Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 January 7

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< January 6 January 8 >

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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Krave (Group)

edit
Krave (Group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I don't see notability in this group. They are said to have appeared at the MTV New Years Eve Party, but it doesn't seem like they've been the subject of this program for 30 minutes or longer, as WP:BAND requests. A member of the group is going to appear in a commercial, but that doesn't make the entire group notable. Victor Lopes (talk) 17:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as a recreation of previously deleted material (G4). Similar material has been deleted in the past following discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Byron Hyde and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nightingale Research Foundation. The current page adds no new evidence of notability nor does it address the deletion rationales from the previous AfD discussions. Further recreations of this article which meet speedy-deletion criteria (see G4) can be tagged as such rather than going to AfD.

If there is interest in recreating an article on this individual, then the proper process would be to go to deletion review and present evidence that he meets our notability requirements for individuals or academics. The prior discussions linked above have determined that he did not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, so an effective argument at deletion review would probably focus on new or previously unmentioned evidence of notability. MastCell Talk 17:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Byron Marshall Hyde

edit
Byron Marshall Hyde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:RS, not notable, deleted before RetroS1mone talk 00:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Widely cited? A paper cited 47 times isn't that remarkable. Papers of truly notable people get cited hundreds of times. - Mgm|(talk) 11:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I looked into this in 2007; the histologic articles (including the one with 47 citations) appear to be by a different BM Hyde. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes i think you are right there is more then one BM Hyde. RetroS1mone talk 13:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Struck in light of comments. Poor judgment on my part. LeaveSleaves 14:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When a person's opinion is accepted as that of an expert in multiple reliable sources, that does add to notability and indicates that the person is well regarded in the area. Plus that was just my secondary point. My primary support stems from the publications. LeaveSleaves 04:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your view LeaveSleaves. I thought " trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability," a report some one will speak at a YMCA is very trivial and the drug company thing was a press release so not reliable. Are there works about this Byron M. Hyde, that is how I see WP:NOTE? Google searches for publications can be mis-leading like when there is more then one BM Hyde and there is. Your list of five books has just three published books, one is a collection of poems so it is not for notability of a doctor, one has a three-page article from him and the third, he is one from three editors and it is self-pub. Your list of publications has also another BM Hyde who published in peer-review literature and also publications by this BM Hyde who did not publish medline peer-review articles. When it is enough for notability, then every that has publications can be on WP, i don't think that is intent? RetroS1mone talk 05:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

0.720

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

The result was merge with Prevalence of rabies. Discussion closed by Graham Colm Talk 16:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa McMurray

edit
Lisa McMurray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete. What is notable here? The unfortunate woman caught the disease in a rabies-active ___location, then took the disease back home to Northern Ireland, which remains a rabies-free jurisdiction. Just a consequence of modern-age jet travel. This whole matter is WP:ONEEVENT and hence not notable. WWGB (talk) 23:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I thought this might be controversial. I haven't yet added other sources which may be a problem. Just to list a few of the more familiar ones: BBC, Sky News (quite highly placed for such an insignificant story), TV3, Irish Independent, The Irish Times, MSN, Evening Herald, Irish Examiner... --➨♀♂Candlewicke ST # :) 00:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • ... how is the notability not justified in this case? Apart from the endless number of sources (all of which I simply cannot include as I have other things to be doing with my time) this was quite clearly a rare occurrence and certainly unheard of in the county in which it occurred. I would take issue with the "hence not notable" comment and would advise the nominator to at the very least attempt a google before coming to such a conclusion in future. To dismiss this as "just a consequence of modern-age jet travel" is heinous in my opinion. --➨♀♂Candlewicke ST # :) 00:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unusual case where the person has become connected to something almost unheard of in her part of the world. It is the first such case of this medically-related occurrence in living memory. I also don't think anything in the article obstructs neutrality which is one of the reasons outlined in this policy. --➨♀♂Candlewicke ST # :) 00:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge a pruned version with Prevalence of rabies; it's best understood in the context of the disease prevalence in "rabies-free" countries. In terms of rarity, there have apparently been 23 cases in the UK (including Northern Ireland) since 1946 and three others since 2000; there is more information from the Health Protection Agency on the prevalence in the UK here:[6] Despite the plethora of sources, I agree with the nominator's characterisation of this as falling under WP:ONEEVENT. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first death in Northern Ireland in 71 years. --➨♀♂Candlewicke ST # :) 01:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sadly but no notability. --Paukrus (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shoulder shrug. Kay. However I am not the type of person to create articles on sons and daughters of famous people - I performed the necessary redirect for Dakota Culkin. I do not however think this compares. Notability cannot be inherited here. A case of medical science is incomparable to a case of overblown celebrity. --➨♀♂Candlewicke ST # :) 01:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No notability at all, simply a single event; same thing as the average murder victim. Star Garnet (talk) 01:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question: Are average murder victims notable if they involve unusual circumstances, are ground-breaking or lead to an alteration of a law or new discovery? --➨♀♂Candlewicke ST # :) 02:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • On occasion they are, but as I said, this is the same as an average muder victim. If every rabies victim was reported, they would have to have their own article, which isn't going to happen. And besides, there's almost certainly been an upreported case in the last 71 years. Star Garnet (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Although it would be difficult to find a report, or indeed an unreport, of an actual death in that part of the world during that period. The point is that is a significant death, no more than those who live to an extended period (many of the oldest people have articles purely for reaching a landmark age of death; this too is about someone whose circumstances were somewhat remarkable). Although age is not the issue here - moreso the circumstance and the rarity of such an occurrence. --➨♀♂Candlewicke ST # :) 03:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Adequately covered by the sentence "Indeed, since 1946 there have only been 23 reported cases of UK citizens getting rabies, all of them contracting the disease whilst abroad" at [7] (or some re-wording thereof, if desired). I usually don't support deletion if someone is willing to work on the article and find sources and so on, but in this case I'd need a lot better explanation of what we are trying to do - cover individually the 23 cases mentioned above? Cover people who contracted rabies but didn't happen to travel before getting sick? Kingdon (talk) 02:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point is being missed, at the very least by the above user. The other rabies cases did not lead to death hence the elevation in notability of this particular case. The idea of 23 cases each having articles is absurd and I have never suggested that - there is no indication they even died! But again this would not be a issue if (a) this disease were not so rare, and (b) deaths from this disease were not so rare. --➨♀♂Candlewicke ST # :) 03:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the other 23 cases were actually 23 deaths. The wording in the HPA note is "Since 1946 there have been 23 deaths in people infected with rabies abroad, 3 of which have occurred since 2000."[8] There's a listing of all reported UK cases from 1902 to 2005 in this paper: [9] Surviving symptomatic rabies would be much more unusual. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this statistic (and the unfortunate woman is indeed but a statistic) can easily be covered at Prevalence of rabies. If someone returns to NI from Africa next year and dies of rabies, will we delete this article and have one on that individual, and so on? Will we be having articles on the first rabies victim in the Netherlands in 63 years, the first typhoid victim in Denmark in 87 years, the first heart attack victim in France in 13 seconds? The slippery slope potentialities are myriad. True, lots of papers mentioned the case, but that's their job - ours is to record encyclopedic events, not news. The present case falls into the latter category, no doubt. - Biruitorul Talk 05:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No Consensus to delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Max, 13

edit
Max, 13 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:NF. Schuym1 (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DreamKana

edit
DreamKana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 23:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IGotMessage

edit
IGotMessage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - advertisement for NN software Jlg4104 (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No 3rd party sources and no apparent notability. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester United F.C. - 50 Greatest Players Of All Time

edit
Manchester United F.C. - 50 Greatest Players Of All Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Per the past precedent of 100 Players Who Shook The Kop. This type of list is inherently subjective, whereas List of Manchester United F.C. players performs a similar function in a completely objective fashion. Furthermore, as the contents of this list have been taken from a book (the United Opus), its use here is a breach of copyright. – PeeJay 22:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - this is a significant list that is well sourced. Reviews such as this and this, establish its notability. TerriersFan (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And the fact that copyright violations are usually grounds for a speedy deletion mean nothing to you? – PeeJay 22:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please keep a civil tone. I don't accept that this is a breach of copyright. The content is factual and facts are not copyrightable. What would be a breach of copyright would be if creative text had been taken from the book and such text is not included. TerriersFan (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. – PeeJay 22:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The book is not encyclopedic or notable enough to be inclded. Besides which including this book would allow for books on the "greatest players" of every team from Accrington Stanley to Zurich. --Lucy-marie (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I respect that point. However, notability, compliance with WP:BK, comes from 'The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience.'. Books that meet this criteria, whatever their field, merit a page. TerriersFan (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This article is not about a book. It is about a feature from a book. Furthermore, according to this discussion, "any list whose selection is based primarily on editorial opinion (rather than say statistics or geography) is considered to have that minimal spark of creativity necessary for copyright". That certainly applies in this case. – PeeJay 23:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Man Us 50 greats yes, but of all time? is it not logical to say that a great player will push others out of the list? I see this list more in the way of personal opinions by many and I believe Wiki has a rule against this type of article. Govvy (talk) 23:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is non-official, and as such has no place on Wikipedia. Anyone could publish a book with a list of their favourite players of all time, but that doesn't make it notable. GiantSnowman 23:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As it stands right now, delete, especially if it's a copyvio. I don't think notability is an issue here, but rather two things: are dealing with pure original research, and are we dealing with a copyright violation from the book? My rationale is on the latter, and I would recommend tagging the article as such until it can be sorted out. MuZemike (talk) 01:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Delete Possible, as a Point Of View fork. Wikipedia shouldn't be a dumping grounds for one person's idea over who is the greatest. I feel people need to decide these things for themselves.Tavix (talk) 03:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Pure opinion, not neutrally encyclopedic. Subset of existing List of Manchester United F.C. players, fails WP:NPOV as the list is unverifiably subjective (Berbatov isn't on it). Title does not reflect content - list references source claiming "50 finest United players since the Second World War", yet claims to be "Manchester United F.C. - 50 Greatest Players Of All Time". Speedy if found to be copyvio as alluded to above. --ClubOranjeTalk 09:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An unencyclopaedic article based entirely on opinion. Although there's no doubt that these players are great, there's no set grounds given for their inclusion or ranking. Regardless of whether any possible copyright violations are removed, it would be almost impossible to make this conform to Wikipedia standards, especially WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Bettia (rawr!) 09:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as inherently subjective and POV. Stifle (talk) 16:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to The End of Evangelion. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red Cross Book

edit
Red Cross Book (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

As much as I like Eva, a pamphlet for one of the films seems hardly notable. Remurmur (talk) 21:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of the opinion the media list should be merged into Neon Genesis Evangelion (TV series) (half the article concerns the release of the anime outside of Japan, which is prime material for the series article) and the episode list on the media page is redundant to the seperate episode article.I would actually WP:Bold merging the media list, but given the size of the franchise I can imagine that causing issues with some peopleDandy Sephy (talk) 15:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the episode list should also be struck from the media article, as it is redundant, but the media list, I think, is too large to merge into the series article, which had size issues with the plotline information last year. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 17:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The movie is End of Evangelion 76.66.198.171 (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted as I see no substantial improvement from the originally deleted article. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 22:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luke's Prediction

edit
AfDs for this article:
Luke's Prediction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is about a mixed drink with no apparent notability. This is the second time it's been created; previously deleted with little resistance. It meetsProbably should meet CSD criteria but it doesn't neatly fit within any of the categorical reasons. LH (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emil Shalmiyev

edit
Emil Shalmiyev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Tagged as hoax: it seems the subject exists, but I can find no confirmation of the claims in the article. The history is suspicious: it was started by Eshalmiy (talk · contribs) and added to by Kwik333 (talk · contribs), Masterofreruns (talk · contribs) and 24.47.144.86 (talk · contribs) who are all SPAs with no other edits, except that the IP added Shalmiyev's name to the list of Heroes of Azerbaijan. It has been tagged "unreferenced" and "hoax" since the day it was created, but no references have been supplied, and I can find none to confirm its claims. For such an "award-winning" performer there are very few Google hits, and most of those are Wikipedia and mirrors, and Facebook and the like. (It's frightening how quickly disinformation from articles like this spreads across the Web). The only relevant independent one I can find is this which shows that in 2007 he was one of 150 immigrant students awarded scholarships from the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society. That's not enough for notability. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.P (rapper)

edit
Mr.P (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Reason the page should be deleted Non- notable. no sources. §imonKSK 21:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article is duplicated by James White (rapper) Martin451 (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of hobbies

edit
List of hobbies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is hardly encyclopaedic. It is a list of things that people do, and there are debates about whether to include things like Elephant training, various types of cooking, and the like. Martin451 (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way that you can say whether an activity is a hobby or not. e.g. nudism may be considered a hobby by some, or a way of life by others, and its legality depends upon where you live. Steam cooking might regarded as a hobby by some, or just a method of healthy cooking by others. Martin451 (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Wow, that is some list. Infinitely expandable, and eminently not so very useful. And why only falconry? why not hawking? etc. And the opportunites for vandalism and (added) silliness are just too plentiful. Drmies (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There's some good faith here but the list couldn't possibly have some reasonable criteria for inclusion. LH (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Violates WP:IINFO. The list is way too broad to exclude anything. Murdering people was a hobby to Jack the Ripper and building bombs was a hobby to Ted Kaczynski. Practically anything can go in this list! The subject of hobbies is too broad for a list, and I would argue also the same against categorization. Themfromspace (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Utterly unmanageable and not obviously something that ought to be in an encyclopedia even if it were manageable. Off-topic: The list is amusing to skim -- but my amusement is dwarfed by the anguish that must be involved in trying to maintain it. I'm particularly amused to see that the list links to many articles that aren't even about the alleged hobby, but about a topic related to the hobby: for example, Conifer cone and Manga are linked under "Collecting", and the "Geyser gazing" link under "Observation" actually points to Geyser. --Orlady (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's NOT even a "List of Wikipedia articles about hobbies". The "collecting" section looks like a collection of random thoughts about things that people might collect. You can collect yardsticks, and you can collect bottle caps, and you can collect thimbles and you can collect shopping lists (?) and you can collect ______. Mandsford (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes--I do, in fact, collect shopping lists! Other people's shopping lists! Drmies (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I used to collect underscores, but found they weren't particularly useful. These days I collect parantheses. JulesH (talk) 10:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I knew a surgeon who collected colons and semi-colons. Gross! Mandsford (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just don't put in everything from the category. The category crowd is, generally, no more intelligent than the listmaking crowd, as Category:Hobbies demonstrates. The category suffers from the same problems as the list, since anyone can tag any article to throw it in the hobby category. For instance, I don't know anyone with the spare time to take up Herbert R. Axelrod as a hobby, although I'm sure he was fun at parties. Mandsford (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 00:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Ortberg

edit
John Ortberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Bio of an author. Only source is author's official web site, which links back to this article. Potentially a speedy A7 candidate. Does not meet notability standards of any biography: The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. Skinrider (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I think he meets the notability criteria. One of his books has won the Christian Life Award [10]. Another has won the Christianity Today Book Award [11]. He has also been the subject of a magazine article [12]. --Megaboz (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--Meets WP:N, thanks to the sources provided by Megaboz and GRBerry.--Jmundo (talk) 03:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My primary argument for deletion comes from the fact that this article appears to be nothing more than self-promotion, what with the only source being the author's own bio, which links back to this article. However, I think the above posters have done a very good job of showing that Ortberg is actually notable in his field. Would one or more contributors be willing to add some of these sources and research to the article? Then if Ortberg's own bio could be used as an external link instead of a reference, I would have no further issues with this article. Skinrider (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded the article, and now it has plenty of references --Megaboz (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  13:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles W. Machemehl

edit
Charles W. Machemehl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I believe this article fails WP:N. He is apparently most notable for trying to buy out his son's baseball contract. I believe this deserves mention in the son's article, but should not be enough to establish notability of the father. The sources are:

  • a) the subject's obituary in a local paper (that of Bellville, TX)
  • b) an article discussing the attempt to buy the son's contract
  • c) two references that talk about the son, not the father,
  • d) a brief local note that subject quit his job at the Central Prison Farm Packing and Canning plant
  • e) a brief local note that a cow raised at a farm he managed (not owned) won Grand Champion at a livestock show
  • f) a historical marker guide for a marker that does not mention the subject by name at all

Except for the local obituary, all of the sources show trivial coverage at best. As far as I am aware, having a local obituary is not enough to meet the significant coverage aspect of WP:N. An attempt to buy out a contract does not seem like a significant enough action to establish notability, nor does running a few businesses. Many of the sources are now deadlinks, so it is difficult to verify all of the information. Karanacs (talk) 20:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted under G3; this article was only created so that the creator could add information rejected from the main brewery article to the encyclopedia without breaking 3RR. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 20:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hoegaarden products

edit
Hoegaarden products (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a content fork from Hoegaarden Brewery created by an editor after 'difficulties' at the brewery article. This is not theway to handle disputes over content or sources. dougweller (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Merge No idea what the background is on the dispute, but there's nothing here that warrants its own article. Tool2Die4 (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP The article was established after some editors argued that it wasn't suitable to place product information about Hoegaarden beers on the Hoegaarden Brewery article. If it's not approrpiate to put product information on the brewery article and this one is deleted where does it go? Can we establish where the information goes please? Betty Logan (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. (NAC)--Jmundo (talk) 03:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo Johnson

edit
Bravo Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested proposed deletion[13], concern was notability (and not the promotional content contrary to what is claimed on the talk page). Currently, the only claims to notability of this musician in the article and talk page are some generalisations about how relevant the Los Angeles music scene is (which definitely doesn't count under WP:MUSIC), and composing the soundtrack to a documentary about the making of a film (which, at the most, would earn a mention on the page about this documentary, it that qualifies as notable). Had a quick look on Google and Gnews, didn't find any coverage in independent sources. It may be that Bravo Johnson does have a claim to notability I don't know about yet, but at the moment this article appears to be well short of notability standards. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This artist is equally notable to other bands and artists. If you wish to delete this, you'd be well advised to delete every indie band on Wiki. I'm not wanting to engage you in an edit war, but having published, documented work as a musician = notable. MiscastDice (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As one more notice, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MUSIC says this: Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb used by some editors when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion.

Whether this article is valuable or not is a matter of opinion. As such, it should stay, since staying contributes to knowledge of rock music, while deleting would only satisfy the need for someone to feel like they're "cleaning up Wikipedia." There is no harm done if this article stays on Wiki, and it should not be removed solely due to a "rule of thumb" on notability. Indie artists are generally not as notable and documented as majors. MiscastDice (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The article does cite several reviews of the band's album from reliable sources. I would recommend that somone clean up the article to make it clear that the subject is a band, not an individual. This source [14] makes that clear. Karanacs (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is that all but two of the references cited are self-published blogs or purchase sites, neither of which count towards notability. The other two are web-pages that don't seem to have any published paper equivalent of the web page, which doesn't invalidate their claim to notability, but does weaken the claim somewhat. I'm prepared to hear arguments for why reviews in acousticmusic.com and popmatters.com is a sufficent claim to notability. The argument I don't buy, however, is the notion that we should suddenly ignore all the rules of notability that Wikipedia has used since it started its existence. (If it does stay, a lot of the promotional language needs to go unless the claims can be properly verified.) Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is one of those bands that is relatively well known within their musical niche, but has a tough time meeting the notability standards due to the lack of coverage in more traditional media. I found a survey of radio station playlists which appears to be nationwide and has a Bravo Johnson song at #14 [15]. A Bravo Johnson album was also reviewed in a magazine which has a print edition [16]. Individually each of these sources is fairly marginal, but I think that altogether they are enough to establish notability. --Megaboz (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw per additional evidence of notability by Karanacs and Megaboz, on the understanding that the article is re-written to conform to verifiability and neutral point of view. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 00:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Rae (Musician)

edit
John Rae (Musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
John rae scottish drummer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination. I had previously tagged this with a notability tag, as I was unsure of its notability. Someone else came and dropped a CSD A7 tag on it, which I disagreed with. I'm sending it over to you guys. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 20:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to interactive art. Stifle (talk) 13:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Psychocinetic Art

edit
Psychocinetic Art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsupported by sources, Google search yields nothing. Possible test page. JNW (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I would be inclined to consider this if there was a single artwork or artist offered as an example, if the article had been written by somebody with more than one edit to his name, or if a Google search turned up anything to substantiate. Sadly not. --Lockley (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge / redirect. Changed my mind. This genre is already covered in wikipedia within the article Interactive art. The original version of the page asserts that this psychocinetic genre has nothing to do with interactivity because the person who is facing the object is passive, but this doesn't make sense, either logically or from the standpoint of how these art pieces actually perform. So I'd advocate a merge / redirect. --Lockley (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with possible misspelled psychokinetic art, perhaps dual spelling is possible. Also problems with broken English. Found one reference: Duncan, Frederick S. (Spring, 1975). "Kinetic Art: On My Psychokinematic Objects". Leonardo. 8 (2). The MIT Press: 97–101. http://www.jstor.org/pss/1572950. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |year= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)CS1 maint: year (link). IMO the article is of marginal interest. But none of these issues provide sufficient reason for deletion. I would give the article the benefit of doubt and vote keep, at least for the moment. Power.corrupts (talk) 14:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also found http://www.georgekhut.com/movie/, which has a short movie showing examples of George Khut's work. Basically he's tracking heart rate and respiratory patterns and incorporating them into his art. However, he calls it "body-focused interactive art systems", and misspells it to boot. I think the words psychokinetic and psychokinematic are at best jargon, at worst potentially misleading. Recommend merging any notable content on the subject with interactive art (changed vote). Cheers, Basie (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment If the term is indeed valid, that's still not much to go on. Do these references establish notability for the art form? JNW (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom...Modernist (talk) 02:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Notability is not inherited. If and when this organisation becomes notable, the article can always be recreated. See WP:ORG, WP:CRYSTAL yandman 14:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Order of Cosmic Engineers

