret ^account 17:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 09:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm hesitant to delete any geographical/architectural topic, but this is a textbook example of trivial mentions. As Secret mentioned, not everything that gets a mention in a source is notable enough to deserve an article. There's a tendency to want to keep any article for which sources are found, but in this case, the sources - although reliable - aren't enough to establish notability. NE2's suggested merge might also be a good idea, but only if there's enough material. Graymornings_(talk) 11:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's a... bus garage? Mentions given are trivial at best, and seriously... it's a bus garage! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. The sources show the garage exists. They do not show that there is anything special about it compared to the hundreds of thousands of other bus garages in the world. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into TTC yards, garages, and facilities. This page contains a list of the bus garages, as well as other yards/facilities operated by the TTC. The articles marked for deletion should be merged into the TTC yards, garages, and facilities article. Heights^{(Want to talk?)} 00:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah - there is a merge target already. That's definitely a good place to merge. --NE2 01:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a bus garage directory. ¨¨ victor falk 06:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge Notability is not a matter of importance but of the existence of sources. Since it is agreed that sources exist for this, our policy, WP:PRESERVE, is to keep the information, consolidating it by means of merger if that seems best. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The only source provided that actually refers to this garage is on Transit Toronto's old site, and is hardly "independent of the subject", as required by the GNG. Other mentions so far have been trivial at best. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

There are sources such as this which detail operational aspects of this bus garage and these are quite adequate to demonstrate notability. And, even if we decided that there was insufficient material for a separate article, we should consolidate the material under a broader heading per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE. These are policies while your delete reasoning that "it's a bus garage!" seems to be mere prejudice which fails other policies such as WP:CENSOR. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be an internal document of some sort. If that makes this bus garage notable, then corporate policy 42/D which I was working on at work today is also notable, because hey, someone took the time to write a document on it! In addition, this seems to be about another bus garage anyway, not this bus garage, mentions of Eglinton are limited to an offhand mention of one of the operational aspects there, so notability is not really demostrated. And the emotive use of words like "censor" really doesn't help this discussion at all, can we please stick to the facts rather than attempting to smear each other? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

WP:PRESERVE isn't policy, and the source you shown is from the department website, not independent as a source. Still fails WP:N. Secret ^account 23:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability (which also isn't policy) is about whether there's enough information to write a complete history. Even though the TTC is the operator of these garages or successor thereof, we have no reason do believe they're being incomplete or promotional, or otherwise unsuitable. --NE2 00:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a guideline, WP:PRESERVE is not even that, it's an essay. Secret ^account 23:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PRESERVE has been marked as official Wikipedia policy since October 2004. A handful of people disputing it now does not change that status. DHowell (talk) 01:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In 2004, everything was considered policy, remember consensus can change, and that's the case with PRESERVE Secret ^account 23:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to a consolidated list, but consensus to merge should be established on the articles' talk pages, where debate won't be artificially colored by a five-day deadline and the possiblity of deletion. DHowell (talk) 01:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I can think of little that is less notable. Stifle (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The reference http://transit.toronto.on.ca/bus/8307.shtml is independent of the Toronto Transit Commission and lists several references itself. The site http://transit.toronto.on.ca/ states that: "Transit Toronto is an information site by transit enthusiasts. This is not the official website of the TTC or GO Transit." The TTC's official site is http://www.ttc.ca/ , and some documents related to the TTC can also be found at the City of Toronto website at http://www.city.toronto.on.ca or http://www.toronto.ca
- So it's a website for transit enthusiasts, so it's a fan site, tell me how that's reliable? Secret ^account 23:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DJ D

Contested prod, the reason was This article is very unverifiable. Her "1200 degree" show gets 8 hits with "DJ D" added and none look like they show notability. I think it's a reasonable reason for deletion but in the standard procedure I put it here for your consideration. Thank you. Tone 09:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Claims to notability seem to be a non-notable online program, a few unsourced "gig offers," and being the official mixtape DJ for a couple of notable artists' tours (again unsourced). None of this, even if sourced, would make this DJ notable. Graymornings_(talk) 11:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing wrong with making a lot of claims to fame, but not when there are no sources to back it up. Fails to meet any criteria of WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 03:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nanna's Cottage

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Nanna's Cottage

Non Notable Television series. Article has no sources to back up any claim to Notability. Actually it has no sources at all. Come to that, it does not even make a claim to Notability, though the editor removing the ProD tag calims in the edit summary "a sizeable audience" Springnuts (talk) 08:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no evidence of significant coverage (just occasional mention in the local newspapers where it was produced). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Small Christian kid's programs like this one usually cannot find significant coverage because no one is giving them that coverage, nor does it have the fanbase to sustain fansites. It has aired on the United States's largest religious network and several other stations and networks and aired on a regular schedule, thus I feel it can be notable. Just because it isn't getting iCarly numbers (or is the case in much of religious television, usually completely disregarding ratings), that is no reason for deletion. Nate • (chatter) 09:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: your reason for keeping violates both WP:NOR & WP:V. That a program "cannot find significant coverage" precludes wikipedia from covering it. Wikipedia's purpose is to document and summarise material in reliable sources, not to make up for their perceived deficiencies in coverage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Mrschimpf pointed out, it was broadcast on the largest U.S. Christian television network, which should meet notability standards. A spot-check of Amazon.com also shows DVDs of the program's episodes are being sold, which would suggest there is a degree of viewer familiarity with the program. It also has an extensive summary at TV.com: [13]. Pastor Theo (talk) 11:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: why should being "broadcast on the largest U.S. Christian television network ... meet notability standards"? Please specify which criteria on which notability guideline this satisfies. Also, Amazon advertises all sorts of stuff, including self-published vanity press material -- being advertised on Amazon is no evidence at all of notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand WP:N standards, being broadcast on a national television network confirms notability for the production. Your point on Amazon is well taken, but the DVDs are not self-published -- they are being released by Digiview Entertainment. Pastor Theo (talk) 03:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The notability guideline doesn't say that anywhere. Schuym1 (talk) 03:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are two newspaper articles directly pertinent to this program in the reference section (I just added the second). What is the cutoff line for "significant" coverage? Is it three papers? Seven? I believe two articles for a niche-market show can be considered "significant" enough. It is widely broadcast within its niche--carried by many Christian-market satellite services and local channels, as well as TBN. (The local angle of the articles is irrelevant; that's like saying Check, Please should be deleted as nonnotable because the articles covering it are all from the Chicago area. It's sourced and the sources are reliable.)GJC 14:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "local angle" is relevant, as it demonstrates that it is the fact that the show is locally produced, not the show itself, that garnered it coverage. As the show is targeted at a national audience, why would the coverage be so localised, if not for this reason? Your 'Check, Please' counterexample is off-point in that it is targeted solely at a Chicago audience, so you would not expect coverage outside Chicago. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that public broadcasting and Christian networks often don't have the budgets for advertisement (that leads to mainstream press coverage) does not mean that it is not well known, or notable. tv.com, IMDB, and local papers appear to satisfy notability guidelines. — Ched (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please bear in mind that being Non-Notable in the wiki sense does not mean unimportant, or poor quality. It is not a value judgement on the programme. It just means that there are not reliable and substantial third party sources about it. Springnuts (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Schuym1 (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:CSB, I hardly expect us to document every Christian children's show but neither should we expect them to be reported the same way and breadth of primetime or reality tv shows. Anyone with cable TV access knows there are Christian channels, or at least blocks of programming, and indoctrinating children is certainly a part of this. I have little doubt that some reasonable NPOV coverage can be found in Christian and industry publications and it's not a stretch to imagine there might be some additional reports on Christian news/talk shows. In a brief search it also seems that this show has been aired in Australia and Great Britain as well. We also have:

Hope these help. The wp:lede should be tweaked to explain what notability there is, a part of which is the writer has done other shows and media work. -- Banjeboi 04:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User_talk:Benjiboi's superb analysis per WP:CSB. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, I'll need to see what else can be found. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on sources provided above:

Thorough research, but if we look at the sources they don't add up to much. Seven sources are suggested above:

1) Press Release - patently not a secondary source.

2) Article in medium size family newspaper. Not really substantial discussion of the topic, though the headline was promising.

3) Boiler plate article in same paper.

4) Boiler plate article in same paper.

5) Boiler plate article in same paper.

6) some form of regulatory document.

7) ...and a random book by somebody with a similar name to that of the producer(!)

Oh and a guess that there is coverage elsewhere.

Springnuts (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the bad faith-ish comment but I labeled that press release as a press release which can be cited if characterized as such. That newspaper can still be a reliable source even if they are medium-sized or whatever. That "some form of regulatory document" is the Federal Communication Commision, again it's a potential source and can be used. That "random book by somebody with a similar name to that of the producer" actually refers directly to this show although there could be two people with the same name who both produce a show with this name, stranger things have happened. And yes, news and talk shows blather on about all sorts of topics, Television industry media and Christian magazines also cover a wide range of topics so I have no problem imagining other sources exist and aren't easily accessed online as of yet. -- Banjeboi 18:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if my insistence on significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject came across as bad-faith-ish. I am happy to grant that the newspaper articles are RS - but what is the significant coverage they give? Delete now, and if other sources come to light, re-create. This is standard wiki stuff. Springnuts (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Improving articles is generally a good idea so that's not the issue. I stated my reasoning and provided a handful of references that support this article. If your interest is finding fault with them then that is your option. I choose other routes to direct my energies here. -- Banjeboi 19:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: another problem with these sources is that they cover viewpoints that the article does not (and I strongly suspect does not intend to) give WP:DUE weight to. The coverage is pure 'local interest', the article is pure 'IMDB-spam'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per the other "Keep" statements above -- while mainly slanted toward Christian kids, it is a nationally-syndicated television show, broadcasted on national religious networks such as TBN. Additionally, it has a DVD release out, sold at a national chain (Wal-Mart). I feel those are notable enough. -- azumanga (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although I do not watch religious programming myself, this series appears to be a nationally-broadcast television program, aired on TBN. It looks like it will be (or already has been) included in McNeil's Total Television (McNeil's standard is any television program of 15 minutes in length or longer which aired on network television) and Brooks and Marsh's Complete Directory (their standard is any network or cable program whose broadcaster reaches at least 50% of the country... which includes TBN). Thus, reliable sources can certainly be found, if the existing sources aren't considered up to par. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep assuming it can be proven that it's on Trinity Broadcasting Network, a minor network but one with lots of visibility. Bearian (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it did broadcast on the network - see this document[[14]] - but notability is not inherited - note Wheredoesitend's almost identically worded argument to avoid. Springnuts (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos A. Monteagudo

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}}.

