Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 March 5

< 4 March	6 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Der Wohltempierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St. Peter's Syrian Orthodox Church, Auckland

No real indication of notability. A bit spammy. Giving it a chance at AFD instead of speedy because of the OTRS history. TexasAndroid (talk) 23:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Content (written in first person) appears to indicate this is a local congregation without a permanent ___location. No assertion of notability is made. Google searches such as [1] return no useful results except the group's own web site; [2], [3], [4] bring back no results at this time. --Rogerb67 (talk) 01:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, article reads like an advertisement and would need a complete rewrite to be encyclopedic. Also, to prevent misunderstanding, my comment about no permanent ___location was intended to clarify the topic of the article and not to be a reason for deletion in itself (rereading it I can see its meaning is ambiguous). Clearly a body of believers does not require a permanent building to become notable, and no doubt examples could be cited. --Rogerb67 (talk) 10:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am sorry to say that a Google search is turning up nothing to support the article's preservation. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Churches can be notable for many reasons, but this one doesn't have any of those reasons. Nyttend (talk) 03:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Chzz ► 16:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Syrian Orthodox Church in New Zealand, or something like this, and rewrite so that it covers the religion in New Zealand, rather than simply the church. --Russavia ^Dialogue 22:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What content from this article would be useful in the suggested new article? Unless there is some, moving this article then completely changing its content is just a complicated way of deleting a non-encyclopedic article and creating a new, different article. Also, it's not clear to me this new article would be notable either. Probably more appropriate to start with would be to rename and expand Syrian Orthodox Church#Australia with whatever information can be found in reliable sources. --Rogerb67 (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Der Wohltempierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Wood

Non-notable local anchor ... bio doesn't indicate any awards won (Emmys, Pulitzers) that would justify an article for an anchorman at a small-to-medium market TV station. Blueboy 96 23:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Nobody outside his immediate viewing area knows or cares who he is. 67.79.157.50 (talk) 15:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Chzz ► 16:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Buffalo, New York. Since the main article is very large a split is at some point unavoidable. So if discussed and done properly with a summary this could have survived. I'm going to be bold and close this by redirecting to the main article so it can be undone after proper discussion if desired. Mgm|^(talk) 12:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Culture of Buffalo, New York

This is an undiscussed and potentially unnecessary fork of content from Buffalo, New York. The split was not done in accordance with the Wikipedia:Splitting guideline, meaning attribution of the content found within was not maintained, nor was a summary section left in the parent article -- nor was just about anything else from the guideline done. Levineps (talk · contribs) seems to have a history of article splits just like this one (see User talk:Levineps#Legacy of Harvey Milk). I recommend this be remerged to Buffalo, New York; if discussion later determines that a split is necessary, it can be performed correctly at that point in time. Powers ^T 23:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I am asking for deletion, not a merge, despite my wording above. Once this article is deleted, I will revert the removal of the content from the parent article, so no true "merge" is necessary, and the redirect should not be kept. Powers ^T 23:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agreed. No consensus built prior to the split, and the article wasn't split correctly. The user has done this sort of "rogue splitting" with many articles, without any discussion prior to it, leaving gaping wholes where the content originated. In this case, see Buffalo, NY#Culture for my point. I agree that this page should be deleted, and its content placed back onto the original article (if I'm reading LtPower's proposal correctly). Killiondude (talk) 01:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The content should be included in the main article until it gets too big. He has just split an article of mine (John Beilein) and I am trying to get an explanation from hem about his editing.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, same reasons as above. (To be honest, this editor does this kind of undiscussed, unwarranted, unsummarized splitoff so much that when I run across it, I just undo the main article change and redirect the split back to the main. I can't be bothered going through the AfD apparatus every time, even if it does leave an unnecessary redirect lying around). Wasted Time R (talk) 02:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question What's wrong with having the redirect itself? Nyttend (talk) 03:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose it's probably all right to keep a redirect, though it's a rather unlikely search term and has no incoming links. Powers ^T 11:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. X clamation point 00:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swedenborg Rite

nn, contested prod, after which only "Further Reading" was added to the article. This is a Masonic Rite whose prevalence when it was extant is unknown, and which has been attributed to someone who had nothing to do with it. Therefore, we don't know with any certainty from sources the basic who, what, where, or why of it. By its own admission it was small, and still is, assuming that it is still worked (no actual Lodge that uses it is named). Therefore notability cannot be established. MSJapan (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Verifiablity is key, not truth. Solve for NPOV by attributing statements to speakers. Hipocrite (talk) 23:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep rs are available Chzz ► 16:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Size doesn't matter. The fact that books have been published about it does. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep - Given what the sources say, I think the Swedenborg Rite had more to do with the history of the modern Thelemic and Rosecruxian bodies than it did with Freemasonry (it seems that it was never accepted as a Masonic body)... but that is a matter of editing the article to more accurately reflect the sources, not a criteria for deletion. The fact that there are a few independant sources on the subject tells me that it has at least minimal notability. Blueboar (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Der Wohltempierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Otto Krider

No attempt to establish notability, page is completely promotional in nature. Sources do not look like they meet standards for being independent (links are to an amazon page selling the book and not any original stories), reliable or non-trivial. Many of the links go nowhere/return errors. Claims to be semi-finalist, but does nto appear on the page linked to. List of writing uncourced and includes content on wikis and blogs. Yet another prod removed by someone without giving any rationale. DreamGuy (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Smells strongly of self-promotion. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Technically they don't need to provide a reason to contest a prod. I left the creator a note concerning this AfD. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the rules nobody has to give any reason to contest a prod, but if the person who wants to keep it can't come up with a good reason that just goes to show why it should be deleted. DreamGuy (talk) 14:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find articles he has written, but I cannot find articles about him. I can find no usable information abut his novel Taking Over. His other major work appears to be Star Trek fan fiction that was published in an anthology. -- Whpq (talk) 14:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree this reads like self-promotion. 67.79.157.50 (talk) 15:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spam Chzz ► 16:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promovanityspam. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 07:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Der Wohltempierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absement

WP:Notability. While the author removed a PROD, alluding to significant mention in the "real world", even the references he added all point to it being used in exactly one context: the physics of the hydraulophone. The term may have been coined solely for use with that one instrument, the notability of which I'm unfamiliar with. Can others please give an assessment? —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as {{Prod}}er. Not used in the "real world". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wikipedia is not an alien dictionary Chzz ► 16:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a tough one. I was able to find some mentions and discussions of this on the internet, but precious few. Google books and scholar were little help, succumbing to many false positives such as the misspelling "self-absement". I found one reliable source in Scholar, and the word is used in the context of the hydraulophone, as the nominator mentions. It seems to me that if this is a notable concept in physics, there would be a lot more published on it. To keep this article, I would like to see multiple reliable sources verifying that this is indeed a notable concept included in a wide variety of scholarly discussions. Without that verification, we are flirting with a lot of problems: original research, non-notability, being a neologism, even possibly being something made up recently. I recommend deleting this for now. Re-creation is always possible when proper sources are available. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is being taught in hundreds of schools now, and integrating displacement is as fundamental as differentiating it. Absement, displacement, and velocity are perhaps more fundamental than higher derivatives like jerk and jounce, e.g. why not also delete jerk and jounce?Glogger (talk) 05:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't say absement is as fundamental as velocity when velocity is a ubiquitous characteristic in physics while absement seems to have one sole application, to the mechanics of what I think is a rather obscure instrument. Regarding jerk and jounce, see WP:Other stuff exists.—Largo Plazo (talk) 12:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. yandman 10:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dream House (HGTV)

Unnotable HGTV television series. I created this back when I first started editing, before I really understood WP:N. Realize now, it isn't notable at all. No significant coverage in reliable, third party sources, no reviews, nothing. Everything there is either sourced to the site or the episodes. Failed PROD with the prod being removed with note of "deprod..it is a notable tv show...just needs references" however person removing the PROD may have confused it with the far more notable HGTV Dream Home, which is the series that does the annual house give aways, or a serial deprodder, looking at his edit history. Either way, disagree with the series being notable, so here it be. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why not consider a merge of the contents to HGTV Dream Home since the two are related? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, because they are not. They are two entirely different series with no relation to one another than having, regrettably, very similar names (and Dream Home is sometimes erroneously referred to as Dream House) and both are series that air on HGTV. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge - As Collectionian notes, they are completely unrelated series. I've watched them both. -- Whpq (talk) 15:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This program ran 19 seasons on a major US cable TV network. A Google News search finds considerable coverage in prominent media outlets: [5]. Pastor Theo (talk) 03:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most, if not all, of those sources are for the other show, not this one. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found coverage of "Dream House" in that Google News search in the Washington Post, Denver Post, Rocky Mountain News, Buffalo News, The Chattanoogan, Minneapolis Star Tribune, Austin Business Journal, Los Angeles Times and Chicago Sun-Times. Pastor Theo (talk) 04:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to some specifics because every one I looked at was for the HGTV Dream House/Home contest series, not this series. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Yes, the search is hard because Dream House appears in many contexts. The problem is made worse by the number of articles behind pay walls. However, it is clear this article is about season 14 of the series. And as the full text of this article is available, we can see more coverage of season 1. This article is about season 16, as are this, this, this and this. There looks to be much more but I think this suffices to establish that sufficient sources exist to establish notability. And for what it's worth, I've watched the series, but of course, personal attestation doesn't establish notability, and I am not a reliable source! :) -- Whpq (talk) 15:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Must give you props on finding those! I knew at least one or two eps made some of their local news because they did/do have some rather cool projects on there (certainly inspired me watching them as I rip apart my own house LOL). I do worry, though, about the ability of the article to really be much of anything, even with those sources. It doesn't seem like even HGTV bother's announcing that new seasons are airing (heck, I thought it was off the air!), and the episode list really doesn't add anything useful at all. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was a bit of a trudge through the search results, but in the end I found what I was looking for! The question at hand is notability, and I believe that I have established this. As for the quality of the content, we shall leave that to the collaborative editting process. Quality grows over time. After all Barack Obama used to look like this. Not that I expect such a grand improvement here, but I've been surprised in the past by what an interested editor can do to significantly improve an article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep noteworthy in its own right Chzz ► 16:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. X clamation point 00:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hatcore