edit
The Order of Cosmic Engineers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Proxy nom, for User:Loremaster. This is a non-notable pseudoreligion organisation, which gains zero google news hits and has not been covered in-depth by independent, reliable sources. All independent references within the article are used to reference facts unrelated to the actual organisation, and none appear to even mention the organisation in question. Subject fails WP:N and WP:ORG. – Toon(talk) 20:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Although I have worked to improve the article, no improvement can change the fact that the Order of Cosmic Engineers is not a notable organization. If and when it does become notable, I will probably be the first person to re-create this article. --Loremaster (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Proxy nom? How many people are actually talking here and how many are alternate IDs? Did Loremaster put the article up for deletion calling it a pseudoreligion and then work on it? If so why? He is well known for being against transhumanism in any form and has spent an incredible amount of time trying to paint the ideas in a bad light on Wikipedia. Anyone know why? (I can't see why anyone would take it that seriously.) Keith Henson (talk) 11:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "Proxy nomination" means that I asked Toon05 to trigger the Article for deletion debate process because I was too busy at the time to do it myself and I wanted to make sure it was done well since I hadn't done it in a long time. As for my position, despite being sympathetic towards transhumanism, I've created and improved the majority of transhumanism-related articles from a neutral point of view which means providing a balance between the pros and cons. Did you or anyone else notice I improved this article before and even after I supported its deletion (after some anonymous user proposed it first)? That being said, even if I was this "anti-transhumanist conspirator" you think I am, the debate is about whether or not this article should be deleted based on Wikipedia's basic criteria not mine. The perceived bias of the person who asked for this debate is irrelevant since we all have biases. --Loremaster (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Considering the timeline, your first claim to Toon05 looks questionable, especially since you thanked him in a few minutes. Filling out an Afd isn't a challenge. This looks more like using someone else to avoid responsibility or make it look like a mob. I will say you weren't very good at it having left tracks. It's also really strange behavior to spend an hour and a half on mostly fiddly "improvements" then ask for the article to be deleted.
I don't pay a lot of attention to the transhumanists, perhaps because I was around when a high fraction of the ideas were framed by the extropians back in the early 90s and I have not seen much in the way of advances since then. But I have seen comment that your "improvements" are considered subtle vandalism in the mode of User:Sadi Carnot. He was finally caught pushing a personal agenda and had done damage to some thousands of articles (for reasons that remain unclear to this day). As to biased people "improving" some class of articles, it is my opinion that the resulting articles are usually rather unpleasant to read.
Then we have the question of why someone would make thousands of edits to a particular range of articles. I don't understand that even if you are who some people claim you are. Perhaps you could enlighten us? Keith Henson (talk) 22:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're paranoid. Schuym1 (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be surprised if you ended up thinking (if you don't already) that every person that wants this article deleted is a sock puppet. Schuym1 (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And if you think that there are sock puppets voting in this AFD, shut up about it and take it to the suspected sock puppet's page because you have no proof and AFD isn't for discussion about possible sock puppets. 23:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
May I remind you:
  • Be polite
  • Assume good faith
  • No personal attacks
  • Be welcoming
This is from your user talk page. And, as is noted in the box above, this isn't a vote.
  • Comment: I don't know if it was Keith was the person who wrote the comment above but if it I would like to remind him that accusing someone of being an "anti-transhumanist" or engaging in sockpuppetry isn't being polite or assuming good faith or not making personal attacks... --Loremaster (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Loremaster, I copied the comments from Schuym1's web page. YMMV, but I don't think it is polite to accuse someone of mental illness. I have not used the word "sockpuppet" though I did ask how many people were posting having never run into the term "Proxy nom" on wikipedia before. For all I knew it was another log in of you. I didn't use the word "anti-transhumanist" either, though your treatment of the subject certainly makes the idea seem unpleasant. As I understand it, you are responsible for the most repugnant element that jumps out at readers of the transhumanist page, the naked dog-mother. Utterly disgusting. If you are not responsible for that picture being in the article, let me know. Keith Henson (talk) 06:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Keith, you are no longer coherent: If you believe that "Proxy nom" was another log in of me, how can you accuse me of trying to avoid responsibility when my username is in the first sentence?!? The notion that my treatment of transhumanism is "unpleasant" is ridiculous when several bioconversatives are on a record as accusing the Transhumanism article of being a promotional tool of the WTA! The article must and does reflect the fact that the idea of transhumanism is unpleasant to many people otherwise it would be nothing more than an ad for how great the idea of transhumanism is to you and your fellow transhumanists. As for what you describe as "the most repugnant element" which is "utterly disgusting" in the Transhumanism article, I am responsible for that picture being there. However, perhaps because of the pro-transhumanist bias which clouds your judgement, you failed to grasp that Australian artist Patricia Piccinini's concept of what human-animal hybrids might look like are provocative creatures which are part of a sculpture entitled "The Young Family," produced to address the reality of such possible parahumans in a compassionate way. You can read her own words on the subject's on the picture's Wikipedia page. --Loremaster (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have often wondered why that particular image was used in the Transhumanism article, and understand your rationale for including it. It is certainly true that Transhumanists would call for the recognition of self-aware parahumans as persons. So I can interpret the presence the image as a positive message: we should consider them human, even if the first visual impression is shocking. I most certainly agree with this. However, I am sure you see that the very first, immediate, emotional reaction of many people to this image can be similar to that of Keith. The best and deepest art is, often, deeply disturbing at a first glance. Having said this, I would not have used the image on the Wikipedia article on Transhumanism because, as they say, you don't get a second chance to make a good first impression. --Eschatoon (talk) 18:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You said it yourself: "The best and deepest art is, often, deeply disturbing at a first glance." This is the reason I will strongly argue to preserve the Piccinini picture in the article if it is the last thing I do on Wikipedia for the rest of my life. However, you also said something quite problematic: "I would not have used the image on the Wikipedia article on Transhumanism because, as they say, you don't get a second chance to make a good first impression." That's the core of the problem between me and the majority of people here: YOU want the transhumanism-related article to make a good first impression. That's not what an encyclopedic article is about. It's about editing a well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable article regardless of whether it makes transhumanists unhappy because they wish it would make transhumanism look good or bioconservatives unhappy because they wish it would make transhumanism look bad. Can we all try to get passed this problem? --Loremaster (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Well, I have a different approach. An encyclopedic article cannot, of course, be exhaustive. I find Wikipedia extremely useful because it permits getting a quick sense of the zeitgeist's point of view on things, and provides a useful and structured first contact with, say, a new topic. After the first contact, either one is not interested, or one is interested and goes on to read more things, for example jumping to one of the links in the Wikipedia article. So, since I consider Wikipedia as a stepping stone to further explorations, I would not put something which "does not make a good first impression" in ANY Wikipedia article. Of course there is a time and a place for things that "do not make a good first impression", but I don't think the splash page and the first exposure are that time and that place. So, for example, I don't have anything against the image in question, but I would prefer not to see it in the main Wikipedia entry on transhumanism, which is one of the first Google results on transhumanism.--Eschatoon (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Although Wikipedia does have rules against adding images that are pornographic, scatological or extremely violent in nature (especially if it makes most people not want to read an article which contains them), the subject, size and ___location of the Piccinini picture in the Transhumanism article does not violate these rules. As for your opinion that we shouldn't put "something that does not make a good first impression in ANY Wikipedia article", I think it's absurd and I'm quite happy that Wikipedia does not have any such rule since it could and would be used and abused to eliminate any critical elememt from an article. That being said, if you want to continue this conversation, let's move it to the Talk:Transhumanism page. --Loremaster (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Let's move it to the Talk:Transhumanism page indeed. One last comment here because I see that I did not make my point well enough. I am not talking of Wikipedia rules, but of my own personal preferences. I would not use that image myself, but I do not object if others do. I do think that every Wikipedia page should look "interesting enough" to encourage readers to explore the subject, but I do not mean its actual, textual content. I may have said a couple of times here that I am happy with criticism and a neutral PoV. Rather, I mean the immediate, instinctive, subliminal impression that images (and not text) can give. The image in question, even if I do appreciate it as a work of art and can intellectually understand it, plays on feelings that most people are culturally hardwired to find disturbing. This is why, in my own edits of any article, I would choose to use "nicer" images. --Eschatoon (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Fair enough. However, in light of the fact that the Piccinini picture is not in the Lead section of the article but rather at the bottom in the Controversy section, which partly focuses on discussing the feelings that most people are culturally hardwired to find disturbing about transhumanism, it makes perfect sense for it to be there. Moving on. --Loremaster (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Keith, I want to agree with Schuym1 but I'm afraid you will probably accuse him of being my sockpuppet. ;) But seriously, since Toon05 specifically mentioned that he nonimated the OCE article for deletion on my behalf, I don't see how you can argue that I'm avoiding responsibility. The main reason why I asked him to do this is because he was the one who told me I wasn't following proper AfD procedure in the first place (see discussion)! If I truly wanted to create a mob effect, I would have encouraged people to participate in this debate but I haven't. That being said, the fact that my improvements have contributed to Transhumanism becoming a featured article and made all the transhumanism-related articles I have created more fair and balanced proves that I am not engaging in any "subtle vandalism". As I said many times, the fact that both transhumanists and bioconservatives accuse me of having a slight bias towards the other camp and both find articles I've improved "rather unpleasant to read" proves to me, at least, that I'm doing a good job at editing them into neutral entries. Lastly, I don't understand why my interest in transhumanism-related articles is so mystifying to you: I'm a geek who is sympathetic towards transhumanism and has spare time to waste. What other justification do I need? --Loremaster (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Taking your point in order, Schuym1 says an awful lot about himself on his home page. They are hard if not impossible to verify. There are only 8 people listed in the US with that last name he claims (in the no charge data bases that is) and none on them are in Iowa. So who knows? It's hard to believe you don't know how to do an AfD. In any case, the timeline with Toon05 and the article history page indicates you were not doing much else. "Featured article" means an article has jumped through the wikipedia hoops, not that it is objectively accurate, fair, or anything else. Like I say, I am on the edge of the transhumanist groups and don't pay much attention to them. But I have heard about this article and not one of them that I know about has said they felt the wikipedia article was a fair treatment. If you think "unpleasant to read" is metric of doing a good job, we are not going to come to an agreement on this subject. Re you being a "geek", I don't see much connection or reason that would motivate anyone to spend an inordinate amount of time working on transhumists articles. In my experience these classes are almost disjoint. I understand human motivation from an evolutionary psychology viewpoint, but there is nothing to be gained by discussing it here. Keith Henson (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Since this entire line of conversation is inappropriate for an AfD page, I'm not going to waste my time responding to your paranoid accusations that I'm engaging in sockpuppetry or that I wasn't busy enough to start an AfD page myself. However, I will say this: In order for any article to become a featured article, the Wikipedia community must judge that it is well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, and stable. I successfully collaborated with User:Metamagician3000 (who is transhumanist sympathizer Russell Blackford of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies) and User:StN (whom Blackford has suggested may or may not be bioconservative Stuart Newman) to make sure Transhumanism met Wikipedia's featured article criteria. Why don't you ask Blackford if he thinks that this article is unfair since he contributed to it almost as much as I did? The real reason why the transhumanists you talk to think the article is "unfair" (way before they even started accusing me of being some infamous "anti-transhumanist" conspirator) is because they have admitted in their online forums that they have always wanted to use Wikipedia articles as a promotion and recruitment tool! So obviously this means that the inclusion of criticisms makes these articles "unpleasant to read" from their perspective. And, as I said before, that fact that both transhumanists and bioconservatives who read the Transhumanism article feel that it is slightly biased towards the other camp means that I am doing a good job of making sure the article is neutral. Lasly, a geek is a person who is perceived to be overly obsessed with one or more things including those of intellectuality, electronics, gaming, etc. It's fair to say that I am percieved by all of you as "obsessed" with working on transhumanist articles. However, my list of contributions shows that I've also been "obsessed" with articles that are aren't related to transhumanism (such the Synarchism). So what's the problem exactly? --Loremaster (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The posthuman, singularity, nanotechnology, AI future has really unnerving aspects about it. I frankly doubt there will be a physical state human left by the end of this century. I have written about this for years, including a web published story where AIs effectively exterminate the population of an entire continent. In my opinion this is an impossible to avoid consequence of advancing technology. The words ugly, silly, and shallow come to mind before unfair. Re "obsessed", I don't think the wikipedia benefits from obsessed people, at least not now. But I don't know how that could be fixed where people can use as many logins as they wish. Keith Henson (talk) 06:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The fact that you have written extensively on transhumanism and related subjects (from an arguably extremist perspective...) only demonstrates that you have a bias in how you would like the Transhumanism article to be written. But if you read the last argument of its Controversy section, the apocalyptic concerns you expressed are summarized there. As Russell Blackford argued when we collaborated to edit the Controversy section, it would become redundant to go and on about all the possible apocalyptic scenarios that emerging tehnologies might produce. If the end result is that you judge the article as "ugly, silly, and shallow" so be it. But I call it being at once full in scope and brief and concise in treatment. Regarding obsessions, I didn't say I was "obsessive". I simply said you perceive me to be obsessive. I'm simply interested in a subject which I confess to having a sympathy for and have the luxury of being able to spend some of my time editing Wikipedia articles on it. However, I am a perfectionist so that's the actual reason why I have made so many edits. That being said, if you want to continue this conversation, let's move it to the Talk:Transhumanism page where it should have been from the beginning. --Loremaster (talk) 18:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Loremaster, you state above, waaaaay at the top of this thread, "If and when it does become notable, I will probably be the first person to re-create this article." What would be the minimum amount of verifiable independent coverage for you to consider the OCE notable? Amayzes (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's good to know we're closer to agreement than I feared. From all the comments about your apparently raging anti-transhumanist bias, I was beginning to think you'd want no less than a dozen front-page references on the NYTimes, or something. So, given this, and given that, further down this page, you accept the Rathenau Instituut article as a reliable source, one more mainstream news article or scholarly essay should be enough for some sort of consensus to keep, yes? Eschatoon, you mention the Italian references. Unfortunately, my understanding of Italian is limited to "spaghetti" and "linguini". Are either of them mainstream news articles or scholarly essays? Amayzes (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Amazymes: ref. 16 is certainly "significant coverage by a popular and independent source". Whether or not it is "mainstream" depends on the interpretation of the term. It is certainly a news source, multi-edited by a team of editors with a reputation to maintain, some of them academicians, and exists since many years. It is not printed on dead trees.--Eschatoon (talk) 08:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The reports of my bias are greatly exaggerated. ;) --Loremaster (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The discussion below is almost entirely focused on one reference. How about ref. 25 (in the current list). It comes from the very well known blog of a very well known author, and the notability and popularity of the blog is demonstrated by its Technorati rank and the hundreds of comments to many articles including this one. The slightly negative opinion of the author should be sufficient proof that he is not associated with the OCE.--Eschatoon (talk) 04:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Also, I just added ref 16. It is a well known Italian collaborative technology blog and newsletter. None of its editors is associated with the OCE -- actually some of its editors had significant conflicts with Italian members of the OCE in the past, proof of which is quite easy to find. In spite of past disagreements, the coverage is quite positive. Ah yes, I almost forgot: before someone questions my understanding of Italian, I should disclose that it is my mother language.--Eschatoon (talk) 05:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Toon5: shall I paste here the text that mention the organisation in question in the references?--Eschatoon (talk) 11:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC
  • Comment: Eschatoon, ideological bias can't prevent anyone from observing the fact there is only one source that is reliable. All the others come from individuals (regardless of how high profile they may be) or groups that have direct or indirect ties to the OCE. Lastly, I encourage you to read Wikipedia's conflict of interest page. --Loremaster (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Conflict of interest? The page says "Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested." Which is exactly what I do - my identity is declared on my user page and I make no secret of my own transhumanist persuasion. Which is not the case, I might add, for some declared anti-transhumanists who frequently edit Wikipedia pages related to transhumanism anonymously.--Eschatoon (talk) 09:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wikipedia welcomes anonymous editing therefore I'm not required to reveal my identity in order to protect my privacy. The long history of my edits prove that I am sympathetic towards transhumanism otherwise I would not have worked so hard to make Transhumanism a featured article nor created and improved so many transhumanism-related articles to this day. However, I've always strived to edit these articles from a neutral point of view (which means including criticisms) despite any perceived bias I may have. --Loremaster (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I fully support the right to anonymity in Wikipedia (and on the internet at large), so I think we are on the same page. Actually, I was not even referring to you, but to anti-transhumanists known to use multiple accounts etc. in support of their positions. I have acknowledged on the article's discussion page that, for what I can see, you do make an effort to achieve a neutral PoV, but I think sometimes the result is (slightly) biased toward one of the two "camps"--Eschatoon (talk) 18:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emphatic Keep: I have already posted a completely rewritten article with independent third party references. If other editors are unable to grasp the relevance of those references that is surely their own fault. The OCE is an organisation of which many members are notable in their own right. Surely such an organisation shares its members notoriety. PlanetNiles (talk) 12:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The invitation to refrain from making derogatory remarks about other editors should be also extended to the editor who made the comment below for using the term "stupid" which, I belive, is not only irrelevant but insulting for the editor who wrote the article. --Eschatoon (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: PlanetNiles, it's been acknowledged that the article was vastly improved after having been completely rewritten (I've even tweaked it to make it better since then). However, almost none of the references meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable third-party sources regardless of how relevant they might be. Lastly, I encourage you to read Wikipedia's conflict of interest page. --Loremaster (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Et tu Loremaster? My interests are openly declared on my user page. I can't find any such declarations anywhere within yours. I do not consider my interests to be at conflict as I am professional and open minded enough to not let my personal interests get in the way of neutrality. I cannot speak for anyone else. The OCE is not one of these transhuman groups filled with Underpants Gnomes waiting for someone else to make their fantasies a reality. They are an active group who are, for the most part, actively working towards building a better future. Of course it is still early days as yet; good things comes to those who wait. PlanetNiles (talk) 12:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I can only speak for myself when I say that the history of my edits prove that I'm open-minded and have not let my alleged "anti-transhumanist" bias get in the way of neutrality. When will any of you understand that it doesn't matter if OCE is or will be the greatest organization in the history of human civilization? The only thing that matters is whether or not you can prove that it is notable in the here and now. As of January 2009, it is not. --Loremaster (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Loremaster, sweetie, my grandfather practically invented propaganda and, while I don't use it myself, I am more than aware of how something as simple as the sequence in which sentences are ordered can radically alter the slant or spin of an article. Now I'm charitable enough to presume that it might be a subconscious bias on your behalf but every transhumanist article I've read that you've edited has taken on a subtle negative spin afterwards. I've also become aware of completely spurious elements being added (such as the "golden fez" element you add to the original OCE article when you first edited it) and the removal of positive links and citations. Such behaviour is in no way "neutral" irrespective of you being aware of it or not. PlanetNiles (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Hold on Planetniles - he was not the one who added the "golden fez" element (I just checked). The user who created this page did, obviously as a tongue-in-cheek joke. As much as I might wish to find something nasty to say about our friend here, he is candid like a lily ;-) --Eschatoon (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: PlanetNiles, it seems you learned well from your grandfather since you are engaging in some great propaganda yourself! ;) It is true that I've added criticism sections to many transhumanism-related articles (I actually created many of these articles which led someone to accuse me of using Wikipedia to promote transhumanism!) but I only did so because without criticisms none of these articles would be considered neutral enough to be judged by the Wikipedia community as worthy to be classified as good articles! As for my removing some positive links and citations, I've only removed them when I felt that were added improperly or violated some guidelines. As for your ridiculous "golden fez" accusation, it proves to me that your bias in favor of the OCE and against me is clouding your judgement. --Loremaster (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I acknowledge the need for balanced and impartial articles. However IMO many of the articles you've edited have developed a significant negative slant afterwards. I'm not exactly pro-transhumanist myself... PlanetNiles (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's not my problem if you misinterpret adding a brief or comprehensive criticism section has a "significant negative slant". However, editing a sentence that said "this organization is not a religion" to read "this organization claims that it is not a religion" may seem like a negative slant but actually is a perfect example of neutralization, which I have repeatedly done and will continue to do in all transhumanism-related articles I'm interested in. That being said, I consider this "debate" over. --Loremaster (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Though this starting organization is clearly a bit lean, the notiety of its fouders creates a need for the average audience to have an opportunity to find an objective, organized place spot they can quickly learn what this creature is, in a few short sentences. Especially with this OCE receiving such venomous attacks recenty it is important that wikipedia retainsan objective attitude, despite the people actively lobbying to discount and marginalize the OCE. --dagonweb (talk) 9:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • To the two above users, see WP:CRYSTAL. We don't keep articles on the premise that in the future they might "do something interesting". Subjects must meet these notability guidelines in order to warrant an article, and both of your arguments seem to agree that the organisation isn't (yet) notable enough. The article can be recreated at any point when the organisation gets substantial coverage from reliable sources, until then it should be deleted. – Toon(talk) 14:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've read WP:CRYSTAL, and don't think it's applicable. It's specifically about articles about future events, which this article isn't. Still, point taken. I'm changing my vote to a non-provisional KEEP. That Rathenau Instituut article is notable enough for me. Amayzes (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely you can appreciate what I'm getting at though? A similar idea underlies WP:CRYSTAL as does the argument against "future notability". Nobody can say with any certainty that any organisation will become notable in the future, and the claim of such indicates that it is not notable now. – Toon(talk) 18:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I understand what you're saying. But as WP:ORG points out, "Notable ... is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." My previous provision was essentially about "future fame", not "future notability". Amayzes (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Putting aside the fact that we haven't definitely confirmed that there is no link between the Rathenau Instituut and the OCE, according to Wikipedia criteria, "a company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The source's audience must also be considered; evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability, whereas attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to verify some of the article's content." --Loremaster (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's wonderful that Wikipedia says all those things. But nowhere in that passage does it give objective criteria for differentiating "significant" from "trivial" coverage. Until such time as there are such criteria, I'm sticking to my interpretation that they're notable enough, given that Rathenau's their Board is nominated by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences and the Advisory Council on Government Policy, and appointed by The Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, and that their audience appears to be Dutch and/or international politicians. Amayzes (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You're entitled to your interpretation but my point still stands that one (seemingly) reliable source isn't enough to conclusively establish notability in light of everything else Wikipedia guidelines say on the subject as well as the extensive history of articles that have been deleted in the past for that reason. Moving on. --Loremaster (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: No since I am currently looking into it but I'm simply wondering whether Philippe Van Nedervelde (or some other member of the OCE) has a relationship with the Rathenau Institute which may be perceived as the reason why they chose to write a (positive) article on the OCE... --Loremaster (talk) 22:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I find this quite puzzling. The fact that "you are currently looking into it" does not disqualify the source. For your information, I am currently looking into the reliability of CNN, the New York Times, the Economist, Business Week, and Physics Today. Should I then demand the deletion of all Wikipedia articles which were included because of coverage on these sources? Really now. Of course you are entitled to whatever suspect you wish to entertain, but you should be able to prove it before acting on it. --Eschatoon (talk) 04:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Don't be silly. I only meant that I judge an article from the Ratheunau Institute to be a reliable source until I find evidence to the contrary. Like I said before, the issue wasn't whether it was a reliable source. The problem is that there was only one reliable source. That's what I was acting on. --Loremaster (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: No. You said No since I am currently looking into it but I'm simply wondering whether Philippe Van Nedervelde (or some other member of the OCE) has a relationship with the Rathenau Institute.... I replied "I find this quite puzzling. The fact that "you are currently looking into it" does not disqualify the source...". Tell me that this is not what you meant to say, but don't tell me that I simply didn't understand the point, which is insulting. I think we are all able to read and understand simple sentences.--Eschatoon (talk) 07:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: *sigh* You asked two questions but I was only responding to the first one. I meant to say "No I don't have anything to show that Rathenau's isn't reliable since I am currently looking into it [...]." Are we done? --Loremaster (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having a discussion about one source's reliability is stupid if there is only one source with significant coverage. It makes more sense if you find more sources and then discuss it because that source is not enough. Schuym1 (talk) 05:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point. Please see my comment above about ref. 25 which, in my opinion, qualifies as significant coverage by a reliable source.--Eschatoon (talk) 05:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blogs are not reliable sources no matter how popular they are. Schuym1 (talk) 05:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please, correct me if I am mistaken. You are saying that the very popular, worldwide known blog of one of the best known SF writers is not a reliable source, while third rate local printed newspapers that nobody has ever heard of are reliable sources? Really now. You know that anyone is able to get any coverage published on some local newspapers. Please believe me, I can get tens of articles published on local newspapers anytime, with the content I want. Should I do that?--Eschatoon (talk) 05:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no proof that the writer of the blog is notable (as in passing WP:BIO) and there is no proof that the blog is more notable then any other blog. I agree that minor newpapers don't show notability, but stuff like New York Times, Boston Globe, and BBC News does. Schuym1 (talk) 05:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we were to delete Wikipedia articles without sources like the NYT and the BBC, 90% of the content would have to go. You know that. Of course self-published blogs are not acceptable because they are not 3rd party sources, but many blogs are reliable 3rd party sources. Weblog material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field, or well-known professional journalists, may be acceptable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples). I think this particular blog (over) qualifies.--Eschatoon (talk) 06:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're twisting my words. I never said that major newspapers were the only acceptable sources. Like I said before, prove that the owner passes WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 06:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Come on Schuym1. Just google Stross. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Stross --Eschatoon (talk) 06:14,
  • Schuym1 - I see that you had changed your vote to keep based on this second reliable source, and then you changed it again to delete because "the other source's reliability hasn't been addressed". But I think it has been addressed - all commenters agree that the source is reliable, but one questions its independence. Note that the only proof of non-independence is the commenter's statement "I am currently looking into it" which, I am sure you will agree, is a bit weak. We are supposed to assume good faith here, aren't we? Idea: should we bet the donation of a significant sum of money to Wikipedia? --Eschatoon (talk) 06:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please Loremaster, are you seriously suggesting that there is some conspiracy between the OCE and the government of the Netherlands to keep the OCE article on wikipedia? Do you realise how paranoid and self important that sounds? Perhaps you need to take a step back and regain your focus before we continue. PlanetNiles (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Of course not. My point was simply that if a member of the OCE works at the Rathenau Institute it diminishes the perception that the RI's coverage is independent. That being said, I didn't say it wasn't a reliable source. I only meant that I judge it to be a reliable source until I find evidence to the contrary. --Loremaster (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comment: The greatness of the ideas and ambitions of an organization is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not this organization is notable. --Loremaster (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Four? Which ones? --Loremaster (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note:Comments about social dynamics have been moved to the talk page. – Toon(talk) 18:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]