Long autobiographical article by a candidate in an Illinois congressional district election. Per WP:POLITICIAN, being a candidate does not confer notability (for the good reason that Wikipedia should not be an election billboard); I do not think that, apart from his candidacy, this article establishes notability to the standard of Notability (people). Delete. JohnCD (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure Although this is a bad article. Mr. Monteagudo himself seems to be notable as the founder of an organization. I would expect that news stories about him could be found. Redddogg (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This was the seat of Rahm Emanuel, chief of staff to the President. Monteagudo is one of 25 candidates that are listed in the primary, 1. --J.Mundo (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty much per the above. Wikipedia's no place for politicians to advertise themselves. Themfromspace (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Keep It!!!! Dr. Monteagudo's story is quite inspiring and needs to be told. From the inner city of Chicago to Harvard - this sounds like a certain President we all know. Keep it up! - Michael Diaz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.63.187 (talk) 04:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC) — 98.227.63.187 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Dr. Monteagudo is a person of interest simply by being a candidate for national office. Congress is among the most selective institutions in American life. Candidates for this high office, by the simple act of running, become interesting. Dr. Monteagudo's compelling personal story has also had a remarkable impact on the lives of countless individuals who have heard it, inspiring hope and encouraging personal change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgreisdorf (talk • contribs) 21:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC) — Sgreisdorf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Merely being a candidate is not a claim to notability in itself. I also wouldn't reckon that all Congressmen were notable - same as our MPs and other bottom level national political figures. This candidate does seem to have some claim to notability outside his candidacy, but the article is a bit cozy talky. I've searched for some parts in case of copy-viol, but no ghits. One or two of the other posts in this discussion are a little too enthusiastic for my liking. Peridon (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep as a stub - There seems to be some hints that this could be a worthwhile article and that the subject could be notable. If he is a notable physician in the community who was this public policy fellow, he could qualify. It is easy to call for deletion of articles that are poorly written or not written in the usual WP style. However, we should refrain from doing so and concentrate on criteria for article retention, mostly notability. The ideal thing would be for someone to re-write the article in WP style and do some research for references then present this as to AFD. Most of the references might be in the local Chicago press. Rewriting would make the task of deciding much easier. This would also encourage a potentially good editor to stay with WP. Chergles (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 07:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He is one of 14 candidates in a Democratic Party primary for the Congressional election. So far, he has received barely any news coverage for his participation in this election (the primary will be on March 3). If he starts receiving sufficient news coverage to establish him as notable, the article can be re-written at that time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Metropolitan90 and WP:POLITICIAN. WP:RS coverage comes from running for office and Monteagudo is mentioned in passing. Notability not established. • Gene93k (talk) 11:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, merely being a candidate is not enough to meet WP:N. His story is quite impressive, and he's come a long way, but that doesn't mean that he's notable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete If he wins the primary, then I consider that he might be notable--I think all major party candidates for national office in 2 party systems should be so considered; it would save good deal of disputing. But until he does, merely running in the primary is not sufficient, by my standard. The other possible notability is as a confounder of SEED, but we do not have an article on them and it is hard to judge if it is notable. He is listed on their web page [15] as a cofounder. But the present article is mostly campaign spam, as even Chergles, who gave a weak keep, agrees. That he met his wife in the 11th grade is not encyclopedic content. If kept, trim sharply. DGG (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not the place for inspirational stories, esp. about characters who have not acquire the notability demanded by WP:N. Drmies (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes a rewritten article can look entirely different. This is a possible version that is more encyclopedic, in my opinion. It is a stub. See User talk:Chergles/vandal sandbox congressional primary (I have mixed feelings about the revision which is why it is in the sandbox and not replacing the actual article) Chergles (talk) 22:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it does look entirely different. Well done. I don't know if that's your remark at the bottom, but a search with ProQuest reveals that the Chicago Tribune has nothing (nor does any other newspaper) for Carlos Monteagudo (no quotes). Drmies (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by nominator: that's a much better article, but I don't think my view changes. Looking through the 11 references, no. 2 is his own LinkedIn entry; 3, 8, 10, 11 are all due to his candidacy; 4 shouldn't be there - it's the website of the place where he did his residency, and doesn't actually mention him; 9 is his own organisation; 1, 5 and 6 seem to be an umbrella charity group of which his "SEED" is a member, and 7 is similar. I still don't think we have enough of the independent secondary source material required by WP:BIO. If this improved article went in, and if he doesn't win the election, then after it the last paragraph "Political Office" would need to be altered to read "was a candidate", or more likely removed as no longer significant. JohnCD (talk) 11:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Keep in mind that in the U.S., anyone can file for candidacy of any office and legally become a candidate. I could walk down to the county registrar's office right now and file as a candidate for governor, and my name would be on the ballot in the next election. Anyone can open up website for any purpose. Neither filing as a candidate for office nor having a website per se makes a person notable. •••Life of Riley (talk) 22:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. To get on the ballot for governor or congress in a major party primary (at least in any sizeable state) requires thousands of petition signatures from registered voters. Ballot access is not free for all interested, but rather, requires a showing of support and organization. Kestenbaum (talk) 06:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment related to above but unrelated to AFD: The fact that anyone can file for candidacy does not necessarily make the act not notable. Anyone can also do things that will make them WP notable except that many of those ways will result in going to prison. Chergles (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nom. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability under either WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG. Do not see a single source from a reliable third party source with Monteagudo as the topic. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still doubt of keeping the article but there were several newspaper mention of the man in the Fort Mill Times (1/21/09) as well as very brief mention in the Associated Press which was reproduced in several newspapers. Also http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Taking-The-Fifth.html mentions that he had to fight petition signature challenges, participated in a candidates' debate and opposes privatization of Midway Airport and the Chicago Sun Times mentions his good debate performance. With this information, the article could be a weak, weak keep but in serious, serious need of rewrite which I have begun in my sandbox. Chergles (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 02:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edi Birsan

I don't see the notability in writing some articles about Diplomacy. Even "inventing the Lepanto opening and the Sealion" don't seem notable enough to me. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 03:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider being the first world champion of a widely played game to be notable, but I'm having trouble finding references to back it up. Maybe my google fu is out of whack. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and consider Lepanto opening for deletion as it lays claim to an opening used at least five years before the "inventor"'s claim. Non-notable and self-published. Collect (talk) 13:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No self-published. GabrieL (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable and, even it were not, there would be better alternatives to deletion per our policies WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE. The article just needs improvement per WP:IMPERFECT and so I shall do some work upon it. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edi Birsan here: I find it rather strange being drawn into a page on myself... I was rather surprised by a Wikipedia reference let alone a debate on its inclusion...but a few points
The Lepanto Article is most notable for being the article that popularized both that specific opening in the game of Diplomacy, but more importantly it was the article that started an entire trend in the Diplomacy Hobby or writing about openings. That the article was written in 1971 and that I had used the opening in face to face games in 1966 is irrelevant. That someone may have stumbled on the specific moves independently may or may not have happened, what is important is what the effect on the play of the game the article had.
As for being the first world champion, this was the reference for the win in the invitational game in 1971 numbered BC and referred to subsequently.
There are other aspects to my life in the Diplomacy Hobby that people may want to go to if that is relevant and can be found at:
http://www.diplom.org/NADF/edi.htm
I could also sit down and increase greatly the references to articles I have written on the game of Diplomacy, or tournaments run/won/started/supported or organizations etc if that is of interest.
However, my life is more than just Diplomacy, though that seems to be the focus here which in itself is rather amusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EdiBirsan (talk • contribs) 16:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC) — EdiBirsan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- The fact remains that the MITSGS members played many games of Diplomacy, and the main openings (depending on number of players) were fairly well discussed and thought out well before your publication. So much so that a variant based on the Avalon-Hill grid system to extend the possiblilities of Diplomacy was designed and played in order to make the game less well determined. Collect (talk) 20:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Welcome to Wikipedia Edi. Your life, like any Diplomacy player's life, is much more than Diplomacy of course but I thought it best to have more of what you're known for than who you are in keeping with the general trend of articles on people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sioraf (talk • contribs) 2009-01-29 17:56:00 — Sioraf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Wikipedia doesn't need articles written and published by you. What Wikipedia needs are multiple, in-depth, articles written about you, that are written and published by people independent of you, and that are written and published by people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 06:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Edi is one of the greatest players of all time and has been playing for over half a century. Sioraf (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That argument has no basis in our policies and guidelines. Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Notability, and Wikipedia:Deletion policy are the most applicable policies and guidelines. Not a one of them lists "Sioraf's personal, subjective, opinion is that this person is great." as a criterion for anything, let alone inclusion or exclusion. Please make an argument that actually holds water. Notability is not subjective. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 06:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm French player of Diplomacy, Edi Birsan is probably the most famous personality of Diplomacy game and one of the greatest players : in the ranking of all time ("World Palmares Evaluation"), Edi Birsan is the 3rd player of all time : [16] and the 1st of the English spoken countries. I don't vote here because if Edi Birsan is very notable in Diplomacy World, I don't know it's enough for notability in Wikipedia.GabrieL (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's irrelevant for Wikipedia, so the question of whether it is enough doesn't even apply. Notability has nothing to do with fame, and everything to do with whether the world has seen fit to independently document this person's life and works in depth in trustworthy published works, so that a verifiable, full, encyclopaedia biographical article, free from original research and non-neutrality, can be written based upon that documentation as sources. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 00:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 06:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak Delete At present, I am not quite sure that accomplishment in playing this game is generally considered notable, and ditto for writing articles about it. ~~If fancruft means anything, this is fancruft~~. DGG (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC) Revised DGG (talk) 09:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uncle G, you're making the common mistake of thinking that you can understand my brain just by what I put down in words. It's not an accurate Empirical to a priori translation. Edi Birsan is considered by most Diplomacy players to be among the best ever.