Delete nn WP:NEOlogism with no real world context. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Certainly appears to be a neologism to me. - TexasAndroid (talk) 23:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NEO Chzz ► 16:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Der Wohltempierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IPmanager

No indication of notability. May be spam? Peni (talk) 22:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Google search for company + product name gives no reliable source hits in English. There are some Russian-language sites that I didn't read, but I don't think they're reliable either. JulesH (talk) 14:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to VDSmanager, a related product which does appear to be notable. JulesH (talk) 14:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are no reliable sources provided in the article. There are none in searching through Google. I also searched on industry magazine sites: InformationWeek turns up nothing. NetworkWorld turns up nothing. Computerworld turns up nothing. I am not clear on the notability of VDSmanager. The results for VDSmanager that I found were not the product described in VDSmanager. -- Whpq (talk) 15:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spam Chzz ► 16:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-consumer software with no showing of importance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete spam. WikiScrubber (talk) 14:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Der Wohltempierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VDSmanager

No indication of notability. May be spam? Peni (talk) 22:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. [6] and [7] (both google translations of original Russian-language articles) appear to be reliable sources with a reasonable amount of coverage of this product. JulesH (talk) 14:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Both articles actually say only that there is such software and some providers use it. I couldn't find any articles dedicated solely to this software which may be an indication for absense of public interest. --Peni (talk) 14:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. No substantial coverage in reliable sources provided or found. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the two articles found by JulesH are not about the product specifically, and is mentioned as part of the article. I am unable to find any other sources about the product. I've also checked Computerworld, NetworkWorld, and InfromationWeek without coming up with any articles. -- Whpq (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looked; nuffing Chzz ► 16:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-consumer software with no showing of importance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete spam. WikiScrubber (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Der Wohltempierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DNSmanager

No indication of notability. May be spam? Peni (talk) 22:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to VDSmanager, a related product which does appear to be notable. JulesH (talk) 14:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliables sources int he article. None to be found through Google. I additionally looked in Computerworld, NetworkWorld, and InformationWeek with no results. VDSmanager does not lok notable either so I am not in favour of a merge. -- Whpq (talk) 15:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as VDS; no refs, can't find any Chzz ► 16:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-consumer software with no showing of importance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Unreferenced and I'm not going out of my way to find refs for what passes the WP:DUCK test for spam. WikiScrubber (talk) 14:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. X clamation point 00:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ISPmanager

No proof of notability given. May be spam? Peni (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the hosting industry and I've heard of them.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to VDSmanager, a related product which does appear to be notable. JulesH (talk) 14:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found this press release. But that is all. Searches in Computerworld, NetworkWorld, and InformationWeek turned up nothing. VDSmanager doesn't apepar to be notable either so I am not in favour of a merge. -- Whpq (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as others Chzz ► 16:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-consumer software with no showing of importance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete spam. WikiScrubber (talk) 14:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Der Wohltempierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Chilton

Delete BLP which has been unsourced since 2006 for a minor-party candidate who got 800 votes in an election. Fails WP:N, sufficiently nn we don't know when or where he was born or even whether he's still alive. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He was (and still claims to be) the leader of a minor but historically important party. The BC Conservative Party was at one time a major party in the province that particiapted in government. Ground Zero | t 01:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above; news articles available Chzz ► 16:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What news articles? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I haven't checked whether this article subject is notable, but I'd like to point out that the fact that "we don't know when or where he was born or even whether he's still alive" is irrelevant to whether this should be deleted. There are many obviously notable people to whom this applies, (Jesus springs to mind), so it can't be taken as as evidence in favour of deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Rant over now! Lack of notability is a reason for deletion, and the fact that a North American politician in the 2000s has no coverage from sources covered by Google News [8] would seem to be pretty strong evidence of that. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vote after searching for and adding one reference, Fails WP:N. Jeepday (talk) 12:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Der Wohltempierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VirtuaNES

Delete no indication of notability; is this the generic term foa ny NES emulator or is it a specific one? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of notability. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's one specific NES emulator [9] and one of the newer ones (released in October 2007, some of the best known NES emulators are more than 10 years old). No sources, no signs of notability in the article, only 1 sentence. TJ Spyke 23:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:N Chzz ► 16:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted; an author who removes speedy deletion tags from the article consents to its deletion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Principality of Lafayette

Probable non-notable micronation that was founded, according to the article, yesterday -- a clear issue of things made up yesterday. Possibly promotional. Probable conflict of interest by the editor. Recommend delete. A More Perfect Onion (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete HOAX or TEST PAGE. Will so mark it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not irrelevant nor do I receive any fiscal gain from it, only the pride it gives me for my micronation.(Topia robert (talk) 22:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Der Wohltempierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual document collaboration

Wikipedia is not a Manual. Written in entirely the wrong tone for an encyclopaedic article. Ironholds (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Would require a fundemental rewrite to be encyclopedic. Issue of notability (not established) would remain. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spam Chzz ► 16:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: a how-to manual that may well be meant to sell something. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. X clamation point 00:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enrico di Rosso

The subject of this article does not appear to be notable and the one reference cited is a book so obscure that both it and its publisher show up nowhere on the Internet. See the detailed analysis on the talk page for more details. DFS454 (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per your nomination. I found a single source mentioning this person and it's subscription only so I can't read it: [10]. The guy is probably real...but hardly seems notable. I agree that if the book doesn't even show up in a google search, it must be incredibly esoteric. Cazort (talk) 21:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per my earlier analysis at Talk:Enrico di Rosso -- I spent 20-30 minutes trying to find out anything about this guy. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Chzz ► 16:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable. He's chancellor of some order of St. George, but there's no indication of which of many organsiations calling themselves this is the one he is a member of. What is UK's national air guard? -- Whpq (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WPSNOW MBisanz ^talk 05:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Barrancos

Nominating this and all articles on Category:FIFA_World_Cup_referees whose only content are name (born date) is a country football referee. He is known for having refereed number match in the year FIFA World Cup in country. per WP:ONEVENT. Habanero-tan (talk) 20:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you specify exactly which articles you're nominating and actually tag them? Users shouldn't have to wade through a category containing 180 articles looking for the ones which contain specific text to work out which ones they're !voting on..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Articles should not be deleted because of "lack of content" if there still is enough content to make the article subject notable. And WP:ONEVENT does not apply, IMHO. Refereeing a World Cup match means that the referee has had several other noteworthy appearances. – Elisson • T • C • 00:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How about trying to expand the articles rather than simply trying to delete them? WikiGull (talk) 09:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm sure this fella is notable for more than just refereeing at the 1982 World Cup. I mean, he'd have had to do something of note to even be selected as a World Cup ref. – Pee Jay 09:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. Needs expansion, but that's not a reason for deletion. --Dweller (talk) 12:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 16:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A FIFA ref is notable Chzz ► 16:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. X clamation point 00:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Michael O'Connor

Please see discussion here. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable and very promotional.--Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 20:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Author has not even tried to establish notability. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The books are mostly in many hundreds of libraries (, but I cannot tell what role he may have had in them, as his coauthors seem to be much more notable than he is. DGG (talk) 01:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spammy Chzz ► 16:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

certainly true, and doesn't help the article, but not a reason for deletion. If that were the only problem, we could edit the spam. DGG (talk) 01:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I don’t think this is a WP:PROF notability case. Perhaps WP:NB criterion #1, but even there it is not clear cut. Media coverage of the subject is difficult to come by, and certainly is not even close to that of some of his co-authors, as noted by DGG.--Eric Yurken (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Now-blocked author's history of hoaxes suggests a quick close is for the best. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sher'Quan J (section)