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

The result was speedy delete (G12) by Epbr123. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Efficient Convex-Elastic Net Algorithm to Solve the Euclidean Traveling Salesman Problem

edit
Efficient Convex-Elastic Net Algorithm to Solve the Euclidean Traveling Salesman Problem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article appears to be an academic paper; transwiki to Wikisource. A More Perfect Onion (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete (G7) by Thingg. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kasim al-sammari

edit
Kasim al-sammari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Can't find anything on this chap in the internet, not sure if he's notable (hoax?). Please evaluate. →Na·gy 19:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sineado grenado

edit
Sineado grenado (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No claim in article of meeting WP:Notability. No non-wiki ghits, no gnews hits. Prod removed by IP user without comment. Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keisuke Shimizu

edit
Keisuke Shimizu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No evidence of notability. he has not played in a pro league game yet and thus fail wp:bio contested prod Oo7565 (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 04:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grafton Tower

edit
Grafton Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable ___location; prod removed. Ironholds (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interest in place names which are sometimes considered amusing or unusual

edit
Interest in place names which are sometimes considered amusing or unusual (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Methinks not. Completely subjective and not list-worthy. Ironholds (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm a bit confused by your use of "list-worthy" - the article isn't a list. Can you expand on your meaning? SP-KP (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies; I read it as 'list of...' rather than 'interest in..' (not quite sure why, my brain seems to be having an off day. Or year). Ironholds (talk) 18:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. My brain has those too. Could you perhaps include a replacement deletion reason based on your revised understanding (assuming you still feel this should be deleted)? Thanks. SP-KP (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See above comment to Ironholds - this isn't a list (not sure why you thought it was intended to be?), but an attempt to document the phenomenon described in the title. SP-KP (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a list--a list of interests. All it's lacking is the word 'list' and the actual list. Drmies (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"It is a list - it's lacking ... the actual list". That made me laugh out loud :-) That has to be the most brazen AfD argument I've ever read ("this article isn't deletionwortthy but let's argue that it's something else which is deletionworthy, so that then we can delete it"). Brilliant!! SP-KP (talk) 20:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! But, I didn't say it was a good list. In fact, it is a bad list--to the point where it actually wasn't a list. I did not practice sleight of hand--I tried to read the article for what it really was, despite the name (which is decidedly unencyclopedic). Drmies (talk) 20:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. If we can establish that there are reliable secondary sources covering this phenomenon, would I be correct in thinking you'd change your vote to keep? SP-KP (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, if you can demonstrate that the topic has been the subject of significant coverage by reliable sources, and reference the article accordingly, I'll take another look. :) – Toon(talk) 18:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think I can do that. Citing reviews of books on "unusual names" would seem like an obvious way of doing this - any thoughts on that suggestion? SP-KP (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well the problem with that would be that those names themselves would really be the subjects of the books... In order to be notable, the actual topic of "Interest in place names which are sometimes considered amusing or unusual" - the interest would need to have been subject to lots of research etc. E.g. Why people are interested, and so forth, would have to be covered by reliable sources. I'm not sure that such coverage has actually occurred, to be honest. – Toon(talk) 18:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've misunderstood my suggestion; the book on the names would, I agree, just be a primary source that the interest exists, but a book review would be a secondary source - I don't know if that helps make it clearer? SP-KP (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but see the subject of the review would be the book, i.e. how it is written etc., and not qualify as coverage of the topic, do you see? It's a subtle difference, but "Interest in place names which are sometimes considered amusing or unusual" wouldn't be discussed as a topic, and the source wouldn't be authoritative upon such a subject. – Toon(talk) 18:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see where you're coming from, I think. In order to qualify as coverage of the interest, the book review needs to explicitly state that the book demonstrates that the author is interested in the topic he's writing about, and that people are likely to want to buy it because they are interested in it. If it doesn't explicitly state that, and we just assume, from the existence of the book and/or review that interest must exist, it's OR on our part - in other words, the book could have been written for some other reason than that the author is interested in its topic, or because people may buy it because they're interested in the topic. Is that an accurate summary of your thinking? SP-KP (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, not quite. A book review wouldn't really be any use here; it's sole aim would be critiquing the book. If there was a news article titled: "The growth in Interest in place names which are sometimes considered amusing or unusual" in which people's Interest in place names which are sometimes considered amusing or unusual was discussed; this is the kind of source we need. Similarly, if there was a good number of scholarly sources discussing the "Interest in place names which are sometimes considered amusing or unusual", that would go some way to demonstrate notability. – Toon(talk) 19:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that clarification. Let me just check I've understood you. You're saying that in order for something to be inclusion-worthy, there needs to be an field of study whose subject is the article's subject itself (either solely or as part of a group of things studied), and that the practitioners of that study need to have published material on the subject itself. As a general principle, in your view, does the field of study need to be an academic field of study or could other forms of study qualify? SP-KP (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, mostly. It doesn't necessarily have to be academic; if the topic has been the subject of a good few news reports, or similar, it can satisfy this notability guideline too. – Toon(talk) 20:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's good - thanks for taking the trouble to explain all that. I'll add my vote below. SP-KP (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that; I think you're quoting SD criterion 3? This states "Any article (other than disambiguation pages, redirects, or soft redirects) consisting only of external links, category tags and "see also" sections, a rephrasing of the title, attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title, chat-like comments, template tags and/or images." which doesn't appear to apply to this article as it contains non-trivial information outside of those definitions. Could you take a look at this definition, and let me know if you agree? SP-KP (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A3 wouldn't readily apply here. There is content and is definitely not close to being a linkfarm. MuZemike (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep, it's snowing. (NAC)--Jmundo (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of railway pioneers

edit
List of railway pioneers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Listcruft. 'someone who has made an outstanding contribution to the historical development of the railroad' is completely subjective. Ironholds (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep--I'm not with the nominator on this one. Maybe the phrasing of that sentence could be better, but there are some pretty objective standards one could apply--and a quick look at some of the blue-linked names bears that out. I'm voting weakly, because I see so many different opinions on what makes a list appropriate for inclusion, but this one seems like a good candidate to me. Drmies (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- I'm with Drmies on this one. Its not the greatest list ever, but it does seem a noteworthy topic that can be done and done well. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But not in the format it is in at the moment; the entries are all subjective. It should be done, and it should be done right, but not like this. Ironholds (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True, but thats a problem that can be solved with cleanup, not deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As a railway historian and fan I found this list very useful and informative, which is why I subsequently translated it from German Wikipedia. I accept that, as it stands, it is largely (not completely) subjective. However there are various ways we can deal with that without throwing out a useful list (high importance in rail transport project):
    • We take out the 'outstanding contribution' statement and replace it with other tighter words.
    • We define what counts as 'outstanding' in the article or on the discussion page e.g. builder of first national railway, inventor of a new locomotive type or key component, chief mechanical engineer of a major railway company, etc.
    • We extract the list from outside sources e.g. if it's in an extant list of important railway people in the Encyclopedia of World Railways we cite that (lots of citations - one per person!).

At least give it time to mature from its initial start state. The strength of Wikipedia is its multiple-authorship. Bermicourt (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy redirect to Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory. to preserve history per WP:MERGE. Mgm|(talk) 10:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory controversy