- Consensus! Consensus! Consensus!

- Sioraf (talk) 13:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Abject lack of independant sources and a lot of self-promotion.~~ Sources have been found, but still no real claim for notability. Edward321 (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have cleaned up the article to format it and add a solid citation to a published book. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what exactly does the book say about him? How much pace does it give him? DGG (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Thanks for finding sources, but I'm not sure that being 1 of 5 game designers of a notable card game and 1 of 2 designers of a non-notable card game makes him notable. Edward321 (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, after sources and "wikification", I vote for keeping articles. GabrieL (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— GabrieL (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 
Because I am French: I write on French Wikipedia (3,000 contributions on
French Wikipedia) before English Wikipedia.
GabrieL (talk) 19:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, The only question is if any Diplomacy player is notable. If we have agreement that some are, then Edi Birsan is certainly notable. I would argue that facts such as whether or not he invented the lepanto are controversies that should be in the article and in fact add to the notability of Edi rather than take away from it. I think that the article requires improvement, more sources and perhaps a neutral approach... but certainly Edi is as notable as Diplomacy players get. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goffandrew (talk • contribs) 21:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Goffandrew (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, agree this doesn't meet A7, but it was previously created and deleted, so I took the liberty of speedy deleting it -- Samir 06:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THE SSA TEAM

Appears to be a non-notable comic. CSD A7 does not apply as this is not (as far as I can see) a web comic. gadfium 05:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a hoax. I can find nothing on this in a Google search. ArcAngel (talk) 06:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speedy is okay. Blatantly fails WP:NFT. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 06:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absurd humor

Seems to be a hopeless dicdef. Only one source, that lists only the author's opinion on what absurd humor is. This term seems too vague to be more than a dicdef/OR list. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: how could we precisely define what is absurd? Alexius08 (talk) 03:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Absurdism, which is what I thought the article would be about until I read it. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Absurdism has nothing to do with humour. You should read that article, too. That would not be a good redirect. Uncle G (talk) 05:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To answer both Alexius08 and the nomination: We don't need to come up with our own definition in violation of policy. Published experts already have defined what absurd humour is (or, at least, have argued at length as to what the definition is). One such is folklorist Elliot Oring (professor in anthropology at California State University), who explicitly addresses the question "What defines this subset of humour, and how does it relate to 'standard' humor that lacks nonsensical or absurd characteristics?" in chapter 2 of ISBN 9780252027864. Given that he devotes an entire chapter to this (It's entitled "The Senses of Absurd Humor".), there's enough in that source alone to expand this article. And that's just one viewpoint. He argues against the viewpoints of others. So clearly there is yet more expert opinion on this subject to be had in addition to that one source, as well. And, indeed, a quick search turns up "Reactions to absurd humor by Jews of eastern and western descent" in the Journal of Social Psychology, and people commenting on Charles R. Gruner's distinction between absurd humor and incongruity (in Understanding Laughter: The workings of wit and humor, ISBN 9780882291864), amongst many others.
There seems to be ample material for an article here. This is not hopeless. Far from it. It is a stub with potential for expansion from a fair few reliable, and academic, sources. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 05:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Uncle G puts it well. A Google Scholar search turns up tons of hits, and there are a few more to be found under "absurdist humor" (if that is indeed the same thing; I think it is). --N Shar (talk · contribs) 06:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourced stub that has the potential to become a good article. JulesH (talk) 10:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. User:JulesH is correct.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename to the more widely used "Absurdist humor". There's also possibility to merge to Surreal humour if there's a question of independent notability. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's an article that has nothing to say, and has said it for than a year. "It is a very creative type of humor, but at the same time, very confusing." is, as 10# says, the author's opinion, and it's worthless. Voting to keep a stub because it "has potential" or that it might get better on its own does no favors to the page. The fact that it is still a stub after twelve months, and the discussion itself, suggests that nobody actually cares about the subject and that it really is "hopeless". If someone wants to improve it, then I'd change my mind. Until then, mention it in humour and wait until an article can be written by a person who knows what they're talking about. Keep This is an excellent article. Mandsford (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- This is an argument to avoid. It doesn't matter if it's been a stub for twelve months. It wouldn't matter if it had been a stub for twelve years. Cf WP:NOEFFORT and WP:DEADLINE for the reasoning.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm never going to avoid that argument. Quality does matter. The argument to avoid is "keep it because it can be improved... but I don't want to do it". Mandsford (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - But "delete it because I can't be bothered to fix it" is okay? ;-) --S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You should go back and re-read and re-absorb our Wikipedia:Editing policy, and our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. The fact that editors are not interested in expanding articles says nothing about the articles. The only thing that it says something about is the editors. It says that editors are unwilling to write. We don't delete because you, or anyone else, is unwilling to write. Rather, we acknowledge the possibility that someone may come along who, unlike you, is willing to write. And we allow for that process to take as many years as necessary. North Asia, an entire geographic region of the planet, took almost five years before someone cared enough to expand it from a 2-sentence stub. That is the sort of timescale in which some articles grow, and even then there is no deadline. The only thing that that length of time says anything about is the unwillingness of editors to write on that subject. It's not a reason to prevent editors from writing, or to prevent them from improving a stub with scope for expansion. (Note that deleting stubs locks out the editors who actually write, and have written, most of our content, editors without accounts, since they cannot create new articles. It actively excludes the very people who could improve an article, and have improved articles, the most.)
  We keep valid stubs with scope for expansion, and always have done. It's how many of our articles began and grew. It's how articles are collaboratively written. It's the proven process that has already worked for many articles. And it's enshrined in the project's basic policies. Uncle G (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos (album)

Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:N and WP:CRYSTALBALL.. SE KinG. User page. Talk. 03:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTALBALL ArcAngel (talk) 06:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:CRYSTAL. Schuym1 (talk) 14:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Salvaggione

Article is about a non-notable footballer. It fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:N. Jogurney (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 03:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. Player is a new draftee and has not played a professional game, and therefore fails WP:ATHLETE AND WP:FOOTY/N. Recreate if and when he plays a pro game. --JonBroxton (talk) 04:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete for failing WP:ATHLETE. ArcAngel (talk) 06:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Playing, not signing a contract, is the threshold. Kevin McE (talk) 08:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This player clearly fails WP:ATHLETE. DeMoN2009 10:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE as he has not played at a fully professional level yet, and there's no indication that he's notable in any other way. Bettia (rawr!) 12:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 15:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nearly but not quite made it footballer - fails WP:ATHLETE in that has not played yet in anything notable, recreate if and when--ClubOranje^Talk 09:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lyle Adams

Article is about a non-notable footballer. It fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:N. Jogurney (talk) 03:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 03:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. Player is a new draftee and has not played a professional game, and therefore fails WP:ATHLETE AND WP:FOOTY/N. Recreate if and when he plays a pro game. --JonBroxton (talk) 04:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete for failing WP:ATHLETE. ArcAngel (talk) 06:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Playing, not signing a contract, is the threshold. Kevin McE (talk) 08:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This player clearly fails WP:ATHLETE. DeMoN2009 10:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE, and I can't see any indication he's notable in any other way (awards won, meaningful media coverage, etc). Bettia (rawr!) 12:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 15:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ATHLETE. Schuym1 (talk) 15:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nearly but not quite made it footballer - fails WP:ATHLETE in that has not played yet in anything notable, recreate if and when--ClubOranje^Talk 09:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infoshop.org

Non-notable website. Only a single reliable source establishes some notability, which is insufficient according to WP:WEB. Peephole (talk) 02:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I think it meets WP:WEB to a point. The article explicitly says ...the only core anarchist site to closely cover the contemporary anarchist movement in addition to anarchist theory. That is sourced. It also says ...according to its Alexa rankings, Infoshop is the most visited anarchist website. Again, sourced. I find those two facts a bit noteable. K50 Dude ROCKS! 04:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per K50 Dude. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:WEB. Schuym1 (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've been mad at Infoshop for some time and you aren't open about this in your vote. It wasn't difficult for me to look at your user page to figure this out. Chuck0 (talk) 04:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Like Indymedia, this is a unique news source we ought to cover, and it covers a lot of protest-related activities that the mainstream media doesn't. Because it is a news outlet, I'm not sure that WP:WEB is the most appropriate guideline to work with, but WP:NME is only an essay. It has one independent secondary source; finding a second one should settle this debate. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appropriate source for much material, and a reasonably notable specialized news service. Notability guidelines are meant to be applied with judgment, not blindly. DGG (talk) 19:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Anyway, here are some sources that can be used to improve the article. Using Google News Archive for "infoshop +org" and "infoshop news", and excluding Infoshop, Indymedia, and similar sites, we get:

Controversy over inclusion in Google News (pardon the irony): Google: Is all the news fit to post?, Cnet.com, Apr 08 2003[17], as well as coverage in Poynter Online[18] and Online Jouralism Review[19]. Also found an activist press release that the site is/was censored in a New Zealand school.[20]
General overviews in major papers:

Philadelphia Inquirer, Jun 24 2000 With Republicans on the way, activists take to the internet[21] "Munson maintains a Web site, www.infoshop.org, which calls itself "your online anarchist community..."
New York Times, Aug 29 2004 Ideas & Trends -- Heartland Radical; Anarchy Explained[22]