Looks like pure vandalism, that I believe relates to a vandal I've been following. I don't feel objective enough to go for a speedy on this, so I'm bringing it here for calmer consideration... SummerPhD (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--this charts a 12-year career in the movies starting in 2003. The only thing that Google can produce that supports this person's existence is Wikipedia. Hoax, vandalism. Drmies (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Actually, Google does find a "Sher'Quan" who professes undying love for "The Lion King"[11] and a copy of a deleted Wikipedia article that listed a "Sher-Quan" as Tarzan[12]... - SummerPhD (talk) 20:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Pure vandalism. I'm surprised the author hasn't been indefinitely blocked yet.—Kww(talk) 20:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I think the author has been blocked indefinitely, but I've had little success at ANI and SPI on that front... - SummerPhD (talk) 20:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Nope, clean block log. Amazing.—Kww(talk) 20:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Anyone that wants to discuss that aspect of this AFD can feel free to do so at WP:ANI#Lingx91.—Kww(talk) 21:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Appears to be related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sher'Quan (feat...), which was also speedily deleted. JulesH (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. X clamation point 00:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yukthivicharam

Notability tagged since September 2007. The three sentences here indicate it is a regional journalism article of little importance. If it was important, someone would have fixed it in the intervening 18 months since it was tagged. Miami33139 (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No Notability established. Ironholds (talk) 10:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete A couple of hits of Google books indicate that the magazine exists; but those hits seem to be simply referencing contents of the magazine, and not articles about the magazine. The web hits are dominated by wikipedia and its mirrors and I didn't find any secondary sources discussing "Yukthivicharam". So, as of present the article fails WP:NB and should be deleted. But the nomination should be kept open for the whole 5 days, in case someone familiar with Malayalam, is able to locate offline sources. Abecedare (talk) 05:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(merged the above comment from the simultaneous Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yukthivicharam (2nd nomination)) DGG (talk) 08:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 04:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Abecedare put it quote well: none of the sources discuss the magazine itself, they just use it as a source and/or mention it in passing. No notability is established. Themfromspace (talk) 03:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have relisted this debate since it seems to have been lost following the above duplicate nomination. ascidian | talk-to-me 20:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this publication were notable, it would show up in google news or google scholar, or at least, show up as citations there--both of those searches are pretty lax, and both get zero hits. ALSO you can do a search in [[Malayalam], and it turns up only 6 hits: [13] Cazort (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I think there's no great need for this in en.wikipedia, but if someone will translate it & put it on ml.wikipedia, Malayalam speakers may better be able to judge its worthiness there.Ventifax (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what you actually mean is transwiki, not keep. Ironholds (talk) 00:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transwikiing to other language Wikipedias is what we do with articles written in another language, not with articles in English about subjects in other languages. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not gonna happen, is it? Chzz ► 16:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Malayalam is not written in the Latin script, so the vast majority of any possible sources would not be searchable in Latin script, making the supposed Malayalam search linked by Cazort meaningless. There may also be other possible transcriptions. What we can see from the Google Books search linked by Abecedare is that this magazine has been cited by the Indian Dictionary of National Biography as a source. That isn't in itself a usable source for this article, but it does indicate that this is a well established publication that would almost certainly have reliable sources available in Malayalam. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I could find two sources [14], [15]. The first one is a proof that this magazine exists. The second is a Hindu article in which the editor of this magazine A.V. Jose is referred to as the “Yukthivicharam Jose”. This indirectly indicates the notability of the magazine. Salih (talk) 05:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For those of us not familiar with Malay culture could you please explain what a "“Yukthivicharam" is and how it makes the magazine notable? If it is a prestigious title it makes no difference; notability is not inherited. Ironholds (talk) 12:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an idiot. So the assertions for notability are 1) you can prove it exists and 2) you can prove that the editor is associated with the magazine? Ironholds (talk) 12:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Level of significant coverage not shown to be reached Der Wohltempierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wisdom University

Obscure unaccredited institution. No current third-party coverage in article, and little-to-no potential for correcting this. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 20:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. California state law under which this institution obtained degree-granting rights seems to have expired 01 Jul 2007 (see cpec.ca.gov and BPPVE). chuuumus (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found sources that barely mention this place in passing: [16], [17], [18], [19]. Not enough. Cazort (talk) 21:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are not significant enough to demonstrate notability. -- Lucas20 (talk) 01:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:N Chzz ► 16:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a general rule, all real degree granting universities, accredited or not, are probably notable. The substantial nature of this one is shown by its faculty list, [20]--a substantial number of them are actually notable, some with doctorates in conventional disciplines from good schools. It is just as important to have information on schools like this as it is on more standard institutions. In a sense, one might even say Wikipedia has an obligation to provide neutral coverage. I'lll just mention my impression from the materials that this is a relatively well organized group. DGG (talk) 10:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "As a general rule" = Fallacy of the undistributed middle (just because many "degree granting universities" are notable, doesn't mean that this one is); "a substantial number of" "its faculty list" = WP:NOTINHERITED (just because some of its (apparently part-time) faculty are otherwise notable doesn't mean that it is). Do you have an direct evidence that this topic meets WP:GNG or WP:ORG? If not, then what value does your "Keep" !vote have? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As stated in WP:LIST, lists and cats are synergystic, so it's not a valid reason to delete. Also note that usefulness is not a valid criterion either. Der Wohltempierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of keyboardists

Superfluous and the list would be huge if filled, as per the AFD for List of Vocalists Benefix (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. This is why WP has categories. chuuumus (talk) 20:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Split into multiple lists. Should be split by genre and/or time period. The list as it stands is way too broad to be useful, but it should be noted that the fact that the person's name and the band(s) they play(ed) in are listed means that the list approach is more useful than categories in this case. JulesH (talk) 20:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and then discuss how to split. DGG (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because categories and lists are complementary, not redundant. The list should probably be split, but it is not currently so long that it needs to be, and there is no evidence that even completing this list to include all notable keyboardists would make this list unmaintainable. Even if this list were too broad, the list guideline suggests to split, not delete. This is not why Wikipedia has categories; categories cannot include useful information like what bands the keyboardist played in. Due to MediaWiki's lack of decent category tools or category annotation mechanisms, the Category:Keyboardists is wholly unweidly; to get the same information that is in this list, I'd have to go down three subcategories just to find Category:American rock keyboardists, for example, and then to click on every single article to find the bands they played in. While some people may find categories adequate, the only real use I've found for them is to help ensure that corresponding lists are up-to-date. DHowell (talk) 06:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Split into multiple lists per JulesH. The size of the article is starting to become problematic, but it does provide things the category can't. Splitting will provide additional information and make the pages themselves more manageable. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above; figure it out Chzz ► 16:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not meaning a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument ... but ...your saying that keyboardists are less notable than guitarists & drummers. I dont understand how from your Nom. Statement. It takes all of them to make the music. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 06:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the kind of thinking that gives WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS a bad name. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of drummers and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of guitarists (2nd nomination). Benefix (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It serves its purpose as a quick access point for, err people interested in keyboard players. It is useful, well moderated and has a place in WP. Whereas spurious list haters who use WP:OTHERSTUFF as a self-perpetuating argument does not. What happens after decimating all the List of... pages, a full onslaught of the lists of categories? --WebHamster19:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further to this I suspect that another agenda is at work as for some strange reason User:Benefix first started editing under this name on 24 Jan 2009 and 90+% of those edits have been to start AFDs on mostly list related articles. "Something fishy going on" is a phrase that seems to apply. --WebHamster19:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have just made a personal attack on me for nominating all this listcruft. I think this should give you a clue as to why I don't do it with my main account. Benefix (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do you equate "personal attack" with me just stating facts and suspicions based on those facts which you have just admitted in any case. So you are indeed a sockpuppet then? --WebHamster19:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G4. This is just X-men (deaths) and Heroes Deaths recreated as one article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Character Deaths

This topic is way too vague. It could literally encompass hundreds of thousands of works of fiction. As it is now, it appears to only contain the author's favorite works based on vague "criteria" that could apply to thousands of other works as well. Further, this is being set up more like an information page for fans, as opposed to an actual encyclopedia article. I also feel this falls in the criteria of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. 13² 19:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pure plot summary, presented in a fashion that isn't useful in understanding the works in question. Agree that WP:IINFO applies here. JulesH (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete beyond the scope of this encyclopedia. Should engage in editing wookiepedia or the others. Also WP:IINFO does apply.--DFS454 (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't seem to fit with the style or categorization/list schemes in the rest of wikipedia. Cazort (talk) 21:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but.... this would be a good addition to the different entertainment wikis on www.wikia.com, and I encourage the author to check those out, since there are widely-viewed Wikias for Star Wars (Wookieepedia), Star Trek (Memory Alpha), X-Men, Heroes and Lost ("Lostpedia") Mandsford (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All of this information does not need to be in the same place. Macarion (talk) 01:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- fancruft. This is an indiscriminate collection of trivia that belongs somewhere more fandom-oriented, but not a serious encyclopedia. Reyk _YO! 06:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I normally don't agree when something is nominated as an indiscriminate collection of facts. This time I do. This is exactly what the guideline was written for. This is a list that doesn't have solid inclusion criteria. If it did it has no potential to ever cover a reasonable amount of character deaths without becoming unwieldy and impossible to maintain. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete meaningless topic Chzz ► 16:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. I remember !voting in two very similar AFDs recently where somebody just listed the deaths of characters in X-Men and Heroes. Perhaps someone more patient than myself should explain the relevant policies to this guy. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 07:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indiscriminate list.--Sloane (talk) 02:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Satcitananda. Der Wohltempierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Satchidananda