edit
Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The most valueable content of this page has been merged into other articles as per discussion at Talk:Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory Therefore this article is now redundant. Hfarmer (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete For the reason I have given in the nomination. The article Blanchard Bailey and Lawrence theory controversy is no longer needed and is superfluous. The way WP will cover this angle is going to change. The subject is still controversial and that controversy does in myopinion have a life of it's own. As a matter of fact I think it could still work as a stand alone article. We just will not treat it that way. When this article was made the idea was to remove all of the content that dealt with the controversy into a separate article. Whereas before each related article had a section, sometimes half of the article long which described the controversy in detail. Even aspects of the controversy not truly relevant to a specific article. What has and likley will be done is that the aspect of the controversy that pertains to a specific topic will be described in that topics article. Now that this is done there is no reason to keep a separate article for the controversy. (Nor should one be recreated in the future unless the ammuont of controversy matterial in these articles rises to the point where a separate article is needed to maintain summary style.)--Hfarmer (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete too much space is devoted on Wikipedia to coverage of this theory which has virtually no currency outside the work of its originators and their associates. Guy (Help!) 17:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Much of this page is a POV fork filled with poorly-sourced BLP violations. Jokestress (talk) 17:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a RS'd fact about a person is not a BLP violation just because it is unflattering. The ugly facts about who did what will be in the other articles in some form or fashion.--Hfarmer (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for its deletion should be that most of the "facts" in it are actually Hfamers's syntheses and interpretations from primary sources. If we got rid of those and rewrote the article from reliable secondary sources, it could potentially be worth keeping. Dicklyon (talk) 05:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't really care one way or the other about keeping or deleting this article, but I'd like to see some good rationales either way. JzG/Guy has his facts wrong: Blanchard's taxonomy, although not the only current idea about how to describe and classify MtF transsexuals, is perhaps the single most widely supported idea among researchers around the world; the fact that (American) trans activists (some of whom are editing these articles) reject it doesn't mean that it has "virtually no currency" (unless you mean to exclude a plurality of experts, in the way that Thabo Mbeki excludes every researcher that thinks HIV causes AIDS as being inherently biased through supporting a causal connection between HIV and AIDS). To the extent that WP:DUE requires that we "consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors," the fact that it is rejected by activists editing Wikipedia is utterly irrelevant. (See also WP:FRINGE on this point.) Furthermore, this article provides relatively little information about the idea -- it's mostly who said which mean things about whom -- so deleting this article won't significantly reduce encyclopedia-wide coverage of the idea. Additionally, the closing admin should probably be aware that User:Jokestress is Andrea James (a trans activist and a principal actor in the scandal), with what we might call "some level" of inherent bias. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with what you just said. The status of BBL theory is not the subject at hand.. On the pertinentnt talk pages I have pointed out that Blanchard and others who have contributed to this line of research and were selected by the APA; their peers to help write the section of the book (The DSM) to whom others will refer when making a diagnosis. I know [WP:NOTCRYSTAL] however it is plain that the relevant academic field does not regard Blanchard as a crack pot. I only write this to head off some precipitous wholesale deletion of the other articles on this topic.--Hfarmer (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Invoking the sexuality of Wikipedians to undermine their credibility, as you have done above, is in extremely poor taste. I don't think there is much informed dissent from the view that BBL theory is a homophobic crank theory with no mainstream acceptance. We must guard against undue weight even where the topic is one which interests or repels us. Guy (Help!) 21:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no interest in using James' gender as a means of undermining credibility, and I don't think that reporting verifiable facts about political activism in the relevant topic area does that. Furthermore, undermining James' neutrality is so trivial that I can't imagine taking such indirect approaches. We are, after all, talking about a person that publicly humiliated the innocent children (by name, with their photos) of a sexologist to hurt their father, by writing things like "There are two types of children in the Bailey household: those sodomized by their father and those not sodomized."[18]
Blanchard's taxonomy is used in current medical research (See, e.g., PMID 18299976, PMID 18956626, PMID 15803249, PMID 8494491 ...). That's hardly what you'd expect from a "crank theory with no mainstream acceptance". In fact, it appears to be the single most widely accepted idea at the moment so long as you're talking to researchers instead of political activists. For good or ill, Wikipedia has many, many more transgendered people and trans activists editing this article than sexologists (User:James Cantor being the only researcher that anyone is aware of), but it's not the viewpoints of the editors that are relevant. It's what the high-quality reliable sources say, and they say that Blanchard's taxonomy is useful and is therefore being used. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think that Blanchard's theory is the "single most widely supported idea among researchers," and I don't think this should affect the reading in the slightest unless you can back that up.Nogladfeline (talk) 01:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Jokestress is Andrea James is not using anyone's sexuality. (If anything it would be using someones identity but I digress). Guy simply saying this theory is crank does not make it so. Between what Whatamidoing and myself have presented how can you look at those facts and say this is a failed rejected crank theory. Accepted by only a small number of people. After a certain point it falls to you to show evidence to back up your claim. I humbly suggest that time is now. --Hfarmer (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect somewhere. Doesn't matter where. If information from this article has been incorporated into other articles, it needs to be kept for purposes of preserving the edit history. JulesH (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really practical since the information is being moved to more than one place. Perhaps instead of a redirect how about a stub article which merely points to the other articles? --Hfarmer (talk) 22:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect to Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory would make the most sense. Dicklyon (talk) 05:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I just checked the original history of it and found that it has been created in 2007 by Hfarmer, the current nominator for deletion, as a junk synthesis of primary sources. The trouble is, she's now migrating such junk syntheses from primary sources into the biographies of the relevant people. This needs to stop; brief mentions of the controversy based on secondary sources, biased though they are, would be better than Hfarmer's biased synthesis from primary sources. At least some of us were able to use this article as the "wastebasket" for junk, keeping if off the bios, until she started doing this. A reason to keep would be to keep the crap from migrating to the bios; then we could work on throwing most of what's here and rewriting it from reliable secondary sources. A reason to delete would be that the article to too screwed up to fix. Dicklyon (talk) 05:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. G3, confirmed hoax. Mgm|(talk) 10:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fifa European Youth Cup

edit
Fifa European Youth Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod (or, in reality, an endorsed prod removed by an IP). By all certainty, this tournament does not exist. FIFA would not organise an European competition. UEFA might in theory, but there is no information about a tournament of this on UEFA website. Using Google does not reveal anything about his tournament. Neither I've seen anything that would indicate its existence under some other name, as suggested by the IP who removed the prod template. Julius Sahara (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fuwdo

edit
Fuwdo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seemingly non-notable group. The NME "reference" is a page-not-found error user-generated content from YouTube. tomasz. 17:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sorry, you're absolutely right. There must have been a temporary problem when i looked at it. It is, however, as i suspected it might be, Web 2.0 content from the YouTubes and thus still not a good source by our standards. Cheers for the tip-off, tomasz. 11:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ivy plus

edit
AfDs for this article:
Ivy plus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Previously deleted topic, neologism, non-notable term encompassing a poorly defined group of selective\prestigious\super-duper colleges\universities. Creeping boosterism emblematic of Public Ivies, Southern Ivies, and Hidden Ivies - maybe every college/university can be in some "Ivy" list eventually. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Randy Oler Memorial Operation Toy Drop. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Oler Memorial Operation Toy Drop

edit
Randy Oler Memorial Operation Toy Drop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No significant coverage other than in specialized and/or local media--fails WP:N. Bongomatic 15:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There are a multitude of significant media coverage about this event:
Poor reasoning and logic, should not be deleted. -Signaleer (talk) 16:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how the fact that the other sources are on millitary related sites makes them not "independent of the subject". It seems that any subject that has a specific focus will tend to primarily receive coverage in sources that focus on the same broad subject, for example the article Particle physics, all the sources are in publications that focus on physics and particle physics does that mean that there are no sources that are "independent of the subject"? Obviously science based articles are often held to a somewhat different standard but I believe the point still holds. Raitchison (talk) 18:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct Raitchison, the "independent of the subject" rule is for things like one-time fictional characters in a film etc. Ryan4314 (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's right: the full summary of WP:N I was quoting from is "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." The requirement for independent sourcing applies to all topics and 'independent of the subject' is defined there as "excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.". In this context, basically all of the above references are press releases issued by the military or stories which were placed on military websites by the military. As such, they are not independent of the article's subject as they are basically self publicity. The kind of independent sources which are needed to establish notability are stories published in newspapers independent of the military which didn't have to run the story (and hence did so as they judged it a worthwhile topic to cover). Nick-D (talk) 23:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we can't use military sources for military articles, there is a story below by an independent news channel. Ryan4314 (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple independent sources are generally required to establish notability. Being on a TV news broadcast once doesn't make something notable - see WP:N and WP:NOT#NEWS. Nick-D (talk) 07:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't just on one TV news broadcast, I've found it at these independent locations as well; [19][20][21][22][23][24]. Also I don't think the argument; "you can't use military sources for military articles" holds water very well, I'd like to see you write an article about a maths equation without use math-related sources ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 15:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The requirement is that the source's author and publisher be independent of the topic of the article not that it cover something else altogether! (eg, the source shouldn't be written or published by someone or an institution responsible for the topic of the article - to use your maths analogy, a paper by a mathematician in a peer reviewed journal isn't enough to establish notability for something they've discovered themselves (though it is a great source once notability is established), but a paper by a mathematician in a journal on someone elses discovery is an excellent way to demonstrate notability - the basic principle is that things aren't notable just because the person or organisation responsible for it says that they are). If you haven't done so, please read WP:N and WP:RS as this is a pretty important concept. Nick-D (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found that last sentence a bit patronising, we both know I've read them. I've been using Wikipedia for 3 years and written an FA class article, which you also probably know. Lets keep it nice ay? Least I put a friendly ";)" after my last post. Ryan4314 (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of your previous Wikipedia experience - no offence was intended. I've just struck the offending bit of the post. Nick-D (talk) 07:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers mate, much appreciated :) Ryan4314 (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks also for providing those sources. The first one doesn't load for me but looks OK from its URL, the second one isn't a reliable source (it states right at the top of the page that it is a "user-generated site. That means the stories submitted by users are not edited, fact-checked or screened before they post"), the third one is another military website (see: [25]), the fourth one might be OK, the fifth is a military press release (the same one as DVIDS) on what appears to be an unreliable source and the sixth one is a YouTube video on a blog - neither are considered reliable sources. Nick-D (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even so, two of the sources are still ok (no.1, no.4), not counting the News 14 one also. Don't know why you can't view no.1, it's not a special site or anything, just on the first page of a google search. I notice there's two "/" next to each other in the URL, could that be affecting it. Ryan4314 (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That reference was why the nomination explicitly mentioned "local media". Bongomatic 00:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well the above ones from the Department of Defence etc don't count as "local media". Also News 14 covers all of the state of North Carolina, isn't that too big to be classed as local media? North Carolina is bigger than Bosnia and Herzegovina, and that's a country! Ryan4314 (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Sutton

edit
Jean Sutton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Quick search turned up no reliable sources to indicate this was (is?) a notable author.

When the prod was contested it was indicated that books by the subject were purchased by public libraries, apparently making her notable. --aktsu (t / c) 14:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep? - I think the article should likely be 'Jean and Jeff Sutton' as they seemed to work together. Third party sources online are going to be difficult as most of the work was prior to the internet age. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong KEEP. A published author should most certainly have an entry here. Improvements are always welcome, and if it is better as a dual husband and wife entry that is fine as well. Let some of the original contributors decide. Cambios (talk) 07:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This author was published by a well-known established publisher and third party sources are sure to exist; finding them online might be an issue since she worked before the internet. - Mgm|(talk) 10:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cirt (CSD A7). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bradass: the Religion

edit
Bradass: the Religion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep, it's snowing. (NAC)--Jmundo (talk) 04:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan molyneux

edit
Stefan molyneux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Questionable notability and totally unsourced. A WP:BLP mess that should be deleted without prejudice or stubbed. Justallofthem (talk) 14:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "totally unsourced", it's TOTALLY SOURCED! Besides, that's not a criteria for deletion initself; rather, one for clean-up. Saying A WP:BLP mess that should be deleted without prejudice or stubbed. is extreme!

We can discuss what's suitable for publication, but we don't just censor information that is in the public ___domain for someone's convenience. The issue for me is whether this page was created by a follower of the subject as part of a self-publication campaign.

Trollfinder-General —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.117.182 (talk) 15:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS I've added the source - they were made live on air on two radio programmes recently on Jeremy Vine show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.117.182 (talk) 15:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as an unreferenced biography of a living person. I'm sorry, but the policy is clear in that sense. Unreferenced information about living persons can be harmful not to mention libellous. If users want to clean it up, then proper citations must be added - in that case I will gladly change to a keep. MuZemike (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has multiple links to coverage of the subject in reliable sources. To "strong delete" on the basis on citation format is to invite ridicule. Skomorokh 20:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I could not see the verifiability when there is nothing but external links floating around. Anyways, now it looks better and hence OK for me. MuZemike (talk) 01:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was boldly redirected to Suffrage by Umbralcorax. (non-admin closure) LeaveSleaves 19:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting requirements

edit
Voting requirements (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)


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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 04:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ogembo Javier

edit
Ogembo Javier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails wp:prof, orphaned, reads more like a CV. Babakathy (talk) 13:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gunners Greatest 50 Players

edit
Gunners Greatest 50 Players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The difference with the Academy Awards is that the recipient is accorded a recognised honour in the same way that football players are awarded Ballon d'Or and similar, and we record that as an ecyclopaedic recognition for such. This list is simply a fanbase poll of no official standing in the same way that a movie buff site may run a poll on who their readers consider to be the best e.g. Australian actors ever were. Lists such as this are not worth the paper they are (not) written on.--ClubOranjeTalk 07:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An unencyclopaedic article based entirely on opinion. Although there's no doubt that these players are great, there's no set grounds given for their inclusion or ranking. It would be almost impossible to make this conform to Wikipedia standards, especially WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Bettia (rawr!) 12:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, with flavoring.  Frank  |  talk  17:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Faiva family

edit
AfDs for this article:
Faiva family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Please delete quickly, since the name-dropping is affecting my desire for lunch. And I do hope that Landrin won't publicize that he's going to school at my place of employment. Perhaps add some WP:SALT. Drmies (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 04:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlet Rose

edit
Scarlet Rose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Was this band notable enough? Nothing in the article that I can see indicates that it was. Delete. Nlu (talk) 13:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

edit
Stillink (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 22:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pokerstrategy.com

edit
Pokerstrategy.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Vanity page featuring self-aggrandizing, false claims, with no significant news or independent reliable source coverage (plenty of their own promo stuff exists tho). It is a poker information site with some traffic, but lags far far behind a similar much more prominent poker information site that was recently deleted at AFD. Another comparison. Blatant, dishonest spam. 2005 (talk) 12:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GbT/c 09:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generator Hostels

edit
Generator Hostels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to fail Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), in that I am unable to locate any coverage of this company in reliable secondary sources. Nothing useful on Google News - and I could find nothing beyond references to the company on sales and customer review sites with a standard Google search. Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 12:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Julien david

edit
Julien david (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Tagged for speedy and defended. Notability is asserted but wider input from the community would assist. This is a procedural nomination and I offer no opinion as to keep or delete. --VS talk 12:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Serenade

edit
Dead Serenade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declining speedy (tagged and defended). Further input from the community would be appreciated. I have not opinion as to keep or delete as this is a procedural nomination. --VS talk 12:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep, it's snowing. (NAC) --Jmundo (talk) 01:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of water fuel inventions

edit
List of water fuel inventions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This page was originally created as a potential compromise that I suggested over the listing of exhibits at Water Fuel Museum a few months ago. Unfortunately, it seems as if this article has remained a mess, and it seems as though most of the individual devices here would not be themselves notable. Best to move what few are notable into a list of perpetual motion devices, or some such. TallNapoleon (talk) 11:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and fix. This page deserves to exist, because part of our role is to catalogue crazy science for the purpose of helping to debunk it. I see no reason why we have to destroy the village in order to save it.
Also "water fuel" isn't the same thing as "perpetual motion" and it would be wrong of us to give credence to any such confusion. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Practically speaking it is... if you can electrolyze water for less energy than it takes to combust hydrogen and oxygen, then you could run a hose from the exhaust pipe to the gas tank and get a perpetual motion machine. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But that's a big "if". No one has yet invented a viable perpetual motion machine and if this was possible some scientists or an enterprising kid learning about electrolysis would've figured it out by now. No, they're two different things. - Mgm|(talk) 10:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of this water fuel stuff is either unverifiable or fraudulent, but that is neither here nor there... TallNapoleon (talk) 11:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With a water fuel I could also toast bread, but that doesn't mean I categorise it under Category:Kitchen appliances too. "Water fuel" is probably a footnote in perpetual motion, but it's not a defining characteristic of the invention.
Nor are they unverifiable or unreferenceable. The problem is that they don't work, not that we can't trace details of their invention. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