Cited by mainstream papers when there's an article about a protest,[23] to reference a "claim of responsibility",[24] or matters relevant to the community ( i.e. Web Host Industry Review citing them for Governments Led Rackspace Seizure [25]).
Google Books returns many results for those two queries as well. While some are brief directory listings or citations, Washington, DC from A to Z: The Look-up Source for Everything... gives a brief overview under "Mid-Atlantic Anarchists" organization. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even if there were no sources, this article could be redirected to our article on Munson, which already has context for the website. There's only two possible outcomes to this AFD, keep and add more sources, or merge and redirect. Deletion isn't appropriate. PS, I noticed that the related Alternative Media Project has also been prod'ed, which is also a likely merge candidate. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've "challenged" that article's PROD nomination pending the outcome of this discussion. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough sources have been found to establish notability. Any possible merge can be discussed on talk pages. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the primary persons involved with the Infoshop.org project, I'm a bit flabbergasted that this entry has been nominated for deletion. Don't you people have something better to do wth your time, like improving other articles? This entry on Infoshop.org has been here for YEARS and now somebody wants to delete it? Smells like somebody has an axe to grind more than they are interested in improving Wikipedia. As several people have noted here, Infoshop is a prominent political and news website. It's widely known by activists around the world. It has made the news and it has broken original news. Scholarly articles cite Infoshop all of the time. The main Wikipedia entry on "anarchism" has a link to Infoshop, which should establish its notability more than anything else. Infoshop is the most popular English language website on anarchism, a distinction it has held for many years. I could go on, but I suspect that others will add some good supporting evidence that Infoshop.org is notable. Chuck0 (talk) 04:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The comments above -- particularly K50 Dude's -- satisfy the WP:WEB requirements. Also, when there is a concern about notability, the appropriate first response is a notability tag, not deletion. Jd4v15 (talk) 22:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a no brainer. The article easily meets WP:WEB. I think its pretty clear that bias has played a part in the nomination of the Infoshop article as a candidate for deletion. Blockader (talk) 16:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maiko Okuaki

Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Only credits as a model are three fashion shows of the local/semi-professional variety. Only reliable source to be found is an article on female skateboarding, in which Okuaki is tellingly referred to as just a local university student. Career as a skateboarder doesn't seem to be much, if anything at all. Probably just promotion. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 02:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as she does not pass WP:N in my book. ArcAngel (talk) 06:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity page. Subject is not notable enough for Wikipedia. Starczamora (talk) 10:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Possible hoax, no sources, no context Mr.Z-man 02:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Boy: The Movie

Most likely a hoax, as I'm unable to find any sources on Google. If it isn't a hoax, it still violates WP:NFF. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No need to even investigate further; the subject in the poster is Steve Urkel, and there's no way Jaleel White looks that young these days, not to mention that Brad Bird is a computer animator. Another flight of fancy. Nate • (chatter) 01:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Obvious hoax. --Chasingsol ^(talk) 01:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not Jaleel White that is Desmond Page, first movie and Brad Bird is not working with us yet that's why we sat the movie to 2010 on BET.

Speedy delete: why did they fortell the exact release date? That's crystalballing! Alexius08 (talk) 02:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brain types

The neutrality and factual accuracy have been questioned since March 2008. The notability has been questioned since May 2008. The article appears to be commercial self-promotion. No source other than that of the topic's author has been cited for validation. The theory is admittedly scientifically unproven. The American Psychological Association holds that it's "not valid and built for commercial purposes only." The only references I can find to the theory in a Google search (other than the Wikipedia article itself) appear to be websites associated with the theory's author. ThreeOfCups (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Stubify and~~ Keep. The article as it stands is obviously not acceptable; it is full of original research and gives undue weight to the advocates of brain typing. The only verifiable part of the current article is the last section, which is backed up by a scholarly source. A Google Scholar search for "brain typing" (in quotes) appears to turn up at least three distinct sources (including the one currently in the article), so there is probably enough for a stub. It should also be moved to "brain typing," in my opinion. I'll do this soon unless someone else wants to. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 06:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC), strike 07:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Article is much improved now. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 09:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There is some indication that the subject has achieved minor notability, or the APA wouldn't have bothered to say it's unfounded. However, the article as it exists right now does not seem to be NPOV (although it could be worse!) and needs cleanup and deletion of unverified claims. Anaxial (talk) 12:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There should be sources for the sports part of the article; with those and the APA criticism, it should meet GNG. Also, could this be merged to the main article on MBTI? Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It appears there is disagreement as to whether it meets GNG, even with recent revisions. I am really thinking I should just remove it altogether now. I didn't want to create a conflicting mess with this, and it appears it still is. Khendra1984 (talk) 04:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. OK, I can't delete my own article since I am not an admin. If there is an admin around, feel free to delete the article since it isn't notable and the system is being challenged as unethical by field experts. I'll stay away from Wikipedia henceforth and not cause any more egregious trouble. Thanks and have a good one. Khendra1984 (talk) 04:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment @Khendra: Come on, there's no call for that. @ThreeOfCups: It seems clear that you don't like this article (or perhaps the subject of the article). But does that really mean that it doesn't meet the notability guidelines? We have articles on all sorts of pseudoscientific topics, which are fully notable. Could you elaborate on why you feel this article doesn't meet the notability guideline, now that some additional sources have been provided? --N Shar (talk · contribs) 07:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The MBTI article is already pretty large, and I'm concerned that merging the content from this article would confuse the already delicate issue of whether MBTI is scientific or not. I think it would probably be better to keep them separate. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 23:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I strongly oppose merging it with MBTI. It borrows from the theories of Isabel Myers, but it has no connection to her or to the MBTI itself. The MBTI has an enormous body of research behind it, while the Brain Types theory appears to have none. As far as I can tell, it's just the postulation of some marketing guy with no scientific credentials whatsoever. ThreeOfCups (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any merge would have do be written so as not to imply any endorsement by the publishers of the MBTI. But other than those concerns, there's no reason why this article, after being condensed to a couple of paragraphs, can't be merged. Furthermore, it's the more likely search term. If I'd heard on a sportscast something about M-B types being connected with physical coordination, I'd be curious but I'd search for MBTI, not "brain types". Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This theory is a corruption of the MBTI, violating its principles of ethical use. The MBTI measures cognitive function - how people prefer to use their minds - and is unrelated to physical coordination, etc. The MBTI cannot be used to predict behavior, ability, or likelihood of success. If the Brain Types article were to be merged, I think it should be merged with Sport psychology, which is currently a stub. It's a far better fit. ThreeOfCups (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am the one who started this article awhile back. I added it since I remember seeing this stuff on ESPN's "Outside the Lines" program; the theories sounded interesting, though obviously not proven, and I clearly mention they haven't been proven at the introduction's final paragraph in this article. I am not "self-promoting" brain types since I have no affiliation, familial or professional, with the Niednagels; I am just a 24-year old sports fan who also was interested in the MBTI when I learned about their work on the ESPN show. Again, it's an interesting but unproven concept; I thought I was pretty fair in trying to be neutral as possible and allowing additions of the Sandbek article as an opposing view. The sources I gave, Niednagel's book and web site, have a list of all his claims - again, _claims_, and I added all that information so people have some idea of what brain types are about. This article wouldn't be very informative if it didn't present claims. So, I don't see why people here are refusing to acknowledge this article as neutral. Please name specifics where I somehow say this is factual and not just a theory. --Khendra1984 (talk) 08:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- After reviewing the article fully again, I suppose one thing that could be added to make the article more balanced (since it seems to be annoying people so much) are some of the sports predictions which _haven't_ been successful for brain types. Sure, I mentioned the Leaf and Manning once since it's the most famous, but that's admittedly a positive example. I could also add the more negative one about unsuccessful NBA basketball player Brian Scalabrine being touted since he was said to have "Michael Jordan's brain type," if you guys would like that. I think I still have the source. --Khendra1984 (talk) 08:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Definitely that source would be appreciated (in addition to any others you might have, of course). My complaints on POV issues don't stem from the writing per se (I think you did a good job writing in a neutral voice), but from the weight given to the advocates of brain typing as opposed to the detractors. The recommended reading on this point is WP:DUE.
    In any case, that example would be a great improvement to the article; in fact, go ahead and edit it in if you want. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 09:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I should also note that there's currently an arbitration case regarding issues of undue weight and sourcing in "fringe science" topics in general. This may explain some of the rather touchy behavior of some commentors (including myself) in this AfD. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 09:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, on further inspection, I've decided that the most objectionable section (to me, at least) is the section called "Brain Types and Mental Skills." I think I will edit that out. Then we'll work on improving the article, and I think it will look a lot better to everyone. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 09:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for the quick responses. I'll look for the Scalabrine reference to make it more neutral. I am also fine with the mental skill section being removed - if anyone is more interested about brain type claims, they can go to the web site and see those mental skill claims there anyway, so it's a bit redundant. --Khendra1984 (talk) 09:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think we should take this discussion to the article's talk page at this point, personally. I've got to sleep, though, so I won't be able to do much more right now. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 09:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bob McLean (TV personality)

This appears to be not just one, but two (seemingly non-notable) people rolled into one: see http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0572499/ and http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0533814/. IMDb doesn't suggest notability for either, and if either one is notable, a new article should be started for him. But since the current information is DEMONSTRABLY FALSE, it should be deleted right away (without prejudice to recreation of articles on either of the two being created with proper claims of notability.) Bongo matic 00:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I would not be surprised to find that http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0572499/ actually contains the filmographies of at least two different actors with the same name. The roles McLean allegedly played as a child and teenager ("Burgundian Guard" at age 14, "Marine Guard" at age 16) make it seem like he has been credited with roles played by a then-adult who shared his name. If so, that would mean that this article is really about at least three people rolled into one. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally confused article, even together or separate. No notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ArcAngel (talk) 06:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 14:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woodson Law Office

I do not see the individual notability of these buildings. These are both unremarkable vernacular 19th century buildings that happen to be located near Appomattox Court House and so within Appomattox Court House National Historical Park. One pound (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There has been an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Closer look regarding these and other buildings. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 00:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - According to Wikipedia:Notability

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." --Doug Coldwell ^talk 00:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which "reliable secondary sources"? The descriptions provided by the National Parks Service websites? It is within their Park, you know - I'm sure they describe all sorts of other things which are not notable too.