Delete this article has been the subject of an edit war over whether added original content and content sourced to youtube videos can expand this beyond a WP:DICDEF - apparently not. WP is not a Sanskrit dictionary; ordinarily I would tag this with {{copy to wiktionary}} but Sanskrit does not use the Latin alphabet nor is even the definition sourced, so why foist this upon them. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Satcitananda. The "resistance" over redirecting appears to be over the perceived narrowness in subject of Satcitananda. If this is the case, then expand Satcitananda to include a section on the use of the word in yoga, but a second article for an alternative spelling is silly. Plastikspork (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect as in Plastikspork's suggestion. Agreed, if this is an alternate spelling based on the same concept but occurring in a different context, I think that belongs on the main page, with mention of the distinction. Cazort (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi dear Carlos Suaraez. Why foist this upon them? Because Satchidananda is a very important concept in all of Yoga, and since most do not at this time read Devanagri script, the words are so the concept is more clear: In Sanskrit the meaning is transmitted through the sound of words, in the pitches and vowels and letters used. Shanthi, Shanthi, Shanthi is Peace Peace Peace. --Rudraksha108 (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the last four decades and three years this word has been used in the English-speaking world in the name of Swami Satchidananda, always spelled this way. Swami Satchidananda It is not a part of the Sri Aurobindo or Hare Krishna work, therefore, please keep the concept independent as a way to understand knowledge of this concept and not have it be appropriated by groups with an axe to grind.--Rudraksha108 (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of reasons to welcome diversity and multimedia here. I am sure that it will enrich this site no end. Om Shanthi. --Rudraksha108 (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudraksha108 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If pages are a target for vandalism, edit wars, or promotion of an agenda, I think the appropriate response is to semiprotect and/or warn and possibly (in extreme cases) ban offending users. I think arguments about edit wars and vandalism are not really relevant to whether we should keep, merge, or delete a page--we need to decide this based on the merits of the subject and its sourceability alone--and then once we've reached a consensus about what we want to do, we can begin to discuss how to maintain the integrity of the page and protect it against vandalism and edit wars. Cazort (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to the persuasive arguments from Rudraksha108 Chzz ► 16:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 09:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Satcitananda and protect. This is simply an alternate transliteration of the Sanskrit term. There are different views and interpretations of the philosophical concept that should be covered in one place and not in a content fork. Abecedare (talk) 09:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Satcitananda , alternate spelling. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Mfield per G11. Non-admin close ukexpat (talk) 18:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GlobalAir.com

Non-notable website, no claims of notability can be verified. Possible conflict of interest with main author as well. Article reads as advertising for website. CSD tags removed by author. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G11 and so tagged. ukexpat (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: and creator's user name reported to WP:UAA. – ukexpat (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

speedy-delete as quite blatant spam for a non-notable website. Creator (who does appear to have COI, even though he removed the tag for that) tells us to fix it rather than pointing out the problems. #1, no sir, you want a page that is nothing but PR/ad-copy, you fix it. But #2, I took a whack at tagging the problematic phrases and removing the fluff, and when I was done I had....just what the nom says: virtually nothing even making a verifiable claim of notability. DMacks (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - No reliable sources from which notability could be established. EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - No reliable sources etc. --Quartermaster (talk) 18:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam, notability and snow. BigDunc^Talk 18:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No assertion of lack of notability, or other grounds for deletion. Merge can be discussed on talk. Der Wohltempierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Camel Crush

I have already requested that the article be merged, but the discussion died quickly a long time ago. Notice that no other Camel cigarette varieties have article, nor should they. See here: Camel_(cigarette)#Varieties. I propose that we merge or redirect this with Camel (cigarette). Belasted (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Looie496 (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge/redirect. I have found sources mentioning this product specifically: [21], [22], [23], there's also an article in Forbes. It seems to have gotten some media attention and attention from marketing types. I do think this page could be expanded. However...I don't find it particularly interesting so I'm not going to do it. Cazort (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - no deletion rationale has been put forward. AFD is for articles that are proposed for deletion, and not for merger proposals. -- Whpq (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Whpq Chzz ► 16:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per User:Whpq. Also note that Elephant Crush is a FA. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. What the organizers can rent, etc. are not valid reasons for keeping, but whether coverage is local matters not if they meet the criteria of significant secondary sources that can be presumed reliable. Unless the local papers can be refuted, it meets GNG. Der Wohltempierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Conference

This appears to fail our notability guidelines. A little coverage in the LA Times and CityBeat isn't enough. dougweller (talk) 17:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I only got 4 google news archive hits for the event. It seems below peoples' radar. Cazort (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please clearify "enough covereage" and its relation to Notability. Under General Noteability, there are 5 main criteria - "Enough Coverage" is not the same as "Significant Coverage", which requires that the coverage be explicit in the discussion of the event. This is clearly the case here. Notibility requirements ask for third party coverage which is evident in both LA Times and Citybeat. Stating that it is not enough seems a subjective argument. The conference had high attendance indicating that it was relevant, regardless of personal beliefs - e.g. I don't believe in this stuff, but understand that it has a large following as evident by fanbase on sites such as 2012 News, Geddon Gear, and2012 Predictions. With the History Channel running doomsday content regularly - armageddon miniseries, I think this is valid. KurtVan (talk) 14:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Fanbases and attendance are irrelevant. And certainly that fact that doomsday content exists anywhere is irrelevant (as is quite a bit of the article in fact). The issue is whether a couple of short newspaper articles are sufficient to establish notability of this conference. I'm arguing no, that you'd need more than that. Show us a NYTimes article and I'll agree it's notable. dougweller (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The LA Times is the second largest metropolitan newspaper. I am curious why NYTimes (which is the largest metropolitan newspaper) qualifies, but the LA times is not good enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KurtVan (talk • contribs) 18:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - CommentBecause it is anything but local to the conference. Coverage in New York would imply some sort of notability probably. dougweller (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep notable enough Chzz ► 16:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a Fox TV piece right on the site's homepage and they rented out the Fort Mason center in San Francisco, so they at least have enough money and plans to pull that off. Sure it is a bit 'far out', but part of wiki's value is to cover that type of stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtyoga (talk • contribs) 13:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I fully agree with Jtyoga and couldn't say it better Shawnpoo (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to make it clear once again, all the coverage is local, including the tv coverage. KurtVan, Jtyoga, no offence, but you've only been around less than a month and it takes a while to understand how Wikipedia works. It took me a lot longer than a few months. :-) dougweller (talk) 06:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the information Dougweller. However, I am having trouble understanding why Local coverage does not qualify as a valid source. A newspaper like Holland Sentinel is a local newspaper that does not have coverage outside its locality, but is a valid Wikipedia entry. After reading through both Notability and Reliable sources, I fail to see where your argument about local coverage not qualifying as a secondary source is valid. Implying that you are right and others are wrong because you have had more experience in Wikipedia does not seem like a valid (or cordial) argument either. And I have been around a lot longer than a month - just because I didn't exist as a user on wikipedia, doesn't mean that last month was my very first encounter with the concept of an encyclopedia.