Trade ideas

edit
Trade ideas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Comment per the comments below from GDallimore, I would be happy to withdraw this AFD to allow him to implement his solution instead. I am mindful, however, that withdrawing an AFD when others have !voted delete is frowned upon, so I don't feel that I can withdraw unless TallNapoleon strikes his Delete vote Mayalld (talk) 15:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TallNapoleon (talk) 11:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The term is not NEO, it was in use for decades and there are plenty of books on the subject. Ask your stockbroker about it - that's how they make commissions. Whether the text can be expanded beyond DICDEF is a different story. NVO (talk) 12:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As NVO, this isn't a recent neologism and we don't exclude terms for being tied to specific industries. Needs expansion beyond a dictionary entry, but that should be possible (editor effort permitting) and it's a justifiable stub in the meantime. Needs referencing to demonstrate notability though. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Nominator is mistaken. "Trade idea" is a well known and oft-used term in certain limited circles - eg traders and investors in financial instruments. These circles have shrunk significantly recently thanks to the bank collapse, but they're still there. Suggest redirecting this article and Trade idea (singular) to the financial instrument article as there's nothing particularly worth keeping as the article currently stands but the term is definitely a useful redirect (I almost created it myself some months back while researching the topic). Could probably do the same with the equally unsourced articles: Alpha capture system and Strategist which I found while looking for existing articles on related topics. GDallimore (Talk) 14:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, new plan. A better redirect destination would be Financial market, in my view. GDallimore (Talk) 15:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Racaniello

edit
Marco Racaniello (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable. (Subject died tragically at the age of 28.) Kleinzach 09:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I've checked widely for mentions of him including Google.it and the only mention I could find was the report of his fatal car accident.[37] The article said nothing else about him - it wasn't an obituary - except that at the time of his death he was an employee of an Italian steel firm in Buttrio. It appears from his Wikipedia article that he was for a brief time the director of one of the choirs for Alpini recruits, the Coro della Brigata Alpina Julia. That choir was disbanded in 2005. However, he is not mentioned anywhere on the official site of the Coro della Brigata Alpina Julia, which has pages on its history and several scans of newspaper reviews and articles about their performances.[38] None of his compositions appear to have been published, nor is he mentioned on the web site of the conservatory where he studied.[39] He might have had a promising career ahead of him, but sadly, it was seemingly unrealized. Voceditenore (talk) 10:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 (talk) 12:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: lacks 3rd party verification of notability. JamesBurns (talk) 04:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Instruments used in paediatrics

edit
Instruments used in paediatrics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This list seems doomed never to be completed, since most instruments used in paediatric medicine, surgery, nursing, or dentistry are smaller-sized versions of their adult counterparts. The field 'pediatrics' is far too general, since almost every adult specialty has a paediatric equivalent. Ventilators, spring balances and tape could all be better referenced in more specific lists and articles (critical care, for example). While I applaud the original author's attempt to include paediatrics in the medical lists on WP, I don't feel this one adds anything useful or notable. I do give him or her marks for including lollipops on the list though :) Basie (talk) 09:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. copyvio --VS talk 11:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Earth's Twin Cores

edit
AfDs for this article:
Earth's Twin Cores (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nom.

A Bloody Aria

edit
A Bloody Aria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete nn film, fails WP:NOTFILM Mayalld (talk) 07:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do you figure that? Did you check any Korean sources for verifiability? Did you look for reviews, awards notable participation? - Mgm|(talk) 12:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article leaves much to be desired, but the film is plenty notable enough. Reviews in The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Empire, The Guardian and plenty more. I'll have a crack at cleaning up the article later. Nominator should know better and do a little research before bringing articles here. PC78 (talk) 17:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't know what to do here-- the film is obviously notable, but the editor who started it seems to be throwing out completely unsourced stubs on these things. Do we sit back and let articles on notable subjects get deleted, or do this editor's work for him? PC78 is absolutely right-- a clearly notable film from a slightly-out-of-mainstream film industry should not be brought to AfD. It should be improved either by the creating editor, or those concerned about its notability should request help from editors with experience in the subject area. I'd jump in and do the work, but, because of just this sort of reckless Deletionism, my enthusiasm for this kind of thing ran out long ago. Those who care about it-- the editor who started this page, or those who are requesting its deletion-- should make the effort to improve it or put tags on it to request improvement... PC78 is a good editor in this area, and I trust him to do the work. So, in the original Wiki-spirit of improving rather than throwing out, I say Keep. Dekkappai (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. It looks like the problem of this editor creating unsourced stubbery on notable Korean films has been solved with a sledge hammer... Although couple warning blocks may have been in order first? Dekkappai (talk) 18:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just read of the author being indef blocked. Ouch. No warning blocks? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A redirect may be set editorially if desired. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Throop

edit
Austin Throop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete Google only comes up with 68 hits, a lot of which are different parts of his own webcomic site. Considering professional gaming is something you'd expect to be extensively covered on the Internet, this number is especially small. All news coverage of him except for the Kotaku reference is regional, which isn't enough to establish notability. Orbital Delegate (talk) 10:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tim Vickers (talk) 07:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Kohn

edit
Ralph Kohn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. I've followed this article for some time, hoping we can make something of it, but I've come to the conclusion that it's not possible. Subject is a businessman who appears to have bought into other fields. As a businessman he lacks notability, as a scientist he is unpublished and as a musician he is an amateur. If anyone can prove me wrong, show he is notable and make the article viable (as opposed to the liability that it is now) I'll be delighted - otherwise it should go. Kleinzach 07:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. This is Wikipedia not Britipedia. Let's have some more opinions - and hopefully an improvement to the article, which is what this is all about. --Kleinzach 23:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And AfD is about establishing notability or a lack thereof, not for article improvement. I think notablity has been shown conclusively, so why continue with this AfD? --Crusio (talk) 05:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 04:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zinnwaldite (color)

edit
Zinnwaldite (color) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article has not had any valid sources. I've tried to research this and have had no luck verifying anything in it. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xanadu (colour) PaleAqua (talk) 06:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete After about a 1/2 hour of searching, I still cannot verify any claims that 'Zinnwaldite' has been used in any documents to describe a particular color. LK (talk) 08:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If this article is deleted, the corresponding section in the article beige should be deleted too. LK (talk) 09:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, mention will need to be removed from all the mainspace articles listed here. (In some cases, this will be effected by removing it from {{Template:Shades of brown}}.) Deor (talk) 13:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Young Uttarakhand

edit
Young Uttarakhand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable society. Coundnt find any google hits for references. Fails WP:N -- Tinu Cherian - 05:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Appears to be a very active group with a very large membership. Website is here:

http://younguttaranchal.com/ LK (talk) 08:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: there are many societies (in every part of India) that are registered under the same act and performs similar activities, though size of their area of presence varies. But, that is not enough for establishing notability.--GDibyendu (talk) 06:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. A7 (article does not assert any notability) Mgm|(talk) 11:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ramz Trinidad

edit
Ramz Trinidad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Captain_Marvel_(DC_Comics)#Other_appearances_in_media. Black Kite 10:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Batson and the Legend of Shazam

edit
AfDs for this article:
Billy Batson and the Legend of Shazam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, especially not for a film which apparently will now never leave preproduction. Original afd called for a delete, but editor came back and rewrote page again. FuriousFreddy (talk) 04:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thaddeus (Family Guy)

edit
Thaddeus (Family Guy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable character, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 04:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sergeant Troy "Told" 'Ya'

edit
Sergeant Troy "Told" 'Ya' (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article makes unverified claims about hits and popularity, but cannot find any mention of this artist in independent, reliable sources. Fails WP:MUSIC. Somno (talk) 04:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thank you I am an executive of Interscope Records, and this has just happen so no media attention has no clue about this new artist. He was just signed Yesterday, 1-5-09. --Ispeakenglishha25 (talk) 04:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then the artist definitely fails the notability criteria for an encyclopedia article. Somno (talk) 04:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel our client is in need an is able to be on this site, we are not breaking any rules this is not him from first person view this is an EXE of his Record Lable writing there is nothing and I feel the page should be kept up. --216.188.255.35 (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


We have a sitemaster on his site now so mind your business thats legal disresecting assulting a exe of a Major Lable thank you. His page will stay on. Thank you No More. :) \


Ari Hendrum VP Executive Of Interscope Website Designs And Artist Releationship --216.188.255.35 (talk) 04:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So after doing a WHOIS search of your IP, you and your 'webmaster' are based in San Marcos, Texas, Mr. Hendrum (who strangely, has no web presence at all according to Google)? Usually webstaffs of major labels are based in New York or Los Angeles, and even the smallest lackey in a major record label at least gets some presence.
Also for a 'exe of a Major Lable', you seem not to know your titles. A&R stands for Artists and Repertoire, and unless it's a label of one, they won't ever touch the web design. Nate • (chatter) 04:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would advise anyone who wants to get an article about a musician or band into Wikipedia, whether or not they are employed by a record company, to review the criteria at WP:MUSIC. There are a dozen different criteria by which a musician can be deemed notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, and the artist only has to satisfy one of those criteria. But if "media attention has no clue" about the performer, the performer may have to wait until the media does take notice of them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 10:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. An article for "Troy Rodriguez" has been created every few weeks for quite a while now and all have been deleted as hoaxes, as most contain wildly fabricated and unverifiable claims of accomplishments (various movies and television shows starred in, albums released, concerts played). None have ever provided any kind of reliable, verifiable references of any kind. Several article names (including, I believe, Troy Rodriguez (actor) and Troy Rodriguez (rapper)) have been salted because of this. There was a mock article touting the user's accomplishments on their user page for a short time before that too was deleted. The articles occasionally find their way past new article patrolling, so I tend to run a search on the name "Troy Rodriguez" when I think to, which is how I found this one. Rnb (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ari Hendrum our VP Executive Of Interscope Website Designs And Artist Releationship, has explained to us Interscope that you will not take our new Recording Artist I am Tim Mosley, I am an Talent Agent. First of all We are not stupid, about A&R and I am not located in San Marcus, Texas you are not correct us (Interscope) we have a total of 500 new ip address's every day so obviously this is one of em. No More aftyer your edit you either keep him or the page get's deleted and us as a record lable will not allow you to have any info on him and if so we catch any info than we will go legal, but we know he is a real recording artist and we have a site master on it's way with his page and thats really it I alreadye explained, if the page is deleted (No Threat) we will not allow anything involving his name "Troy Rodriguez" "Sergeant Troy" "Sergeant Troy "Told" 'Ya'" nothing so good bye.

Tim Mosley : Talent Agent/Website Designer --216.188.255.35 (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think that is an empty threat. Either Sergeant Troy will establish himself as a notable musical artist, or he won't. So far, he hasn't. If he never does, there won't be any demand for a Wikipedia article about him. But if he does, Wikipedia will be fully within its rights to post an article about him, because there will be publicly available information about him in the media. Celebrities (or their record companies) can't ban encyclopedias from writing articles about them. Besides, saying that if we don't agree to keep this article now, we can never have it in the future, sounds like a case of sour grapes. I note that we have deleted articles about other musical artists before and then later kept them because the artist became notable in the meantime. Shwayze was deleted five times before it was finally accepted. B5 (band) was deleted six times before it was finally accepted. Yet their record companies never threatened to ban us from having information about Shwayze or B5. Why not focus on establishing Sergeant Troy as a notable musical artist, rather than posting all these complaints to Wikipedia? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • For a talent agent/website designer you have abysmal spelling. Again, your IP is out for all to see, and it corresponds to San Marcos, you can't hide it. Interscope doesn't horde IP addresses, which are finite and usually not hosted on the servers of a minor Texas cable ISP. This is a discussion as to whether the artist is notable or not, and by the 'sources' which are just the homepages of the organizations cited, you have not made your case at all. Get famous by hard work and talent, we'll definitely consider an article on this person. But for now, boasting about things he hasn't done yet isn't doing any favors to anybody.
May I also repeat again; webmasters and agents never do both jobs, ever. If you think someone like Scott Boras is coding HTML for all his sports clients, I'd love to see video of that, because I know it isn't happening unless it involves their Facebook or MySpace. Nate • (chatter) 06:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Ok, I know who I am, ok sorry about yesterday, when he gets notable in december are we allowed to add him? --216.188.255.35 (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy G. Tharpe

edit
Jimmy G. Tharpe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO. Started an unaccredited school and was a local pastor. At first glance, it looks impressive, but the majority of footnotes are from his autobiography and one local obituary. I get "Jimmy G. Tharpe" 106 ghits, including wikipedia. I get 37 hits in google news archive for "Jimmy Tharpe" with maybe a dozen relevant and only five that are non-trival. Tgreach (talk) 03:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unfortunate because it seems a fair amount of effort has gone into the article. But there's a definite lack of broad coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Only a handful of sources outside the subject's autobiography, and most of those are merely death notices. Notability is not established, and it seems uncertain that it can be. Don't fall asleep zzzzzz 09:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - biography published by actual publishing company (not a vanity press). Whether he wrote it or not is besides the point. Print biography by real publishing house = teh notable. Hmm, I'm still not convinced this is quite "deletion territory". The newspaper obit is much more like "obit for a notable person" than "obit paid for by family" (in fact, it claims to be written by the newspaper's staff, not the family). Carried in two newspapers (that we know of). Maybe not as clearcut a case, but it remains beneficial to our goal of writing an encyclopaedia. Heaviness of reliance on autobiography is a little troubling, of course, but this isn't GAC. WilyD 12:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. Do you have any WP:RS to prove WP:BIO? I couldn't find any hence the afd.
The obituary, ran in two local newspapers, reads like one written by the family: 1/3 of it talks about his family, another 1/3 is about where the services w/ his fellow pastors and other arrangements. The only paragraph about his life starts "Jimmy was a giant for his family, church, and God." I fail to see how he is notable for wikipedia from any of these sources. Tgreach (talk) 23:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. G3, A7, if it's released on their website it's speediable webcontent Mgm|(talk) 11:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Schnarr Snake

edit
Schnarr Snake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Game by non-notable company that is "currently in development". Somno (talk) 03:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only confirmed tester is "John Queer"? Come on, this seems pretty obvious... It's all nonsense. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 04:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:HOAX, WP:FUTURE, WP:ADVERT, WP:N, WP:V, etc. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This could have been CSD'd in my opinion for notability and/or advert. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can't speedily delete a game for notability via A7, and when I nominated the article it had one promotional sentence but IMHO, the article overall didn't meet G11. Somno (talk) 06:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Bursa