Woodson Law Office is a small (12'6"x14'6") single-storey beige wooden hut with a single room containing a couple of desks. Nothing of note happened there. It is not even located on its original site any more.

Jones Law Office is another small (21'6"x17'6") single-storey single-room unpainted wooden hut, plus attic and cellar. Nothing of note happened here either. The article itself notes that "The obscure house would have hardly been noticed by any passerby of the time."

Sure, the ensemble of structures on this site probably is notable as a collection, and it may be worth breaking the ones that merit it out into separate articles, but it would be better to deal with them together in the first instance. Bluntly, in my view, these two wooden huts are not notable. Even the NPS say the "Significance Level" of these two buildings is "Contributing" - that is, they are not significant in their own right, but only together with the rest of the site.-- One pound (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This AfD seems POINTy, and a little time passing will give us a better judge of their notability.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 01:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is going to happen during the currency of this AfD to increase their notability? They have both been there since the 1850s (along with associated fences, well houses, etc, and 70-odd other structures listed alongside them with an equivalent level of Significance in the Register). -- One pound (talk) 00:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redierct to Appomattox Court House National Historical Park. JJL (talk) 02:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to the same as the above. No independent notability. No real information on the topic. Seems utterly redundant. Non-notable law offices and non-notable lawyers. These pages are listed by the National Park Service along with outhouses, kitchens, and fences, which would make them the equivalent of notability as part of the park. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Merging looks like a win-win solution until reading Appomattox Court House National Historical Park. Right now Category:Appomattox Court House National Historical Park has thirteen articles on individual buildings. Q1. Why were the two Law Offices singled out? Why not consider all thirteen? Q2. Is merging thirteen-to-one is still a sound option, will the mother article be readable at all? Q3. Who will agree to do it correctly? Of two authors of the Courthouse ring, one (User:Doug Coldwell) voted to keep, another (User:Bmpowell) has not spoken so far. In the absence of volunteers, keep. NVO (talk) 07:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to list some of the other buildings, you can feel free. These seem to be two of the weaker articles. However, there are at least 7 others that should also be listed. Notability is primarily determined by this list. 77 entries for the park as a whole which includes equally well houses, fences, ice houses, kitchens, slave quarters, and bathrooms.Ottava Rima (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From when I've visited Appomattox Court House NHP, I'd have to say that the articles that Doug created correspond with the major, marked buildings on the site. Brian Powell (talk) 00:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do know that the markers are part of the park and not the building, and that those markers are the equivalent of museum exhibit markers, right? Do we have individual exhibits in museums as declared notable without anything special behind them? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of what the items represent. Further, I do not appreciate your condescending tone.

As I indicated my earlier comment, the structures which currently have articles are generally the major buildings on site. These are the structures which have been reconstructed are open to the public. Furthermore, they are ones which the National Park Service has found significant enough to merit discussion in the park visitor's guide and materials.

If there is enough material to justify an independent article on the structure, which I believe there either is or is likely soon to be, then I think there is no reason why the structure should not have its own article. Brian Powell (talk) 05:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I picked out the law offices because I thought they were particularly weak. Several others are also not notable, in my view, but I thought it would be better to test consensus before nominating them all. (2) I think merging them all together at Appomattox Court House National Historical Park would probably be the best solution, unless any of them is sufficiently importnat (such as the court house itself) to justify its own article, or summary style requires a sub-article. Or perhaps the less important buildings could be collected together at, say, Minor structures of the Appomattox Court House National Historical Park? (3) If no-one else is willing to do it, I will. Substantial chunks of these articles are essentially the same anyway, so it would be more efficient to deal with them in one place. -- One pound (talk) 00:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. User:Doug Coldwell has been the main one working on these articles. I primarily just did some cleanup work and added stuff like the navboxes. Anyhow, Doug seems to be doing a lot of work on the articles. I'd give him more time to continue fleshing out the information. The pages have only existed for about a week at this point. Brian Powell (talk) 07:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He was told a week ago that these pages needed a lot more work and this is what he has produced so far. There is incredibly little on the importance of these law firms because they did nothing except be in the ___location of the signing. See here for more discussion on the matter and an analysis of what Doug was saying. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As I mentioned in my original comment, it's only been about a week. Some people have lives outside of Wikipedia edits. Brian Powell (talk) 00:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They were both created on January 21. That is getting on for 2 weeks ago. -- One pound (talk) 00:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 08:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For one thing, both of these are extensive enough that I don't think it would be wise to merge them into the main article about the park; it would create an article that's bottom-heavy and far too long to navigate well, in my opinion. For another thing...let's consider them as individual properties on the National Register. We allow articles for other NR properties, so long as sufficient information can be found on them; notability is not an issue for them. The only difference between them, to me, is that these NRHP listings are part of a larger property that happens to also be notable.

[edit] From the article on the Jones Law Office: "It also preserves the distinctive characteristics as embodying the period and method of construction typical in Piedmont Virginia in the mid-nineteenth century." - that seems like more than enough to establish notability, given that it's sufficient to establish historical validity for the US government. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 20:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is essentially a quote from here: "Significant under Criteria C embodying the characteristics of construction typical in Piedmont Virginia in the mid-19thC." (short version) or "Significant under Criteria C by embodying the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, and method of construction. The buildings and resources at APCO constitute a holistic landscape typical of both a county government seat in Piedmont Virginia in the mid-19thC and of a farming community in the state." (long version) - that is, the whole landscape is significant, not the parts. To put it another way, this is a minor character in an episode, not a main cast member. -- One pound (talk) 00:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to note that the government only has them as notable because they are part of the park and all structures under the park must be registered under the National Register. They are not independently notable buildings and hence lack "landmark" status, which is the independent notability standard under the national park service. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see the point of deleting these. I consider them spinouts of Appomattox Court House National Historical Park. People attach too much significance to the fact that a topic gets an independent article. Sometimes, such things are necessary for the sake of organization. We do have a good deal to say about these buildings, so why not try to be as comprehensive as the sources allow? Zagalejo^^^ 23:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This sets a pretty low bar. Are we to expect separate articles on the McLean Well House, McLean Ice House, McLean Outside Kitchen, McLean Slave Quarters, McLean Privy, McLean Fence to go with the McLean House? It looks to me like virtually any historic man-made structure within the park is listed. -- One pound (talk) 00:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there much more that could realistically be said about any of those? We at least have a few paragraphs of information on each of the law offices. Zagalejo^^^ 01:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zagalejo - read the articles and you will see that most of the information is the same in each article. The only difference is the "description" of the buildings. This description can be made of the kitchen, slave quarters, outside kitchen, privy, fence, etc. Thus, you can have all 77 exactly the same. There is possibly 5 lines of unique text on those two law office pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not sure that's totally fair. The history sections are also different. But like I said, I'm fine with a merge, if it can be done well. Zagalejo^^^ 03:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How are the history sections different? The "historical significance" section, which is the only source of notability, is 100% the same. Then there are potential copyright issues by copy and pasting the whole section on the building. You cannot do that. Fair use limits it to 300 words or less, and that less is considered as proportion to the whole section on it. There are a lot of problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doing some research, I found this. Not only is the page numbering wrong (the first quote off Woodson's firm is really from 38-39, not 39), it deals with buying soap and not about why the building is important. This is definitely not a reliable source of information, at least for notability sake. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "History" sections above "Historical significance" are different, and have been different since the articles were first brought here. (Unless I'm going crazy...)

That said, I don't condone the massive copy/paste jobs. Those long block quotes seem to have been added to the articles recently. There was only one block quote between them when I first commented, and that one was only about 50 words long. Zagalejo^^^ 04:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the confusion of "history" and "historical significance" was sloppiness on my part - I didn't copy and paste the title when commenting. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if the main page was long I might agree, but there's plenty of space there. I don't see a reason for a breakout. JJL (talk) 00:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not that strongly opposed to a merge, but a merge would have to be done properly. Article length isn't the only thing we have to worry about. We also want to avoid long, awkward digressions. Zagalejo^^^ 01:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I notice (from today's DYK) that many of the buildings are broken-out; merging some of the smaller ones into one page is also an option. JJL (talk) 02:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect, per Ottava. -Oreo Priest ^talk 00:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - Notability is not established. I don't see a problem with merging these articles to the park's main article, as not all of the information is necessary (the description is unnecessarily long, and the historical significance would be unnecessary in the merged article). GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as each article appears to cross the notability and verifiability thresholds plus, just as importantly, each is a legitimate fork off of the parent Appomattox Park article. If all of these buildings were merged into one over-long super-article the immediate and proper call would be to split it back up for length and readability... and we'll be right here again, only we'll have wasted an enormous amount of time and energy. - Dravecky (talk) 09:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The unique sections of each page amount to less than 5k worth of information, including formatting. Since at at least half of them probably wont be listed for deletion, that gives around 8 articles total to list. That is an addition of 40k worth of information. Seeing as how WP:SIZE would allow for 10,000 words and doesn't recommend a definite split until 60k, your concern does not seem likely. By the way, how do they cross the notability? They are not mentioned except as being part of the areas, they are listed along side 77 other buildings (some fences, some outhouses, etc) and not even marked as independently notable (land mark status) by the national park services, and only contain original information on the size and shape of the house. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not taking any position on the question of the individual notability of the articles, as I haven't looked at it closely enough, but I think Dravecky has made an important point. I don't see that the content of the articles should be excluded from Wikipedia, so even if I wanted to support the AfD I should be saying "merge". But this isn't an encyclopedia which copes well with long pages, and our WP:N policy doesn't seem to address the common need to have more pages than there are individual subjects of notability. If we haven't got it already, we need a better concept of what could be called marsupial notability, connected to the multi-page structure which the nature of Wikipedia often calls for. But, not having looked at the particular question in enough detail, I don't say these articles could only rely on that. Xn4 (talk) 13:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Today's self-immolation by One pound, whose last edit summary was "if you see me editing again, please shoot me", seems to be to do with the dispute over the Khadambi Asalache DYK nomination and not over this AfD. Xn4 (talk) 13:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was invited by Doug Caldwell to comment here, presumably related to the fact that i work mostly on NRHP articles and participate actively at wt:NRHP. Here goes:

In the past, many wp:NRHP participants including myself have defended NRHP articles at AfD in a kind of lockstep, automatic mode. It is a privilege to be able to write articles about historic sites, worth defending. But the question of whether a contributing structure is worthy of a separate article is different than whether it can be covered at all. There may in fact be a new trend in wp:NRHP practice, instead, towards creating combination articles that cover the main points about related NRHP sites, even for sites separately listed on the NRHP but covered in one Multiple Property Submission. Here all are part of just one listing, I believe.
I note mention above that one (or both) of these is merely a contributing structure. That is at least better than being a noncontributing structure, which would almost always not be notable. There are a number of separate articles about contributing structures, and wp:NRHP provides an NRHP infobox with fields appropriate for contributing structures, not present here.
I'm somewhat aware of recent debates about multiple part DYKs involving NRHPs. I am suspicious of them, because it would appear that DYK medal-hunting is a large part of the purpose for the creation of the articles, and readability is perhaps secondary. I wonder, if the multiple NRHPs are related closely enough to be covered in one DYK, are they not closely enough related to be covered in one article, and would that not serve the reader better?
I highly appreciate that Doug has taken and uploaded at least 4 pics to illustrate the Jones article. I tend to support whatever someone wants to do, if the person has actually gone and visited a site, and provides original research about it via our allowed exemption for photographs.
The Jones description section is a restatement of details in its source, an apparently required bureaucratic inventory. I think that detail is excessive and not interesting for this structure, which is not important for its architecture. In my view, an encyclopedia article should be a summary, should be shorter than the primary and secondary sources that it draws upon. The description puts into sentences what is in somewhat more cryptic form at the source, but cannot add value otherwise. It may in fact be larger than the source passage. I'd prefer one or two sentences with the source being given as it is, leaving some details for the very interested reader to find in the source, rather than their finding nothing further there.
I note that the Jones article's lead is insufficient to meet wikipedia notability guidelines used in some wikipedia areas, like for musicians, in that it does not assert notability. The entire lead is: "The Jones Law Office is part of the Appomattox Court House National Historical Park, which is identified as structure number 17." Besides not being grammatical, that does not assert importance of this house. It's hard for me to evaluate the merit of the AfD without importance being asserted in the article.

Hope these comments are useful. doncram (talk) 19:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this is helpful. I wonder if a subsidiary "List of buildings at..." (i.e., "List of minor characters of Scrubs" style, as suggested above by One pound) might simultaneously address concerns about breaking out of the main article for stylistic reasons and not having lots of articles with either no content or just re-worked versions of their primary source web pages. JJL (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure - it seems one pound left for retirement after non-deletion related stress. Ottava Rima (talk)

Addendum: For perspective about which contributing structures are relatively more important, and why, the main NRHP document on the entire district, which was somehow not yet included in the Appomattox Court House National Historical Park article, should be consulted. There's language in its section 8 page 4 which might be used in describing the contribution of individual parts to a whole, as well as additional info on each of the contributing structures individually. It's not entirely new: some sources already used are probably derivatives from this more primary source. Unfortunately the on-line version of the document omits the author and date of preparation, which would appear in missing section 11, though there's a 1989 datestamp on the front. Copy of the full original may be obtained for free by request to nr_reference (at) nps.gov. Here's the reference to the online version.^[1]

^ Author not noted (n.d.), National Register of Historic Places Registration: Appomattox Court House / Appomattox Court House National Historical Park (32 KB), National Park Service {{citation}}: |author= has generic name (help); External link in |title= (help) and Accompanying 12 photos, undated (32 KB) (Incomplete copy, lacking author and date)

I observed Woodson structure mentioned several places, didn't happen to spot Jones within the long document skimmed quickly. doncram (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Jones law office is also known as the Lorenzo D. Kelly house - which is in the document with a full description. Thanks for locating the PDF document. I now have an additional reference to work from for all the articles as it looks like they all have descriptive information here.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 00:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the Jones and Woodson articles still further. They are double what they were from the start. Besides the National Park Service and National Register of Historic Places information another secondary source historian I am using is William Marvel, a well known Civil War historian. He is the one that realized that the National Park Service misidentified the Jones Law office as the Lorenzo D. Kelly house, which Kelly occupied after Jones. The Bocock-Isbell House is also identified as the Kelly house in the National Register of Historic Places application PDF document. The secondary source reference A Place Called Appomattox by William Marvel has a book review here. The History section of the articles are the major part of each, with the Description of the structures as the second largest.

I have been in constant contact with the key Park historian in writing the Jones and Woodson articles. He gave me certain corrections and additional information. His last remarks on the last e-mail from him were:

Douglas,

That looks good. You certainly have been busy and we appreciate your efforts to enlighten others about Appomattox.

I'll peruse through the rest of your entries when I get a chance.
Patrick A. Schroeder, Historian

Appomattox Court House National Historical Park

P. O. Box 218

Appomattox, VA 24522

phone + FAX + email adddress --Doug Coldwell ^talk 14:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment I think it would be helpful to close this and let those working on these articles take these comments with them and try to re-work the structure of the articles associated with this NRHP site. It sounds like a lot of good effort is going into adding useful info. and it can always be copied-and-pasted into a different format at a later date if desired. JJL (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both. These two articles provide more detail and more historical background than is appropriate within Appomattox Court House National Historical Park. As far as national parks, or National Historical Parks, are concerned, I don't think we need to have an article about every single contributing structure within them, such as the ice house. But there's more historical data about the law offices and their occupants than there is about the ice house or the McLean Privy. It's a good thing to have detail within an article or broken out into separate articles. (It beats the article about Fort Snelling, which doesn't even mention the colonel's house, the historical barracks on either side of the parade ground, or the batteries that held the cannons for defense.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 23:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both. In my mind, although the magnitude may be different, why not keep all these subarticles? There is precedence, although the magnitude is different, by having so many subsegments of the Battle of Gettysburg and the Gettysburg Battlefield articles. More information and more communications are to be commended, not taken away. 8th Ohio Volunteer Infantry (talk) 02:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Island country

This article turns a phrase which has been occasionally used in description of a few places into a formal and generally applicable definition. It creates a neologism and offers a detailed and entirely unsupported definition. It does so in the same as if there was an article "Green and pleasant lands" and them as being any place that was both green and pleasant just because a few places had been so described. The article in entirely missing supporting references, as is the related article "List of island countries" Wotapalaver (talk) 00:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The article is available in 35 languages. The term was used in 1816 1, the World Book Encyclopedia, 2, the CIA World Fact Book, 3.Finally, Google Book Search shows that the term is widely used.--J.Mundo (talk) 00:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - This doesn't look like a neologism, after some digging, google scholar provides in-context examples of usage quite far back, and there are some examples in books; although I am concerned about the lack of references. – Toon ^(talk) 01:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly a neologism:

- "St Lucia is a small island country in the Carribean." The World Book Encyclopedia (1993)[26];

- "Cyprus, Island country in the E Mediterranean S of Turkey." / "Cuba, Island country in the Carinean S of Fl"; Webster's II New College Dictionary (2005)[27];

- "They have a common country, an island country withal, parted by the sea from other lands. And from that island country they have taken a common name. ..." The history of Sicily from the earliest times (1892)[28]

- "Being an island country is shown to be significantly associated with political democracy." Small is Democratic" (2000).[29]

- "If an island is a land surrounded by water, is your country an island country?" Discovering World Geography with Books Kids Love (1999)[30]

- "A small island country was in dispute with a continental country in the Libya-Malta case." The Aegean Maritime Disputes and International Law (2003)[31]

- "The reasons why our country — ruled by the descendants of a single line of monarchs and forming an island country in an advanced state of development..." Papers on Inter-Racial Problems (1970)[32]

- "However, the relative level of imports into any single island country, particularly the middle-sized and smaller islands, has a significant local effect." Development and Social Change in the Pacific Islands (1989)[33]

- "shimane island country" The Modern Reader's Japanese-English Character Dictionary (1966)[34]

- "As the representative of an island country that is also unfortunately divided, I , too, realise that ignoring one group on an island, even if it is a ..." Official Report of Debates: Council of Europe" (1989)[35]

- "This tiny island country, strategically located in the heart of the Mediterranean Sea, is well renowned for its grand history." Doing Business with Malta (2005)[36]

- "The average island country with a population under 1 .5 million has 1 7 percent of its citizens overseas, though several have more than 30 percent abroad ..." Development and the Next Generation (2006)[37]

- "this island country won independence from Great Britain in 1948 and changed its name from Ceylon to the Republic of Sri Lanka in 1972 ..." The Garland Encyclopedia of World Music (2000)[38].