Furthermore, Cazort - I don't know if a google search is sound evidence for either inclusion or exclusion as stated in wiki's Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions section entitled Google Test.KurtVan (talk) 14:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Four flushing

Dictdef, with a list of uncited usages in popular culture. Mikeblas (talk) 16:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In my opinion the article should have been tagged for expansion and references, not nominated for deletion, although the nomination is certainly in good faith, as the article is currently in the state Mikeblas describes. There certainly seems to be plenty of material to create a full-fledged encyclopedic article out of this. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a link in the article to the Wiktionary entry, which could well be expanded to include the examples cited in this article. I find it hard to see that anything could be added to the article that would not belong in Wiktionary. Obviously a Google search turns up many websites, books etc. that use the term, but do they add anything other than a description of the origin of the term and examples of current usage? Aymatth2 (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A dicdef farsed out with a list of occurrences of the term in pop culture—this manages to violate both WP:NOTDICTIONARY and WP:NOTDIR. I'm not seeing anything in LinguistAtLarge's searches but more dictionary material and more simple uses of the terms. Deor (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The occurances of the term simply specify that Wikipedia is not the OED. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am finding a lot of mention/discussion of this term. It seems a lot more mainstream than a lot of esoteric topics that are (rightly) included in wikipedia. Sources: [24], [25], [26]. Language associated with card games has been well-studied and this expression is no exception. Not saying the page should be very big--but I would rather have a small page, about the size of the current one but perhaps better sourced, than have no page. Cazort (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant cultural concept, not just a word. There are probably thousands of examples in literature, besides the use otherwise. Many (if not most) of the frequently occuring common noun in Wiktionary can become Wikipedia articles if enough content is added. DGG (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have completely rewritten the article from the perspective of the notable and verifiable poker hand the "four flush". After keeping this article, a merger with list of poker hands can be discussed. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Draw (poker) would be a better target for merging. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep following Linguist's revisions. The arguments for deletion simply no longer apply.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Based on comments from DGG and revision by LinguistAtLarge. But I wish we had some way of automatically synchronizing articles on words between Wikipedia and Wiktionary. Maybe an infobox of some kind? Aymatth2 (talk) 01:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep more than a dicdef Chzz ► 16:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to "Four flush". The poker hand, its history, and its influence on slang are documented, but Wikipedia is neither a dictionary nor a pop-culture concordance. WillOakland (talk) 00:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. X clamation point 00:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Huxford

I initially prodded this but tag was quickly removed by author. I can see no evidence that the subject is notable. A pure vanity piece. Fails WP:BIO Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 16:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the New Years Honours list is the only thing of any note listed, and receiving an honour doesn't make somebody notable (dinner ladies and lollipop ladies often receive them, too). I wouldn't object to a speedy. Esteffect (talk) 16:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BIO. ttonyb1 (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete teh fail Chzz ► 16:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. X clamation point 00:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiclear

Wiki software with no particular claim to notability or uniqueness other than existing; user base seems low and project seems to be halted since 2007. §FreeRangeFrog 16:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable software, no valid sources. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 18:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Grumpy Delete There's a difference between being unsourced and being unsourcable. Here are sources: [27], [28], which mention the article. But I still do not think this software is anywhere near notable. Cazort (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those sources are third-party, non trivial sources anyway. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 14:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete argue amongst yourselves :-) but the source is weak in this one Chzz ► 16:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per A7. Mikeblas (talk) 16:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Balls

Speedy delete, per WP:N. Macarion (talk) 16:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WPSNOW MBisanz ^talk 05:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry's Famous Deli

Advertisement; completely unreferenced--only a primary source. Includes list of "celebrity patrons" without any citation. It's just another chain of bagel shops or delis; no claim to notability other than the tenuous fact that the owner might be related by marriage to the friend of someone famous. Mikeblas (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A ProQuest search reveals plenty of articles from the Los Angeles Times and several industry journals. This does seem like a local landmark in LA. The company was also listed on Nasdaq at one point. [29] The article could definitely use some cleanup and additional references, but it's not hopelessly bad. And I don't think it was intended as an advertisement. The original author seemed to have many other interests. Zagalejo^^^ 19:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A google news search that took all of four seconds to do yielded a ton of results. Please research next time. 216.37.86.10 (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Miami Beach, Florida ___location, at 1450 Collins Avenue, looks like it might be a contributing property to the Miami Beach Architectural District. A query of the Miami Design Preservation League database indicates that it's part of the local Española Way historic district for its Art Deco architecture. The ___location alone probably merits some description in the article. (I was there with some friends about a month ago, and we kept calling it the "Target Deli" because the porthole windows resemble Target Corporation's logo.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy and Grumpy Keep If an article is unsourced and written like an advertisement, it should be improved and adequately sourced. Articles should only be proposed for deletion if they cannot be sourced. I am finding hundreds of sources: [30]. It even shows up in google scholar with 18 hits--extraordinarily unusual for a restaurant: [31]. Cazort (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - Conditional Keep - if more sources are added. CopaceticThought (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A Google News search provides ample evidence of notability: [32]. The article needs to be rewritten, but it doesn't deserve to be deleted. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep As evidenced above, there is no shortage of reliable sources for information about this truly "famous", and clearly notable, chain of restaurants. DHowell (talk) 06:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is obviously salvageable. I suggest that if the content is an issue, the nominator searches for an interested party or WikiProject to do the fixing. If anyone does it before the AFD ends and informs me about it, I'm willing to offer a shiny barnstar for their efforts. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep keepspam Chzz ► 16:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the abundance of sources indicated above. Yet another example of why it should be a requirement for AfD nominators to do at least a few seconds of research before they spend several hundred seconds setting up an AfD. --Oakshade (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. X clamation point 00:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Walker's Cay

Apparently just an advertisement for a diving club which feeds sharks. No references--the one that exists is 404. Mikeblas (talk) 16:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete G11 Chzz ► 16:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most northerly island in the Bahamas. Spam now removed. Nuttah (talk) 13:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - An actual oceanic island and the most northern in the Bahamas as stated above. Plenty of sources from g-books alone. --Oakshade (talk) 00:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Please check your work; almost all of those hits are for "Walker's Cay Hotel", which is a commercial establishment and not an island. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I checked my work and you might want to check it again. 5 of the first 6 of "those hits" are not about the hotel but about the island. Quite in depth too.--Oakshade (talk) 03:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - have found and added info re the Walker's Cay marine area being national park. PamD (talk) 08:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WPSNOW MBisanz ^talk 05:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fairy alphabet

Does not seem to meet notability standards. Google returns very little related material, and it's all sourced to a single book written in 1974. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, upon further review, the cited book doesn't seem to be about the creation of a new writing system or anything. I'm thinking this is most likely one of those things made up in school one day. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Possibly both Llythrennog Rosen and the alphabet are WP:INUNIVERSE? Artw (talk) 09:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's no universe identified in the article. Even were it not this universe, without that context the article is unmaintainable by other editors, and, being written as if it were this universe, a falsehood. On the gripping hand, attempts to identify the subject, and confirm that sources exist, have failed, and the article's creator xyrself has at most provided non-sources, perhaps to merely fob off requests. If you can identify the subject and cite sources, you can rebut the arguments here, of course, and multiple editors all trying to do that independently is how AFD is supposed to work. Uncle G (talk) 11:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete(ec) While I have not had a chance to look at this particlular edition, I am familiar with the work of Cicely Mary Barker, and this alphabet bears no resemblance to her books or illustrations. She certainly didn't write about linguistics. I suspect a hoax. Kafka Liz (talk) 16:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failing WP:V and WP:NOT. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 18:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The cited source, which recites the English alphabet, does not support the subject outlined in the article. I suspect, given this edit and this edit, that the citation was a mere payment of lip service to requests for sources. The false citation strongly indicated that this would turn out to be unverifiable, and a few searches for sources bore that conclusion out. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hoax? Chzz ► 16:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolute trash. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 07:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WPSNOW MBisanz ^talk 05:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swedbank kartodroms

Initially prodded but removed by author. This is a non notable track much like hundreds around the world. Fails WP:ORG Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 15:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw I am persuaded by the points below and I have no wish to either waste anyone's time or be biased against "obscure" subjects in Eastern Europe written by newly registered Wikipedian with very few edits. I therefore withdraw this AfD. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 17:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to object that Swedbank kartodroms is non notable karting track. First, it is the most modern and recent race track in Baltic states that hosts Baltic level international karting competition, second, you can found articles about the track on international media, for example Vroom (11/2008), Karting Magazine (10/2008). The track is notable in eastern Europe, Baltics and Scandinavia. How can I still proove that it is notable, and what really makes karting track notable. Thank you for understanding!Ugaldins (talk) 08:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the national track with a history as well. Unfortunately, this AfD is typical for the "notability trend" against "obscure" subjects in Eastern Europe written by newly registered Wikipedian with very few edits. This article is worthwhile, even though it needs some rewrite. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 16:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, give a chance to improve. Paste: According to your logic, Old Trafford is a non notable venue much like hundreds around the world. It is, after all, just a stadium, and by far not a large one. And it also fails WP:ORG because it's not an independent organization at all (WP:ORG is irrelevant for buildings, tracks, ships and other material artefacts). Ugaldins: Notability should be proven with WP:Reliable sources, ideally, in English. The difference between S.K. and Old Trafford is in the amount of third-party references. A new track in Latvia may not have as many as an old stadium in a small English town, but it's worth trying. NVO (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable track; needs much work Chzz ► 16:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 American Airlines. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 05:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Airlines Vacations

Speedy for this advertarticle was declined. There are basically zero news sources which aren't press releases or travel guidish; no book sources which aren't Lonely Planet type guide books with phone numbers; and a scholar search doesn't indicate any degree of notability. Whilst there are 80,000 web hits, I can't find a single one which gives this travel division an ounce of notability within an encyclopaedic setting. Russavia ^Dialogue 15:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with American Airlines --Teancum (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to American Airlines, advertisement-only fork, not necessary but deletion is not necessary either. The Seeker 4 Talk 16:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to American Airlines. That is where the information should be covered. Versus22_talk 16:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to American Airlines. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 18:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. X clamation point 00:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SecureWorks