edit
Matthew Bursa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable cricket player who neither meets WP:ATHLETE or WP:CRIN. While the subject has had some press coverage in local newspapers, he has not played at a fully professional level nor has he played first-class cricket. Mattinbgn\talk 03:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy redirect to Bhavana. Mgm|(talk) 11:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bhawana

edit
Bhawana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Meaning of a name - WP:NOTADICTIONARY --Unpopular Opinion (talk) 20:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. G12, copyvio Mgm|(talk) 11:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Victor Aarne

edit
Johan Victor Aarne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A non-notable goldsmith, a search for reliable sources related to him came up empty besides the fact that he existed. Tavix (talk) 02:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - to be fair to this guy, I don't know how helpful Google searches are when establishing the notability of someone who lived in Finland in the 19th century. However, I am disturbed that this blogspot article is supposedly from August 2007, and the exact same text showed up in Wikipedia in November 2007 and still exists today. Somno (talk) 02:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep Online searches are biased here, both because of the time period and the language. Nevertheless, a few sources are available: [47], [48]. And his works were included in a 2006 exhibition. Jfire (talk) 04:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, the copyright issue does seem problematic. Changing to delete, unless that's dealt with. Jfire (talk) 04:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as copyvio This is one of a large group of unsourced articles that has been added at intervals by User:Bramo, who does not seem to have not responded to notices for previous articles. He obviously is working from some source--possibly a history of the House--but if he is just copying the blog, it must be deleted & his others should be checked. DGG (talk) 04:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete (G12) as a copyvio. I am assured that the original content is GFDL-compatible. MuZemike (talk) 08:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Motion Sick

edit
The Motion Sick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination, contested speedy. Your song is getting airplay on music video channels, and you ended up on a game made by the people who originated the song's main gimmick (up down up down etc). But does that make you notable? ViperSnake151 01:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Hill

edit
Glen Hill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable area; not worthy of an article of it's own; no references given for any claims, no other Newry area has it's own topic. Blowdart | talk 18:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Locations are notable. This is more than a ___location, it is apparently something like a U.S. census area, because census type info is provided. This is way larger, then, than thousands of hamlets and smaller locations in the United States that are kept in wikipedia. Is this an American-centric deletion attack, by the way? If anyone participating in this discussion knew anything about Ireland's census data, that would help. In the absence of such knowledge, let's not tamper with structure put in place by someone, presumably Irish, who knew what they were doing. doncram (talk) 06:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your assumption is wrong. What you're talking about, in NI Census terms is probably a ward; that tends to be how these things get broken down; Newry doesn't have individual wards (see [49]). Indeed I've yet to see a mass of UK articles based on wards, generally it's all inside the town article unless there's something turely notable. Oh and please don't assume I'm American; I'm most certainly not, I am someone who knows about Northern Ireland's census data having been born and brought up there/ --Blowdart | talk 08:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The map on that page does show wards (which are also in the census) but Glen Hill is not one of them; it is probably in Daisy Hill or Drumalane. Also there is no reference provided to verify the census statistics in the article. It does seem to be only a small locality within a town, and does not appear to have any administrative status or notability, but it could be merged into Newry if the content can be verified. —Snigbrook 16:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 20:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Door in the Lake

edit
The Door in the Lake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:BK. Schuym1 (talk) 01:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Delete - per WP:BK--Truco 01:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep A rather popular children's book-- 751 US/Canada library holdings according to WorldCat, [50] which is at least a presumption of moderate notability for a book now over 10 years old . (The author has published at least 2 other children's books, neither one a success). There are almost certain to be reviews, though they may no longer be online. This is a typical example of a naive book review submitted by a beginning editor--normally, they are apt to be notable books, because those are what they come across or what get recommended to them--but of course they do not realize how to write WP articles. they need help, not rejection--this has unfortunately sat around for quite awhile, and the ed. is not likely to be still around--an article of this very low quality should have been noticed much sooner. I notice it was vandalized several times, so other children must know about it--which is, I admit, an odd argument for notability. The people who reverted the vandalism, should have paid attention to the article as well. (It's not done well enough to be a copy of a book jacket blurb, though it omits the conclusion--just done in that anti-spoiler unencyclopedic style). DGG (talk) 04:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Quick Picks for Reluctant YA Readers 1999
  2. Sequoia Young Adult Master List 2001
  3. Sunshine State Young Reader's Award Reading List 2001
  4. Maud Hart Lovelace Book Award Nominee 2002
  5. Connecticut Nutmeg Children's Award Nominee 2002
Keep, but improve and add citations. LK (talk) 08:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 00:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Boop (girl band)

edit
Betty Boop (girl band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'm a little uncertain of this one. Although at first glance highly unoteworthy, the band has reached the semis in both Beovizija 2007 and Beovizija 2008 so I guess that's some claim to notability. Most of the other entrants to them are redlinks, though, and I don't believe those results on their own justify an article for the band. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 23:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • That list is ranked by artist first, and then song title, so it's Betty Boop with the song "Kvar".

 Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 21:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 20:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ToeJam and Earl 1

edit
ToeJam and Earl 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Duplication of an already existing page (Toejam and Earl) with barely any info. Should not be redirected either, because the game's title does not include the "1". ZXCVBNM 01:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. G12, copyvio. Mgm|(talk) 11:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Leapfrog Group

edit
The Leapfrog Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Content is entirely taken (virtually verbatim) from the organization's website and is written in the tone of an advertisement or press release. The content comes entirely from User:LFG2008, who has made no other contributions. There are no references not generated by the group itself, and no references establishing notability. (It seems to me that this is a copyvio issue if nothing else, since there is no evidence that the user who copied this content from the site actually does work for the organization or has the right to republish the content, but the admin who removed my speedy apparently feels differently.) Propaniac (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as it is written as an advertisement, solely on Wikipedia to promote the Group. Possible copyvio issues as well. Tavix (talk) 01:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I declined the speedy, so I'd prefer that the AfD run its course. I didn't notice that it was a copyvio. Propaniac, do you want me to stub it in the meantime or do you think it was a bulk copyvio (where a {{Db-g12}} would apply)? Protonk (talk) 03:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete This one is a blatant copyright violation -- clicking on the references easily confirms this -- and the article's creator, User:LFG2008 has the same acronym as Leapfrog Group (I have already made a report to WP:UAA). Ecoleetage (talk) 04:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete (G12 or G11) as blatant copyright infringement. I only had to click on a couple of the external links to find that the material was basically copy-and-pasted onto the article here. It's either a copyvio or, in the case the editor is the copyright holder, blatant advertisement; take your pick. MuZemike (talk) 08:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 20:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Disney Channel music

edit
List of Disney Channel music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced, unverifiable listcrufty article. "Here is a Big list of Disney Channel Songs" pretty much sums up my reasoning for saying that it is original research. Also, what makes a song included in in the list? Let's say a song was played on radio disney by request once, but never again. Shouldn't that be included as well? Wikipedia is not a radio station index. Tavix (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anjana chaudhari

edit
Anjana chaudhari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article had been tagged with speedy deleted, but I am AfD to see if it can be helped. I am not expert on the topic nor do I read it. But the claims are so detailed, even if unsourced, that I don't think it should be speedy. Cerejota (talk) 13:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Couldnt have been speedy anyway, as it meets no speedy criterion. this is not what is meant by a "group", which means a club or band or the like, not an ethnic group or a nationality. DGG (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is apparently about a person as 'Anjana chaudhari' could only be a name. But, the article is written as if 'Anjana chaudhari' is a group of people. Salih (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a caste as per this. Salih (talk) 17:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice towards eventual recreation. Apparently Anjana chaudhari is a caste, and may someday deserve an article if enough secondary sources are found to establish notability. A google book/scholar doesn't show up any promising source except two passing references, and good sources, even if published, are likely to be offline or not in English. Currently the article is unsourced OR, and doesn't seem to contain anything worth preserving. Abecedare (talk) 07:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 20:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Handakos Street

edit
Handakos Street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete unref'd article about an apparently nn street, Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 00:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whirl-Mart

edit
Whirl-Mart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced tag for over a year. Article doesn't demonstrate notability. All the external sources that i can find (i. e. Google) appear to be small anti-consumerist websites. But you're welcome to try to convince me that i'm wrong. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google News gets 19 hits, incl. a feature in The Austin Chronicle. There's a paragraph in an NYT article and a sentence in another. So, I don't agree that the only sources are anticonsumerist websites.
That being said, the notability is clearly marginal. This thing is closely related to Buy Nothing Day and AdBusters and as such I would vote to Merge to either target, preferably the article on B.N.D. <eleland/talkedits> 01:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Kyle Cochrane

edit
Brendan Kyle Cochrane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Insufficient notability. No reference found for award. — ERcheck (talk) 00:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is a shared PEN award so significant as to pass the notability based on that singular achievement? This should mean that I can create an article for every first prize winner for every year in every category since the awards have been instated. LeaveSleaves 18:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To point out, he hasn't received an award but was a contest winner. The literary award as a matter of fact is significant. Ignore my earlier comment. LeaveSleaves 18:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 20:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sivtsev Vrazhek Street

edit
Sivtsev Vrazhek Street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete unref'd article about a "small one-way street", likely nn. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

10 Days 10 Lifes

edit
10 Days 10 Lifes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Previously prodded and challenged. Still doesn't seem notable. Quantumobserver (talk) 00:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Appears to be a hoax. Besides being badly written (the character is the last what?), the movie has no IMDB entry and neither does Mark Denny Jr. (the star/writer/director). No relevant Google hits either. TJ Spyke 00:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. It's a film...that's going to be released...on a web site. No notable participants, no sources, no ghits, no nuttin'. Somebody's bored at work. This is definitely A7. My guess is that this film is made in the author's garage. Graymornings(talk) 00:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seriously, but a film has to have as least a IMDb listing before inclusion on Wikipedia. Conversely, there are millions of films on IMDb that don't have Wikipedia articles so this one is an easy delete. (Besides, the film maker needs spelling help)Tavix (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I'd argue against your idea that a film needs an IMDB entry. I'm working on an article of a multi-award winning film, with notable actors participating which still hasn't had an IMDB listing 2 years after its release. IMDB appears to be biased towards films from the west. So technically it's not needed, provided it's verifiable and notable. - Mgm|(talk) 11:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Valid point as IMDB is still adapting to the idea of the new media. However, webisode projects do now get listed on IMDB. Not many... but some do get listed... [52], [53] 19:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I have to say, I like the honesty...they're very clear about the fact that it's NOT going to be released in theaters! Graymornings(talk) 12:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 20:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antwain Easterling

edit
Antwain Easterling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

He was notable at the time of his arrest but since then hasn't been heard of. Iamawesome800 22:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JulesH (talk) 09:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Overton (actress)

edit
Kelly Overton (actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No evidence of notability. She did not debut in the "The Graduate" on Broadway, the best I can find is that she was an understudy for one role. Notability based on the possibility of success in a small role in a film not yet released and a few minor guest spots on TV (according to IMDB) but not noted in the article doesn't establish notability. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry,but I suggest you check your sources again. At the official website of Broadway, it is explicitly stated that she replaced Alicia Silverstone in 'The Graduate'. --Roaring Siren (talk) 08:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't incumbent upon me to go hunting to sources to determine what role it was, it is the responsibility of the person who wrote it - that was you, was it not? The article has no sources whatsoever to allow a reviewer to check content, which is essential to establishing notability. Meanwhile, Broadway.com is not the "official website of Broadway" in any way. Rather than suggest I go hunt proof of notability, I tagged the article that notability wasn't established. Nothing was done, so it has been nominated for deletion. Rather than post a "sorry" here and a request for help from the Rescue Squad, perhaps it would be better for the article to invest some effort into introducing sourcing and establishing the notability. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You keep missing the point here. It is a common practise that if you suspect the authenticity of the material in wikipedia, you search for it online. However, in your edits, not only you seem to blatantly wrong information (" She did not debut in the "The Graduate" on Broadway,")for which I'm sure you had not bothered to look it up online. And for your information, if you had taken the liberty of visiting the Broadway page on wikipedia, the official website points towards the same website which I had quoted with the article about Overton's debut. And that was a rather foolish question on your part, yeah it's me who created the article. --Roaring Siren (talk) 10:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not missing the point. It is common practice to support additions to the project with verifiable sourcing when you add it. You wrote an article with no citations, making claims of notability that aren't supported by sourcing. It was your responsibility to ensure that notability was verified. I still notice you've spent more time on the deletion request than on actually fixing the issues on the article since the nomination. And no, the Broadway (theatre) article does not point to Broadway.com as an "official website". That is not a possible concept, since Broadway theatre is a wide concept and not an official organization. It is one of many external links at the end which cover a variety of topics related to it. A more reliable source (IBDB) says she started in the show in a very minor role before stepping in, so she didn't debut as Elaine Robinson, which is an assertion the article makes which is untrue. The article overstates her prominence more than once. I'm not going to argue with you about this back and forth. You created it, make it comply with notability with sources that are considered reliable. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Face it, do you really think Broadway.com ,(and not Broadwayfan.com) would be publishing false info ? A quick google search reveals many sources including [54] ,TV.com and here(under the stage appearences tag) confirm what was previously stated .--Roaring Siren (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few minor guest spots? Looks like 28 separate shows & films spanning almost 10 years (4 of those in 2008) including 17 episodes on one soap opera. Raitchison (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - And expand, looking at her IMDB page and checking a couple there is way more than enough to her acting career to support notability. A better sample of her career needs to be included in the article. Admittedly not sure why this was AfD'd as it's issues are easily fixed there is no need to delete. Raitchison (talk) 20:50, 5 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) 00:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely weak keep Quite a number of minor roles, and two very local awards. Thats what it boils down to after all the rhetoric above. What side of the dividing line this falls is hard to sayDGG (talk) 04:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I would give her the benefit of the doubt as to notability as an actress. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest of keeps. Come on guys... expanding and sourcing was a snap. Not only is she notable for her past and present acting, but she is also notable for her directing. The sources were easy to find. The article is still tagged for WP:RESCUE, but it is now a keeper and worthy of further expansion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw deletion - This was originally submitted because the article as it stood did not support the notability of the person and had no cites to back what it claimed. Since the article has had effort put into it by several editors other than the creator, largely the efforts of MichaelQSchmidt, the article now does support its assertion of notability. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vídeo Brinquedo

edit
AfDs for this article:
Vídeo Brinquedo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'm not terribly convinced about the notability of thiscompany. Of the sources, almost all are directory listings from Allmovie, primary sources, trivial mentions like this in a newspaper blog, or this which based on my knowledge of Portuguese seems to be non-trivial, but it's the only non-trivial source. I've seen many accustations about this company, and while this isn't quite a G10 level, I still don't see anything to save it. Was kept at last AfD based entirely on WP:GOOGLEHITS. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I tried to renovate the article but after a while I just gave up. You're right, it's not notable. : P – J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 03:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The translated version of the ministry of culture website seems enough to establish notability for the company: 350,000 dvd units and the accusation of plagiarism. --Jmundo (talk) 04:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bolinas, California. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bolinas Free Box

edit
Bolinas Free Box (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not seem notable enough to warrant it's own article. At best, deserves to be a section in the Bolinas article. Delete TheRingess (talk) 02:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 closed since the article was merged with ___location. - Mgm|(talk) 11:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stoke Damerel Primary School

edit
Stoke Damerel Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This elementary school is certainly wp:nn Mblumber (talk) 05:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 20:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Astronomy Club, HKUSU

edit
Astronomy Club, HKUSU (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable student society and directoy entry. This article is borderline spam and also lacks third party and authoritative sources. I move to delete. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability. The claim to be the first astronomical organization established in Hong Kong might be notable (dubious) but there aren't any sources. -- Whpq (talk) 18:07, 5 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 00:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 20:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kid Safe: The Video

edit
Kid Safe: The Video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The only reliable sources that I can find for this is sites like IMDB and trivial mentions on Google Books. Fails WP:NF. Schuym1 (talk) 06:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Needs work, indeed. Tone 20:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AFR sensor

edit
AFR sensor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article has little to offer in terms of quality, verifiable, encyclopedic information. It seems to try to duplicate what is at oxygen sensor. I like to saw logs! (talk) 06:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 20:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Velmarie Berlingeri

edit
Velmarie Berlingeri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I was going to nom for CSDA7 but then saw it had been prod, and deleted before, only to be created again. Person is clearly not notable, and no claim of notability is made. She is nominated (although will go into office today) to be the administrator of the executive mansion, a minor administrative post with little visibility or power.