- "It achieved independence in January 1962 and was the only independent island country in the South Pacific at that time. In June 1963, the Western Samoan ..." Microstates and Nuclear Issues: Regional Cooperation in the Pacific (1991).[39]

- "Like Japan, Ireland has figured but little in this Outline of History, and for the same reason, because she is an extreme island country, receiving much, ..." The Outline of History, Being a Plain History of Life and Mankind (2004)[40]

- "The world's largest island country, Indonesia, reported in the Fifth Inquiry that it had identified a target of resettling 2.5 million persons..." World Population Trends and Policies: 1987 Monitoring Report (1987)

- "They point out that Japan is, after all, an island country. Yet it was not until Japan opened itself up to the West in the second half of the nineteenth ..." Smaller is Better: Japan's Mastery of the Miniature (1984)[41]

- "Despite the drastic efforts of both the United States and the government of the Dominican Republic, the island country's financial problems became ..." Herbert Hoover's Latin-American Policy (1951)[42]

- "Nauru: island country in the southwestern Pacific Ocean." Britannica Online Encyclopedia[43]

I suggest withdrawing the nomination and tagging the article for references instead. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the numerous other languages article shows that it is not a trivial phrase. Wandering Courier (talk) 02:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable term, just needs references. Matt (Talk) 04:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this indicates that the UK and Japan are island countries, but in those countries, they refer to a "mainland" (ie. Great Britain, or Honshu) ... 76.66.196.229 (talk) 06:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - per Malcolmxl5's and J.Mundo's research. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 07:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. It's snowing and there's no sense dragging this out.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Am I the only one here who thinks that the long list of mentions ought to be a list of discussions of the word? A concept isn't notable because it is used; it is notable because it is discussed and written about. Drmies (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would think it's notable simply because 25% of the world's countries are island countries. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 21:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about proving notability in the Wikipedian sense, by providing sources that discuss the concept in some depth? What you called Mundo and Malcolm's research isn't research at all, it's just usage of the words, and as a linguist you know that. Drmies (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I added a few references. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 21:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the spirit. Drmies (talk) 21:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was about to come in here and vote delete because there wasn't enough said about how an island country is different from others, except a single source that they tended to be more democratic, but the new source on military strategy fixed that doubt. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 13:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Houston Tower

The only cited sources in the article are very brief online listings (it used to be longer but unsourced material was removed; it also originally contained this speculative, unsourced rendering--that link is admins only, sorry). I've done as detailed a search as I could and not found anything more except web rumors. The records of Emery Roth's firm, which is listed at Emporis as the architect, are at Columbia; this xls file contains a list of all projects in the file, and this one is not represented. No news coverage that I can find. I'm not convinced this ever got beyond the daydreaming stage, there isn't even any indication of who might have been doing the daydreaming, and I'm not sure we can include it without WP:reliable sources attesting that it was seriously proposed at any point. Chick Bowen 00:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. For support, the article cites a forum discussion at skyscraperpage.com, but that would be a little dubious even if it actually helped. But it doesn't! The discussion there makes clear that this was a hypothetical concept to illustrate the limits of supertall structures - not even a proposed building. (See the comment of "Wattleigh" showing a newspaper article.) It never, ahem, got off the ground.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC) Change to undecided/provisional keep in light of Template:Supertall proposed skyscrapers; I was not aware that there are actually quite a number of articles on similarly-situated skyscraper designs. I think we should seek better guidance than I'm presently aware of as to what the notability criteria are for proposed and actual structures, and how our decision here is going to bear on the retention or deletion of those other articles before coming down one way or another. If we can't resolve those questions in the timeframe allowed for the nomination's consideration, I would strongly advocate keeping the article until those questions are answered, without prejudice to the possibility of subsequently renominating the article if the answers are unfavorable.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Karanacs (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that new, more reliable sources have been found that appear to discuss this topic in a narrow way. None of the new sources appears to use this term to describe the concept, however. It doesn't change the fact that this was a concept only, designed 20-odd years ago, and that the designers never even tried to get proposed as a potential building. At most, I could see this being mentioned in one of the tallest building articles, but I don't think it should have its own article. Karanacs (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response Can you please specify which Policy stats that it shouldn't be listed or state which article is should be merged too. I know there's many other articles on Hypothetical Supertall Vision Buildings that are not stubby and are sourced and which is why I placed my decision as keep. You can see the list of those buildings at Template:Supertall_skyscrapers. So please tell me which policy or guideline is the rationale of deletion as I felt I met the Nominators rationale for deletion. As of right now you seem to be using WP:IDONTLIKEIT and/or WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC (as you are just thinking that those types of buildings shouldn't have their own articles is kinda hinting that it is just Unencyclopedic and you Don't like it) as the rationile. Sawblade05 ⁽^{talk to me} ^| ^{my wiki life}⁾ 20:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ Changing Decision to Strongest Possible Keep see below I only just placed a Stub Tag on it just last week. It needs more time for people to notice its here as it was uncategorized the week before. In a few months if you felt that it is needed then I will change my mind on it. I might have to do some googling for some, but I can't expand an article that is up for AFD, because the work would probably get deleted and all those hours of expansion would be for nothing. Sawblade05 ⁽^{talk to me} ^| ^{my wiki life}⁾ 18:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sources for this building are out there. Unfortunately its not on the Web. On the fourm site at http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=153431 (the forum site itself is not a good resource but they do cite reliable resources in them to cite here) it shows a scan of a Houston Post Story on the Building from the 1980s, to make matters worse on finding the article, the Newspaper was Discontinued in 1995 (in the earlier time when the internet was not as big as it was today and it only had very very few archives) and sold to the Houston Chronicle which doesn't appear to keep on online archive of their stories. I'll continue my search for sources. Sawblade05 ⁽^{talk to me} ^| ^{my wiki life}⁾ 18:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Found another Source After seeing on one of the fourms to Google the Term Krahl Houston Tower I cam up on a link that goes to http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=47252 Which cites the building details and cites the source from The Futurist Magazine November-December 1986. I will add this site to the article at hand. Sawblade05 ⁽^{talk to me} ^| ^{my wiki life}⁾ 19:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another Comment I am changing my decision listed above from Weak Keep to Strongest Possible Keep per the Google Results at http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS278US278&q=Krahl+Houston+Tower&btnG=Search and some of the links I added to the article.

Thanks very much for your efforts here. This is very valuable material, but don't you think it would best be collected in an article on proposals for one mile + buildings, rather than the individual building? That NY Times article is great, but it's not really about this building per se as a proposal. Chick Bowen 03:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J'Almy Out

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/J'Almy Out

Non-notable term, fails WP:NEO. Cunard (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Why on earth isn't there a speedy category for trash like this? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW fits this. I was going to speedy this until I saw the AfD nomination. So, in the spirit of the community, delete with extreme prejudice. :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, falls under WP:MADEUP, clearly something with no notability/encyclopaedic value. » \ / (⁂) 00:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable neologism. Originally Coined by Justin Grout and Aaron Chapman - any chance the latter and User:Chapm024 (the creator) are somehow distantly related...? Google shows nothing. – Toon ^(talk) 01:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Foolishness. •••Life of Riley (talk) 02:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable neologism. Matt (Talk) 04:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ArcAngel (talk) 06:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NEO. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Schuym1 (talk) 15:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please snowball this total load of bollocks 00:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete complete and utter garbage. JuJube (talk) 01:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment its lucky it even got just a AfD tag PSNMand (talk) 01:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted CSD G3 hoax. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas (Tommy) Tucker

I can't see that this person ever existed, certainly searching for any corroboration on the Internet indicates that he did not. The place of birth is listed as the "Cock and Bull" in Belfast, which suggests that the article may itself be a cock and bull story. I placed a speedy deletion template on this page, author removed it, but the article still doesn't seem plausible, and I still feel it should have been speedily dealt with as either patent bollocks, non-notable or vandalism.

pablo_hablo. 00:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no opinion on the AfD but "The Cock and Bull" is quite a possible name for taverns or pubs in Britain and Ireland--and in fact I've personally had a pint in a pub with that name before now.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to retort. that there are many pubs throughout Britain and Ireland that are called either "The Cock" or "The Bull", and it's entirely possible that there are some called "The Cock And Bull". However, the main meaning of "Cock and Bull" is a made-up story. pablo_hablo. 00:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced and seemingly failing WP:V. Probably hoax; if this person was actually notable, there'd be an article on him, and some sources to back it up. – Toon ^(talk) 01:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a complete cock and bull story (or perhaps Complete Bollocks). •••Life of Riley (talk) 02:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think someones being a bit of a cheeky Tommy Tucker. (Checked google just in case, got nothing, assuming the entire article is indeed a hoax. Might be worth checking the other article the user created.) Artw (talk) 03:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually his other edits are basically minor changes to existing articles, which have all been reverted. Artw (talk) 03:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The Kahana is a fictional ship on the TV show Lost. There are various dating issues. There was no "German onslaught" in Minnesota in the early 18th Century. There are no ghits for "Charles Finkton". In summary, it's a hoax. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed there was no state of Minnesota (or even territory) in early 18th century. It was not even part of the Colonies. •••Life of Riley (talk) 04:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: Please also delete Thomas (Tommy) R.Tucker, which was the original name of this article and became a redirect when this article was moved to its current title. •••Life of Riley (talk) 04:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are quite a number of self-evident factual errors and self-contradictions in the article, from the person making an announcement 185 years after xe died, to xem emigrating to the U.S.A. almost a whole century before it even existed. This is a clear hoax. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 06:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lenticel ^(talk) 02:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dance technology

Original research, unmaintained for years. And don't let the long list of weblinks confuse you. While the term is searchable in google, what is found is not what article says: it is not a "new art form", in some refs it is simply usage of modern tecnologies for presentation of dance, see, eg. here. Note - I do not say that there cannot be an article with this title: it is just the current content is original unsupported definition of the term by the (basically sole) author, who left wikipedia long time ago. - 7-bubёn >t 19:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yeah, that looks right. - Eldereft (cont.) 23:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Rubbish. However did people manage to dance without all this technology? pablo_hablo. 00:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a spamfield. Alexius08 (talk) 02:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ArcAngel (talk) 06:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Hermit (band)