Unreferenced article with serious neutral point of view issues ("...has been growing rapidly enough...rapid countermeasure deployment...continued to expand...merger has exceeded expectations for synergy and financial results...significant contributor to the body of knowledge...") about potentially non-notable Atlanta-based security firm written by an "interactive marketing specialist with expertise in interactive media, search engine (SEO) optimization and web 2.0 marketing" who is "currently an interactive marketing manager for an for Atlanta-based security firm" -- samj _in ^out 15:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Non-notable corporation, possibly spam. USA Today article is a one line trivial mention, the remainder of the "in the news" links are either blatently not third party sources or are very questionable, tone is borderline G11 material. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 19:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spam Chzz ► 16:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete violation of WP:SOAP --Marianian (talk) 18:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. X clamation point 00:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Web Bot Project

Removed prod. Reason given by User:Ijsf who placed the tag was "No scientific basis whatsoever. Zero credible sources on the subject. Orphaned and disputed. Justification of predictions based on unproven claims in primary source". Although I was actually the reviewer who created this article through WP:AfC I now agree with this assessment. Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see encyclopedic notability here. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ! Chzz ► 16:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not seeing the reliable sources needed to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is no alternate information on this subject, and this is the most reliable data on the internet. ~~Zk ► 16:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.3.33 (talk) [reply]

What you have stated to support your opionion is a reason for deletion , nit a reason for inclusion. The lack of reliable sources means we cannot write verifiable article about the subject. -- Whpq (talk) 16:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The deletion guidelines for administrators requires me to consider WP:BLP in addition to the discussion. On review, it seems that noone beyond the nominator can identify any contentious material in this article. The article needs citations, however, and this should be done soon - it is unfortunate that this discussion has not raised the issue of finding sources to establish notability and I hope that contributors will make some effort to do so soon, otherwise this should probably come back to AfD Fritzpoll (talk) 10:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rue Protzer

Only a primary source offered, no further references. WP:BLP problems, notability problems, fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Mikeblas (talk) 15:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and beef up. Ventifax (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While the other issues might exist, I was unable to find any BLP issues. Not all biographies of living people are deletable. They can only be speedy deleted if it mainly contains negative or contentious information about the subject which is not in question here. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. According to WP:BLP: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." The whole of the article is unreferenced; if I remove the material that's not referenced, I'm left with something less than a stub. As such, deleting the whole article is the right thing to do per Wikipedia policy. If the article manages to pass AfD, I'll remove the unreferenced material, and leave it as a stub. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. The quote that you give from WP:BLP doesn't say "unsourced or poorly sourced material about living persons...should be removed immediately", but "unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons...should be removed immediately" (my emphasis). You seem to have ignored the all-important word in your interpretation of policy. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see what part is contentious Chzz ► 16:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - There is this one small bit. There may be more German sources, but I'm not compentent to do that. I will also note that the article has never been tagged as needing references. As for the BLP issues, I see none. There are no negative comments. There is no promotional language. The tone is quite neutral. I don't see how cutting the article down to a stub would be helpful. If there are specific statements that you feel are contentious, you can always tag them with {{cn}} to request a citation to verify the assertion. -- Whpq (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. {{unreferenced}} is not a requisite to deletion. -- Mikeblas (talk) 05:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - It isn't, but not giving an article a chance for development through collaborative editting is contrary to spirit of Wikipedia. Deletion is a last resort. -- Whpq (talk) 12:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Democrat Party (phrase)

Delete, Non-notable, absolute nonsense. WP:NOR, WP:NPOV. If "Dubya" doesn't have its own article, this certainly shouldn't. Macarion (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - I don't see the rationale for deletion. "Dubya" isn't relevant to this article, which clearly isn't nonsense. Rather, the article is well sourced and verifiable. Even if we think the kerfuffle over Democrat(ic) Party is silly or not, the article meets Wikipedia policy. -Phoenixrod (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Dubya" is relevant. It's a nickname used by detractors. And it's much more common and notable than "Democrat Party." This "epithet" is not important. Macarion (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Merge with Democratic Party (United States) as a sub-topic. --Teancum (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd oppose a merge with Democratic Party (United States) because a cursory Gsearch shows that the term has other uses in other countries as well. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (edit conflict) simply because a valid reason for deletion has not been given. "Absolute nonsense" doesn't apply, as it's not gibberish, it's a coherently written article. The reference to Dubya really falls under WP:OTHERSTUFF and is an invalid argument. Note also that a Google search, while not conclusive proof of anything, does return 900,000+ hits for "democrat party". Based on some of those hits, the focus of the article should be changed to include a non-US point of view as well. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A google search for "huge balls" finds 121,000 hits. That doesn't mean the phrase "huge balls" is notable. Macarion (talk) 15:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "...a valid reason for deletion has not been given." Someone help me out here. Macarion (talk) 16:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You could try looking over Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion. -Phoenixrod (talk) 16:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:NOR, WP:N, WP:NPOV Macarion (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Macarion, please stop changing your wording after people have replied to your nomination. Add to it and sign again if you like, but don't replace words. A reader looking at your revised nom wouldn't see the "absolute nonsense" claim, for instance, making the discussion hard to follow. -Phoenixrod (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine. Macarion (talk) 16:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - For the record, the original wording was here. -Phoenixrod (talk) 16:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sorry, seems like it is certainly notable, with a lot of usage. Neologisms (which this arguably is) should have an article if the usage of the term has been covered by third-party reliable sources. This appears to fit that criteria, and if this is not a neologism strictly speaking, the coverage by third-party reliable sources indicates notability. Simply citing policies with WP:N WP:NOR etc. is meaningless, since you are not explaining why this article violates those policies. The Seeker 4 Talk 16:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It violates WP:NOR because this it is not verifiable that the intention of using this "epithet" is to offend or deride, which is what the article is about. The fact that this article exists means it violates WP:NPOV, because this article is inherently biased. Macarion (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NPOV means that potentially offensive topics need to be covered in a neutral manner and present all points of view equally, it does not mean we should ignore the topic. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - fairly detailed article with a bit of notability. Versus22_talk 16:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep- Subject has some notability above and beyond beyond just being a neologism. As an aside, while the AFD is running, we might want to keep an eye on the page, since I just reverted an edit that removed the AFD notice on the page. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject is relevant, well-sourced. I found it an interesting look at the use of politics and language, and have referred back to it multiple times since then. --Jordan117 (talk) 16:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems pretty clear-cut. I was just reading some quantitative analysis of the use of "Democrat Party" vs. "Democratic Party", and came looking for an article on the phrase. Lo and behold, I found this quite good article. It has too much content, and is too peripheral, to be merged in the Democratic Party article, but there's no case for deletion.--ragesoss (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable term in US political discourse, well sourced. Rklear (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since this is a notable term which is well-documented. Drmies (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep"...as an independent voter I plead this case as strongly as I can. There's a reason I went to Wiki with this keyword. It's a very topical issue, now more than ever. There are a few sentences in the current article that strike me as more "lecturing" than "information" (especially the paragraph that makes a summary judgement that the use of "Democrat" is "wrong") but I did glean illumination on this issue. Perhaps this article should be categorized so that edits require editor review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.41.222 (talk • contribs) 2009-03-05 20:46:51
Strong Keep This article is very well-sourced and I'm a bit surprised to see such an extensive and well-sourced article proposed for deletion. Some of the sources are written specifically about this topic (as in written about the phrase/term itself). That certainly meets the WP:Notability criteria. Cazort (talk) 22:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep as per Cazort. The article is extremely well sourced and has been a source of political debate. CopaceticThought (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keepVentifax (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There isn't a topic which can't be written about neutrally, even if the topic itself is a position on one side of something, and the "dubya" point is moot per the pokemon test. The existence or not of other articles doesn't tell us if this one is notable. Huadpe (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources and examples demonstrate notability. —EqualRights (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is stupid. Macarion (talk) 00:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously a notable term.--210.248.139.34 (talk) 01:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G3 (vandalism), A7 (non-notable - turns out to be a musician on MySpace) Black Kite 15:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FAME CERTIFIED

Non-notable musician. Can't be speedied because of claims of notability, but these claims turn out to be blatant misinformation. For example, there is NO record of any "Fame Certified" having been nominated for a Grammy, nor awarded a BMI Producer of the Year award. Also, 260 BILLION MySpace views??? Really??? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You might be able to speedy it as vandalism. Themfromspace (talk) 15:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. "Kid with list"..... yandman 21:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Gilbert

Totally unsourced, and does not meet notability guidelines. Only two roles given, and the one listed in the article as "principle" is not even a named character, and was not listed on the movie's page until this article's author added it there. No indication otherwise of notability. TexasAndroid (talk) 14:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - actor without a significant body of work. His movie role have consisted of "Kid #5" and "Kid with list". No reliable sources writing about him. -- Whpq (talk) 18:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A5 since it's now on WikiSource. Mgm|^(talk) 11:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correspondence between General Pulaski and General Washington

two french letters, no context, belongs in an archive not here Jac16888 ^Talk 14:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to the appropriate place, probably French-language Wikisource. Ray (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete.~~ This was a prod that was contested, as usual, without explanation. I seconded the initial prod with the following comment: "This information would be great for an archive but not for an encyclopedia." KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary, a lengthy explanation was given. Uncle G (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikisource and delete. Ah, the American civil war. I remember it well.