Oddly enough, incoming Governor Luis Fortuño's article has a number of cabinet nominations, and besides those notable for other things, she, a minor official, has a page, over even the Waterworks President who is being retained from the previous administration.

Additionally, page creator seems to concentrate only on this article, so there is concern about COI, and possible vanity issues. In particular the peacock terms and un-sourced quotes at the end are worrying.

This article should be speedy deleted and protected from recreation, but since previous admins who deleted didn't I am raising this process to formalize a discussion. It is obvious SD failed here. Do I hear snowball? Cerejota (talk) 08:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 20:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Ellenstein

edit
Peter Ellenstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. Goggle search comes up with hits, but the subject still appears to fail WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:CREATIVE. Doesn't help that the article was written by the subject (violates WP:COI). -- Gmatsuda (talk) 08:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic Sports (NED)

edit
Olympic Sports (NED) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is the same as Netherlands at the 2008 Summer Olympics, but maybe not so completed. VoletyVole (talk) 10:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Not sure that this list is accurate. For example, Rutger Smith didn't win a bronze medal in the discus throw, as the list claims. Also, Yuri van Gelder didn't win a silver in gymnastics. Even if the rest of it is accurate, the page is redundant to better articles on the Netherlands' performance at the Olympics. Giants2008 (17-14) 15:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic Sports (ITA)

edit
Olympic Sports (ITA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is the same as Italy at the 2008 Summer Olympics, but not such completed VoletyVole (talk) 10:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On a second look, the list is quite inaccurate. For example, none of the alpine skiers won the medals claimed in the Olympics. Also, Natalia Valeeva didn't win an Olympic gold in archery. Those are just the first two sports listed. And the football team did not win a gold in Beijing; they didn't even medal. Giants2008 (17-14) 15:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I've tried quite hard to source the charting / airplay for the "Hotter Than A Furnace" single, and I've come up with nothing bar one radio station's airplay list which returns a 403 error. This might be on the borderlines of notability, and no problem with recreating it if WP:V and WP:MUSIC can be overcome. Black Kite 23:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Q dot

edit
Q dot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. confirmed hoax. references are not about the subject. Fails WP:V. Mgm|(talk) 11:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah Samuels

edit
Elijah Samuels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Insufficient notability. Questionable reference - Endangered Species for a model? — ERcheck (talk) 13:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The article should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The article is clearly not notable upon verification.--Ped Admi (talk) 01:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vorshack

edit
Vorshack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a hoax. One of the references (and its author) is untraceable, and the article contains inaccurate information (one example: the dwarven warrior Bard of Dale). Vorschack is apparently a dragon name in certain probably gaming contexts, but not in the contexts given. Several of the items here are only traceable to here (example: Sir Gerald Kingsley). Peridon (talk) 16:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one! Peridon (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vorschmack is better! NVO (talk) 13:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lissa Explains it All . MBisanz talk 02:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alyssa Daniels

edit
Alyssa Daniels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Clearly meets no notability criteria. It's nice that she had a blog when she was eleven and that she's now a junior in college, but aside from saying that she's "famous" there's no real assertion of notability here, much less proof thereof. Has been tagged since August. P L E A T H E R talk 07:47, 31 December 2008 (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, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. As is customary, !votes have been discounted when users have attempted to !vote multiple times, as have !votes of very new and unregistered users. Stifle (talk) 13:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

South Jersey Paranormal Research

edit
South Jersey Paranormal Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Has been tagged as not meeting WP:ORG since June, but no substantive edits have been made since September. Blueboy96 19:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no references, other than to their own website. No indication of any particular prominence. If organisations could be speedied, this'd be a candidate. HrafnTalkStalk 12:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Many instances of substantial coverage in reliable, third party sources. For your purusing [56]. Sadly many require registration or payment, but the sources exist, which is the requirement of WP:N. WilyD 12:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must point out that WilyD is incorrect that SJPR's website "requires registration or payment" to view some of their media mentions. Links exist to those articles that are still posted by the media outlet who published them, but they don't post articles forever. Where possible, SJPR has provided the articles in their Media Pages. The only thing requiring payment on SJPR's website is access to their Adults Only Pages. I think it is admirable that they take such steps to keep young people from accessing adult material. JennaBugg —Preceding unsigned comment added by JennaBugg (talk • contribs) 22:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— JennaBugg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. GbT/c 09:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who can argue this work is vital?. Nah, that's not really the point. The point is we are discussing whether SJPR as an entity justfies a Wikipedia article, not whether its ghostbusting or whatever is vital.Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 08:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly don't see a reason to not follow the usual inclusion guidelines in this case, which should make this an easy keep, since there are multiple nontrivial discussions of the group in reliable publications. WilyD 15:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • They didn't take the Ghostbusters seriously either until they really needed them...
  • "I don't like it" isn't a good argument at AfD, and the numerous citations from reliable sources clearly indicates this subject has notability. It's not a huge amount of notability, but it seems to be enough to be included. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Apparently I disagree with some editors regarding the demarcation of trivial from substantial coverage. The sources presented parallel the results of my own investigation - there is some evidence that they have existed (and even gave a presentation at a local library!), but not that they should be treated here. No prejudice to recreation if they receive in depth coverage from reliable sources. - Eldereft (cont.) 16:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep There's coverage for the group going back to 2003. I added some of what seemed the most reliable sources I could find to the article, my opinion is a weak keep as I think they barely scrape in on notability standards due to the years of coverage, even if there's a debate as to whether it's regional or simply local.User:Raven1977Talk to meMy edits 19:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP This group is well established in the paranormal community, having survived well beyond other "groups" that have cropped up over the past couple of years. Although geography dictates they are a "local" group, their work is viewed world-wide. They also manage to receive national media attention - not an easy feat. They are also legitimately and legally incorporated as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, organized for research. Their work HELPS people who are having difficulty dealing with paranormal activity. They helped my family and my children and never asked for a single penny for their services. The work they do is vital. Unless you have had the need to call upon their services, I think the off-the-cuff comments made by some here are unfounded and derisory. Although "ghost hunting" has become quite mainstream in recent years, the subject still manages to raise eyebrows. This group has continued to act in a professional and dignified manner since their inception and I personally am eternally greatful for their assistance. User: JennaBugg —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The editor making the above comment has an almost ghostly presence with only one visible edit apparent in their history... ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Definitely only received trivial, parochial coverage. Gain some fame and we'll write an article. The above arguments about the helpfulness of the organization are simply not valid keep reasons. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Close call, but with the sources in the article I'd say it's notable.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. The sources are there to establish that the group has at least some sort of notability--now, ChildofMidnight may argue that the group's work is vital, but that's neither here nor there, and says more about her psychological condition than about the group. Raven's references border on the regional side of the regional/local divide, and this coverage is about as substantial as one can expect from that kind of paper. While reporters (hopefully) write this sort of thing tongue-in-cheek, they do write it, and their papers publish it. And so we do too! Drmies (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Frankly, I am surprised that this article would be up for deletion. I researched the group and South Jersey Paranormal Research is well-known not only in New Jersey, but also up and down the Eastern Seaboard as well. The group's founder, Susan Bove', is considered an expert in the field of electronic voice phenomena. Also, SJPR, from what I've read, is very involved with nonprofit organizations and helping out at fundraisers not to mention assisting families who are afraid of living in their homes. It sounds like they are experts at what they do, so why would you want to kick them off? I think that the group's mission and work are things that are of huge interest to the population, even though they were ahead of the game long before the other so-called paranormal groups came along and became hip.--User: twostarz_n_saturn —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
But for many participants in this AfD discussion the problem is precisely notability, and while you may be right about how well known they are, you ought to be able to prove that also, by pointing to verifiable coverage. "It sounds like they are experts" is not exactly encyclopedic, and their charity, if unverified, may be noble but is not what decides if they stay or go. Drmies (talk) 04:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A more issue to me is how Starz and Saturn came to find this discussion? It appears to be their only edit on Wikipedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is anyone questioning the validity of someone else's contribution to this discussion? Who cares if this person or that person only has one post under the name they used here? Perhaps they have several names under which they operate. And even if this is the only thing they ever post here, their opinions and views are just as valid as anyone else, who spends (way too much) time on Wikipedia, IMO. Why does it matter how they found the page? How did you find the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JennaBugg (talk • contribs) 07:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It matters for the same reason that having people vote multiple times or under multiple identies in an election matters. It has to do with the integrity and validity of the process. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep We at the | American Association of Electronic Voice Phenomena have known Susan Bove' for many years and we consider her organization amongst the most representative of groups seeking a rational understanding of possibly "paranormal" experiences reported by people in their area. Lets face it, the subject is a frontier one compared to something like geology or archeology, and publications that cover it are not going to be mainstream. The question that needs to be asked is whether or not the group is a significant representative of their field and the answer is a definite "yes!" Tom Butler (talk) 17:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But you are not addressing the concerns expressed above. This is an encyclopedia, and "whether or not the group is a significant representative of their field" is not the question to ask--the question is, are they notable? and the answer should address the concerns and requirements in WP:N preferably in some detail. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I did address the notability point. First, the AA-EVP has existed for 27 years as a leading group in EVP, one of the primary tools used by the South Jersey Paranormal Research. As an authoritative organization in the field, we the AA-EVP recognizes the group as being very notable. Second, I pointed out that it is not a mainstream organization and publications/organization recognizing SJPR should not themselves be held to the same standard as are groups in mainstream subjects.
The article may need to be filled in a little to make it more encyclopedic, but it clearly address a question about what is the SJPR and there are sufficient articles cited to show that the question has been asked enough to be covered in the media. Tom Butler (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability requires proof, mainstream or not. Drmies (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hi SusanSJPR - I made no claim about the traffic to your website: the ten hits referred to is the number of hits Google comes up with on a search for "South Jersey Paranormal Research" (it actually says there are 11 hits, however if you click on page 2 the eleventh disappears). This number is often used as an initial indication of whether a topic is notable. As for your being biased - that does not stop you 'voting' here - however we all need to do our best to ignore bias and write from a neutral point of view WP:NPOV. Join the debate! Springnuts (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is an interesting tool called | Yahoo Site Explorer, and for the | SJPR, [57] it shows 841 pages and 406 links. As I understand it, This is an indication that the SJPR website is very popular and is providing meaningful content that is considered sufficiently valuable to warrant a link from other people's sites. Tom Butler (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not convinced that Number of links = Notability. There is a quality threshold. Springnuts (talk) 07:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emphatic Keep: You're right, Springnuts. I guess I do deserve a vote and categorically do so :) The members of my group and I work tirelessly to help everyone we encounter and the notability we have received is well deserved. I also want to thank my esteemed colleague, Tom Butler, for his public acclaim of the work SJPR does. I have nothing but the utmost respect for him and the AAEVP organization. Lastly, I'm not sure what numbers you're looking at when Googling our name, but they can't mean that we only have 11 hits from that search engine. We receive tens of thousands of hits through Google each and every month of the year. User:SusanSJPR —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    • Hits you get through google are completely different from hits that google shows when you google the subject. What you are talking about is how many people come to your website through google. What we are talking about is how many other websites mention you according to google. See the difference? JoshuaZ (talk) 02:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Toyota Yaris. Black Kite 23:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toyota Yaris ONYX

edit
Toyota Yaris ONYX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Good faith gsearch failed to turn up this limited vehicle run. Normally I'd prod this, but there is a chance that it's a legitimate limited edition and should be merged into Toyota Vitz. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "non-notable"
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 00:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UnrealIRCd

edit
UnrealIRCd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The subject matter is unnotable, too few references, the article's content is stale, and the project hasn't had a stable release in over two years. --Jacob Myers (Flame me!) 07:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UnrealIRCd is likely to become vaporware, if not already, based upon the news at UnrealIRCd's Homepage All articles specific to one ircd don't seem to meet notability requirements. Seeing how the only three remaining articles specific to an ircd that remain, are ircu, InspIRCd, and UnrealIRCd. I fail to see how they can be notable. While ircu is used on QuakeNet and UnderNet (the two networks with the largest user count, according to SearchIRC), InspIRCd is not used on top networks, UnrealIRCd is used on SlashNet, as stated in the SlashNet article, and ircd-ratbox has no article, where it is used on EFNet.
In my opinion, all specific ircd articles should be removed. While we have a page on comparison, perhaps there should be another page describing in detail, the main ircd's in-use (ircd-hybrid/ratbox, ircd-charybdis, InspIRCd, ircu, UnrealIRCd, 2.8.11, and others), rather than 3 advertisements on specific ircd's. Cfuenty1 (talk) 07:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_January_7&oldid=1081071215"