Delete fails WP:BAND. Has been tagged since 2007 with no apparent new facts coming to light to pass the notability guideline; release of 1 album on a (possibly) notable label is all we have. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I searched for just one of the albums listed and found [44], [45], [46], [47]. That's probably enough without searching any further.--Michig (talk) 22:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources proided by Michig show that they have released an album which has gained a reasonable amount of review coverage, WP:N. – Toon ^(talk) 01:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Coverage of The Hermit's first album: [48], [49], [50]. And more: CBC Concert, [51].--Michig (talk) 09:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alexey Vorobyov (singer)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Alexey Vorobyov (singer) (2nd nomination)

Still no sources or something else that explain why he is notable. The Rolling Camel (talk) 21:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the Netherlands people who take part in the Eurovision Song Contest preselections tend to be notable of their own already. Maybe it's the same in Russia. A basic Google translation suggests he also had leading acting roles. We should get someone who actually knows Russian to go through the linked article to see if adding one or two lines will clear up the notability.- Mgm|^(talk) 09:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've contacted a Wikipedian from Tula (where Alexey was born) to see if they can help. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My Russian's rather rusty (I haven't used it in anger for about 30 years) but I can see that the bio linked in the article doesn't imply any notability prior to his participation in this contest. It doesn't mention any major acting roles. Searching is difficult because this is a common name but putting his name with the song title into Google News finds a short article and an interview in the Tula edition of Komsomolskaya Pravda, and two other publications naming him in a list of contestants. The interview mentions a film role and searching for his name with the film title comes up with one more short article in the Tula Komsomolskaya Pravda. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleksei Vorobyev closed 3 weeks ago. A search would indicate some degree of notability, along with interviews, etc. Since this article is such a thorn in the nominator's side, by the looks of it, and since he has been provided sources, why doesn't be WP:BOLD and fix it. --Russavia ^Dialogue 11:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More sources Upon looking more, he is actually quite notable. He is contracted to Universal Music Russia, is a youth goodwill ambassador for UNFPA, has won numerous singing competitions, has acted in several movies, with more to come. His 2006 single "Summer" topped the SMS charts for MTV Russia, and he was nominated for 2 awards at the 2007 MTV Russia music awards. I've added a couple of quick facts to the article, which should indicate his notability. If some no-talent media ***** can have their article, why can't this no-talent Russian actor also have his article -- sorry, but pop music just shits me a lot of the time -- so obviously WP:BIAS comes into play here also. --Russavia ^Dialogue 12:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Russavia has demonstrated notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Speedy Close, says the nominator. The Rolling Camel (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Astar (game)

This article appears to have only one source, a directory of games, with Google translation. The content is a list of instructions (which WP:NOT) and not an encyclopaedic description of the game and its history. Probably because that appears to be rather difficult to find. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we all text except the lead and goal sections, the instruction-issues are dealt with. It sounds like one of those traditional games like Manacle and it could well be a solid topic. I'd like to see it userfied if the creator is still around or at least given a chance at WP:RESCUE before a final decision is made. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:47, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:N. Schuym1 (talk) 15:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While it may not have been extremely popular...it may have influenced other games.Smallman12q (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A simple google search will show that while the game is not overly popular, it does have some players. See astar site.Smallman12q (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Russian forum with 20 members and 12 posts does not really verify notability. Joshua Darkins (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the topic is encyclopedic. Is it possible to find out what it is called in its native language? — Reinyday, 04:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Strong Keep as I am sure no one here speaks ~~Kyrgyzstani~~ Kyrgyz or Russian it is hard to verify but appears legit. It appears notable. RE: The content is a list of instructions Articles for deletion is not the forum to clean up an article. WP:INTROTODELETE, WP:POTENTIAL "Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article." Astar is Russian is Астар, game is Игра and Kyrgyzstan is Кыргызстан. Ikip (talk) 14:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the language is Kyrgyz. Joshua Darkins (talk) 14:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL thanks Joshua :) Ikip (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 02:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zuhaib Bhatti

Claims notability (as a tv director, editor, scriptwriter) but only 5 ghits. Seems to fail WP:NOTABILITY. Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. 8 minutes from article creation to AfD is a bit hasty, doncha think? What happened to Speedy A7 and Prod? Better yet, {{notability}} or {{importance}} or {{unreferenced}} first? Rklear (talk) 07:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:52, 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, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised. Islamic tv producers are unlikely to be the topic of online coverage. One should look for paper sources instead. Has anyone contacted the creator to ask for references? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

zuhaib bhatti is a tv director, and working now a days,directing tv programes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.183.209 (talk) 23:46, 1 March 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, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I left a note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pakistan to see if anyone could find helpful non-English sources. Only one comment so far, indicating notability isn't going to be found. Rklear (talk) 07:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CSB. Non english sources must certainly be available. No need to toss the article 8 minutes after creation. Should have been tagged and allowed to improve. Wiki has no WP:DEADLINE. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Using this might help to expand the article. Perhaps we should seek a Pakistani editor's help to navigate through urdu websites which might help to establish his notability . --Roaring Siren (talk) 12:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3SL Cradle

Non-notable company JaGa^talk 13:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 17:01, 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, kur ykh 00:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reads like an advertisement. ArcAngel (talk) 06:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find and reliable sources for the product or the company that provide significant coverage. A new name 2008 (talk) 13:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (NAC) RMHED (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cabair

While a google search is challenging due to false positives resulting from the abbreviation for Civil Aeronautics Board, there's no evidence this group of schools is notable per WP:ORG. StarM 02:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 02:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 02:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 07:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sources on Google News Archive, such as this, this, this, and this. Some of these sources are only passing mentions, but this one from The Times is an in-depth progress report about Cabair. These sources are enough for this group of schools passes WP:ORG. Cunard (talk) 07:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's more notable than many high schools and other colleges here. Since it's a commercial concern though, it should pass WP:COMPANY which it does with a significant article in a reliable secondary source. --Triwbe (talk) 15:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cunard has demonstrated notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CandN

Non-notable band. JaGa^talk 07:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party notability WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 01:49, 27 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, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete fails WP:MUSIC as band has not had a single or album chart - none that I could find anyway. ArcAngel (talk) 06:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hello Christian and Nate, AfD stands for Article for Deletion, and the large lack of reliable sources means your article is going to be. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neptune (American band)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Neptune (American band) (2nd nomination)

Non-notable band. Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree and propose to keep the article. This band has some influence in its cradle Boston, but due to their touring also in whole US, Europe, etc. They strongly influenced experimental non-electronic music creation.
You'll reply me "they're not notable"; of course, that's experimental stuff after all.
And, following this mind, you can also, for example, delete all Seattle grunge bands of the mid-80's and keep only Nirvana.
Od1n (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#C1 [52], [53], [54], [55], [56]. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forex simulator

I propose the article Forex simulator for deletion from Wikipedia. Rationale: the article is 100% unverified information despite having been fact-tagged for over a year and a half, has few edits, and only a single link to it from other Wikipedia articles after many years. Obviously, other possibilities exist such as merging the idea of a Forex simulator with some other Forex-related article, but that would need help from someone knolwedgeable about Forex, which has seemed to be distinctly lacking on this article over the past year. N2e (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As proposer, I support the AFD, rationale above. N2e (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The ability described is also present in software aimed at investment markets other than Forex, for example the stock charting software I use has the facility described, but is not aimed at forex traders. If the article is to be kept, it should probably be generalised to apply to this kind of software as well. JulesH (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having done some research on this now, I think we must consider that the idea behind this type of software is so simple and obvious that nobody has ever bothered writing about it. The most I can find in a google books search, for example, are numerous "how to learn to trade currencies" style books that recommend beginners start on a simulator. It seems everyone takes for granted that there is such software and never bothers to describe it. JulesH (talk) 10:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This qualifies as a speedy under db-spam Tone 09:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emerging Milestones

No evidence is given for notability of this particular company. The text is basically an advertisement for the company Emerging Milestones. Eubulides (talk) 04:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Eubulides (talk) 04:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I searched Google Scholar and Google News for reliable sources about the company Emerging Milestones, without success. All the sources I found on the web seem to be unreliable in the Wikipedia sense (e.g., press releases or advertisements). Eubulides (talk) 05:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should have been speedily deleted a few minutes after it got created. It's nothing but spam. Alexius08 (talk) 02:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam, not fulfilling wp:corp¨¨ victor falk 03:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertising. ArcAngel (talk) 04:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 caster board. MBisanz ^talk 02:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ripstik

For nearly as long as it has existed, this article has been little more than two things: first, an advertisement thinly disguised as an article, and second, a forum for apparently prepubescent "extreme athletes" to name maneuvers in a grammatically poor fashion and espouse dubious (and uncited, and therefore unallowable) original research. This article does not offer any meaningful knowledge in accordance with the aims of Wikipedia. I agree with the above suggestion that this topic, along with other brand names of the same category, should simply redirect to the generic caster board article. — 74.214.101.215 (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC) Text copied from article talk page. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 10:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For context, "the above suggestion" mentioned by the IP nominator is:

This article (and The Wave (board) and Vigorboard and others) should all be redirected to caster board as they are all just different trade names for the same basic unit. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and is included here as a possible alternative. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 10:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I say delete with extreme prejudice. Nobody over the age of 7 cares what a "rip stick" is. A RazrScooter its not! Silk Knot (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it looks like an advertisement, delete it. Who cares about that type of skateboard? Alexius08 (talk) 02:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no separate article needed for a specific brand of caster board¨¨ victor falk 04:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Dan's suggestion. ArcAngel (talk) 04:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 02:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J. Samuel Cook

no independent notability, awards listed are not notable, no different than thousands of up-and-coming twentysomething CVs Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 11:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 27 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, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I think the awards are notable, IMHO. There is verifiability here - see [57] but no major news sources available: [58]. Can other sources be added? Bearian (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

[nrhpinv2-1] Author not noted (n.d.), National Register of Historic Places Registration: Appomattox Court House / Appomattox Court House National Historical Park (32 KB), National Park Service {{citation}}: |author= has generic name (help); External link in |title= (help) and Accompanying 12 photos, undated (32 KB) (Incomplete copy, lacking author and date)

[1]