I was asked to translate one of these letters, apparently by the original author of this article. and I did my best, which was none too good; the draft translation is at User talk:Rochlafayette. At any rate, these letters are historical source texts that belong at Wikisource. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. I agree this is not an article and not even a stubb for that matter but given that the editor is new I would advise education rather than repression. In particular, the subject matter is just too obscure to be some random insert. It is likely to be of relevevance given some context. The letters were only translated this monday I say wait until the 16th. If in the mean time there is no improvement I will gladly move it to wikisource and delete.

Ghaag (talk) 00:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am the person who posted the letters. I understand now that they don't belong on an encyclopedia page. I'm waiting for administrators to delete it. Thanks to everybody who wanted to make sure everybody got a chance to weigh in with their opinion. I have no problem if it's deleted. I posted it on Wikisource last week. Rochlafayette (talk) 03:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the above, I now recommend speedy delete as author requesting deletion (G7). KuyaBriBri^Talk 04:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic Torch (virus hoax)

This article does not establish notability of the subject of the article. Unionsoap (talk) 14:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article has 3 reliable sources describing the hoax. I'm not sure why this doesn't qualify as notable, therefore. JulesH (talk) 16:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:HOAX, articles about hoaxes are acceptable, and this definitely reads like an article about a notable hoax covered by 3 independent reliable sources. KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources: [33] This source: [34] mentions that this hoax made the rounds twice in one year, and caused a loss of productivity. Multiple independent sources written specifically about the topic...that meets WP:Notability. Cazort (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Google News sources might be worth looking into, but the existing sources (which are great to verify facts) are not the sort of sources to establish notability because the organizations doing the reporting there list pretty much any virus they find in their database, regardless of how much effects it actually had. (Just like IMDB doesn't help to establish notability for actors or films because they list anything they can get their hands on) = Mgm|^(talk) 11:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak reluctant keep. The sources in the article are certainly not sufficent to justify keeping this article, per WP:NOTDIR, but two of the articles in the Google News search linked by Cazort (The Indian Expess and Wiener Zeitung) just about seem to get this over the notability bar. I say "reluctant" because I do rather despair that trivial geekery like this always gets people weighing in with "keeps", but I have to fight hard to get an article about a town where people live out their whole lives and which has coverage in over 100 books kept, and even then it's only a "no consensus". I know that that's irrelevant to this article, but I had to get it off my chest. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Wikipedia:NOTDIRECTORY. There are very few virus hoaxes already and plenty of sites covering them - the standard for news stories is *much* higher. If we're not having crimes with international coverage like YouTube cat abuse incident included then we don't need to go out of our way to keep this sort of wikicruft around. Accordingly I'd cite WP:NOTNEWS too, specifically WP:SBST because it's ephemeral. WikiScrubber (talk) 14:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn by nominator until consensus about solely local coverage comes his way. Bongo matic 03:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gladys the Swiss Dairy Cow

The topic of this (charming and whimsical) article is non-notable. A Google news archive search for the artist finds nothing relevant to the cow, and, gnerates literally zero hits when searching for the artist and the name of the cow. The coverage cited is solely local. No evidence as to the notability of the topic has been offered. Note: This article has been up for deletion twice before (but I don't know how to make that nice little box) Bongo matic 13:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep...seems sourced to me...Rhinoracer (talk) 14:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even makes into a Russian reference! [35] (also all linked dictionaries) When something makes it into Russia, I trust is has reached notability. Collect (talk) 15:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this is a joke. This reference is to a Wikipedia mirror site. Bongo matic 15:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is the in-depth subject of multiple independent reliable sources, the core criteria of WP:NOTABILITY. WP:N doesn't and never has banned local coverage as examples of reliable sources establishing notability. Some people have issue that such a piece of folk art can be notable, but in fact it is. --Oakshade (talk) 16:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of folk art is notable. But the exclusively local nature of the coverage—especially given the great length of time this artwork has been around—demonstrates that truly independent coverage doesn't exist. See footnotes 5 and 6. Bongo matic 16:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where you're going with that. The Connecticut Post is truly independent of Glady the Swiss Dairy Cow. If you'd like WP:NOTABILITY to be changed to not accept "local" secondary sources that are independent of topics as reliable sources then you need to make your case in the WP:N talk page, not try to push an agenda in an individual AfD.--Oakshade (talk) 17:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep though I'm usually in perfect agreement with Bongomatic. The article is well-sourced, even though these references are local--but there is no requirement that they not be; the cow seems notable enough to me. Drmies (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a piece of artwork wich has reached notability. Also a very interesting article. Warrington (talk) 23:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn and no voices for other than keep. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carl W. Gottschalk

NN individual fails WP:PROF Hipocrite (talk) 11:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn per addtl info. Hipocrite (talk) 11:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious that the content is notable and verifiable. What do you need more ? Click on the links to see. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Carl_W._Gottschalk.--JeanandJane (talk) 17:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://advan.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/30/2/63 —Preceding unsigned comment added by JeanandJane (talk • contribs) 17:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

http://www.lib.unc.edu/rbc/kidney/gottschalk.html Please check before you delete.

http://www.asn-online.org/grants_and_funding/gottschalk-Grant.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by JeanandJane (talk • contribs) 00:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

http://jasn.asnjournals.org/cgi/content/full/10/3/620 One more. http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/oct97/gotts.html --JeanandJane (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Distinguished Research Professor of Medicine and Physiology. and holder of a named chair in medicine at UNC Chapel Hill? Just needs expansion: start by inserting those refs into the article, right now. The nom brought it here, I notice with some surprise, even after the refs above were supplied on the talk p. More should have been written in the first place, but it's a tenable stub even as it is, meeting WP:PROF because of the Chair. DGG (talk) 01:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Clear pass of many WP:PROF criteria (any one of which would be enough for a keep). NAS Fellow, named chair, journal articles describing his work, etc., etc. Why was this nominated? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article looked very different when it was nominated. The nominator still should've done more research or at least specify which criteria they thought it failed, but the nomination wasn't as off as you might think based on the current version. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you think I wouldn't know this, since I'm the one who made most of those changes. I might add, I made the changes after I made the comment above. It may not have been stated in the article, but it was clear from the sources JeanandJane had already left on the article's talk page prior to the nomination, if only the nominator had bothered to look at them. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- PS I just found and linked the NY Times obit. That's usually another automatic keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep per DGG and David Eppstein, clearly above the usual bar for a pass of WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Is this a joke? This bio obviously meets multiple criteria of WP:PROF. --Crusio (talk) 08:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. yandman 10:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary press headlines on atrocities affecting the Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922)

Wikipedia is WP:NOT a publisher of random information. This is not even an article, but a mere list of raw historical data factbites, compiled with a clear tendentious agenda of supporting a certain POV position at Greek genocide. Since it's a list of references to primary sources, without any analysis sourced to the secondary literature, its only use is to serve as a vehicle of WP:OR. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or transwiki to wikisource, if they'll accept this kind of article. JulesH (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as headlines are not notable. Could this be a potential WP:COPYVIO? I know the whole thing isn't copyrighted, but it seems to me that the actual headlines would be. Tavix (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a textbook example of WP:IINFO and WP:SYNTH/WP:NPOV violations. This is a list of headlines that tries to promote the idea that the Turks were to blame for the conflict. Either way, headlines do not make an article. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wikisource. For the various concerns above re OR in the compilation of the list, I suggest they read the actual source. It is not WP editors who compiled those headlines, but a nongovernmental organization, the Australian Institute for Holocaust and Genocide Studies. The source is here. NikoSilver 19:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no difference. A set of headlines is still a list of indiscriminate information and I'm pretty sure Wikisource wouldn't want it either. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WPSNOW MBisanz ^talk 05:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of horror films:2010s

Premature and speculative list; violates WP:CRYSTAL. Prod removed by IP without explanation. PC78 (talk) 11:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. J L G 4 1 0 4 12:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:CRYSTAL ball prediction. It's welcome back in a year. Themfromspace (talk) 13:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, violates WP:CRYSTAL like the rest of Category:Upcoming films. Benefix (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are guidelines on upcoming films. Lugnuts (talk) 18:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2010s in film. It's not a WP:CRYSTAL violation because all the information is verifiable (there are citations in the film articles and The Strangers#Sequel); but the films are already mentioned in the 2010s in film article. DHowell (talk) 06:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The material is already covered elsewhere and the article is mistitled. The title itself is an unlikely search term. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CRYSTAL. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 07:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. X clamation point 00:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will Naitoro

Contested prod. non-notable; rugby league player who has not played first-grade. -- Mark Chovain 11:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — florrie 16:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable, under-20's footballer who has not, as yet, played any NRL (first-grade) games nor is he listed in the first-grade squad. florrie 00:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not play at highest level, fails WP:ATHLETE. WWGB (talk) 03:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per lack of top-level appearances, which causes him to fail WP:ATHLETE. Can be re-created if/when he makes a first-team appearance. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ATHLETE, as he's not made a first-grade appearance yet. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 21:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AFC Walton

Amateur football team representing a tiny village and playing in a division which is only at the theoretical 17th level of the English football league system. No sources found, not notable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Hi,

Sorry if ive made any infringments by starting this article, i was only looking to expand and put some infor up on all teams in the Yeovil and District League.

There are no sources yet as i only started putting info up this morning!!

Is there anything in particular ive done wrong??

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by KarlStephens (talk • contribs) 10:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that you've done anything wrong, but essentially your team does not meet the requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia. We have what is termed a notability guideline, which means that each subject must be deemed "notable" by virtue of having been the subject of in-depth coverage in multiple independent, reliable, third-party sources, such as newspapers, magazines, websites maintained by organisations with paid staff and a proven fact-checking policy (ie not just somebody's personal homepage), etc. If you can provide evidence that your team has received such coverage and therefore meets the guidelines, I'll happily withdraw the AfD, but given the level of football we're talking about I think it's unlikely that any team in the league has received that sort of coverage. I'd have no objection to being proved wrong though :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 13:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If Wikipedia has the space for entries on every tiny hamlet and back road in the USA, it has space for entries like this. However if it stays as it is, with the only named person the sole editor, then it will look like self-promotion and should go. Markb (talk) 13:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds a bit like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to me.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. The club has never played in the FA Cup, FA Trophy or FA Vase, nor in any division in the top 10 levels of English football. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Teams in the (apparently) 17th level of the English football league probably aren't even notable in the area where they are from. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Would be interesting to eventually expand to the leagues below what we already cover, however this is just too low to be considered notable. Uksam88 (talk) 17:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

If its really that much of an issue to everyone then jsut delete it! It really does not bother me that much, as i said i was only looking to expand the "stub" about the Yeovil and District league that i play in, below it states "you can help by adding to this stub".

If you are unwilling to let pages like this stay up then please remove that line! Dont ask people to contribute then kick up a fuss!

Thanks

-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by KarlStephens (talk • contribs) 15:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, This nomination was made in the middle of an article under construction. It is very discouraging to editors to have their articles nominated for AFD when there is a under construction template on the article and the article is actively being worked on. Looking at the article history...https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=AFC_Walton&action=history you can see the AFD was inserted while the article was under development.Smallman12q (talk) 15:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It was my view that, even when fully developed, an article on a team that only produces one Google hit had no realistic chance of ever meeting the requirements for inclusion. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment, Google doesn't index everything. There are a number of other reliable sources including books, magazines, private publications/speeches and various other sites that Google doesn't (or hasn't yet) indexed. Such an approach for finding articles suitable for AFD is flawed. See WP:GOOGLETEST for more information.Smallman12q (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - As I have repeatedly stated, I will happily withdraw the nomination if appropriate sourcing can be unearthed, but frankly I'd be astounded if a three-year-old amateur team playing on a community centre pitch in a village league at the 17th level of English football has received any coverage whatsoever. If anyone's published a book about the team, I'll eat my settee -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Weak Keep, I did a google search and this is what I came up with http://www.southportvisiter.co.uk/southport-sport/southport-district-football/2008/11/21/southport-amateurs-gain-victory-over-walton-in-the-william-shakespeare-memorial-trophy-101022-22306796/ , Blog ,anticipated stats, AFC. It's not much...but its a start.Smallman12q (talk) 22:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The first link refers to a different AFC Walton who play in the Preston and District League, over 200 miles away from where the team under discussion plays. The second link is the official website (so not an independent source) of a team called "AFC Walton Wanderers" (so not even the same team) and has no content anyway. The third link has no content about any team called AFC Walton at all. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Well...I tried...^.^ Smallman12q (talk) 20:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

""This article about an English football competition is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.""

Above is the line of text found on the Yeovil and District Football League page, i believe i was doing exactly as the line suggests in expanding the stub.

KarlStephens (talk) 15:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For info, that notice is intended to encourage people to expand the article it is displayed on rather than to start all-new break-out articles. Maybe the article could be expanded to include some history of the league, past champions, etc? Bristol Downs Football League is a good example of an article on a "low-level" league that's been expanded well -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was the sort of thing i was looking to do, i decided that it would be best if i created the AFC Walton page as more of a tester page for myself so that i could get used to writing articles. I was quite looking forward to doing a bigger article on the league, that was until the Walton article was flagged for deletion about 10 minutes after i started it and whilst it still had the "under construction" tag.

KarlStephens (talk) 15:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I formally apologise to anyone I have offended by tagging the article while it was marked as under construction. As stated above, I will happily withdraw if suitable sources can be found -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as non-notable. There also seems to be a conflict of interests here. – Pee Jay 09:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 17th level league. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Im amazed at how many people are getting so worked up about a tiny article, as i said before if its that much of issue just delete it, i dont think anyone would be too bothered.

I thought Wikipedia was meant to be more about making information readily available to the general public, the info i was putting up was not offensive to anyone, it was purely factual and was not, in my opinion, any real cause for concern.

As i said i am surprise that so many people seem to be determined to delete this article, even though my long term goal was to put info up on the entire league. Bristol Downs Football League has been referrd to as a good example and yet that lies at an even lower level than my league!

I personally, having had to go through all this, simply can not be bothered to contribute to Wikipedia, it just doesnt seem worth the hassle.

I cant imagine how everyone reacts when someone actually puts offensive material up!

enjoy your debate! —Preceding unsigned comment added by KarlStephens (talk • contribs) 17:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability has recently become a bigger concern as more people try to post content...unfortunately, it does mean that a number of otherwise acceptable articles will no longer meet wikipedia's standards.Smallman12q (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is well-settled that teams this low in the English league system aren't notable. Stifle (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources prove notability.--Sloane (talk) 02:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination Skitzo (talk) 13:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Decision made per general consensus, WP:SPAM, and WP:BLP. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arun K. Garg

Also page Dr. Arun K. Garg (see this edit).

Notability? Autobiography? Reads like a CV. See tags at the start of page Arun K. Garg. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously, as I added a prod2 tag. But why this AfD, why not let the prod run its course and only waste our time at AfD if it would be removed? --Crusio (talk) 11:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Page Arun K. Garg has so many tags that I thought I better get matters discussed properly. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but there's already a PROD tag!! ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 16:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Self-serving CV, with no supported Notability. ttonyb1 (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep Both articles were already in an unfinished PROD process, which should be allowed to run its course. Renominate without prejudice after PROD is done. Rklear (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the "procedural" thing to do here is to continue with the AfD. Once an article has been nominated for AfD this procedure takes precedence - see WP:PROD#Conflicts. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To make this abundantly clear, I have deprodded the article. --Crusio (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since a job and an article or two is not enough to satisfy WP:N. Drmies (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think he might be a notable specialist on implantology, an important dental subspeciality/ His book Bone biology, harvesting, grafting for dental implants : rationale and clinical applications is in about 80 libraries, which is about the same as other books in the field. His books have been translated into several languages. He has articles in the principal journals. DGG (talk) 08:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Citation impact is not negligible, but taken alone a bit short of what would be needed to meet WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). News coverage indicates some notability, although some of it is primarily related to Implant Seminars and rather commercial.--Eric Yurken (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 05:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Ramos

Hoax - non-existent American football player. Zero relevant hits on Google plus obvious and easily checked factual errors, such as 1998 Heisman Trophy winner. Page has only one substantial editor... which shares name with article. Majorclanger (talk) 10:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Majorclanger (talk) 10:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clear WP:HOAX elaborate vanity page. §FreeRangeFrog 17:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax - Take it from someone who knows: there is no Albert Ramos on the New York Football Giants, and the other stuff is also total junk. Giants2008 (17-14) 04:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 06:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax No player in real life named Albert Ramos, maybe in the creators Madden game or Blitz game but not in real life. Speedy delete.--Giants27 ^T/C 14:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Giants27 ^T/C 19:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfy - moved to User:Epicahab/AfterWorld (virtual world). Marasmusine (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfterWorld (virtual world)

Contested speedy, the author asked me to restore the article and put it here so that he can improve it while the discussion takes place. More references are going to be provided. Tone 08:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is speedy userify an option? This probably should have been done instead of creating an AFD for an article in progress. --MASEM (t) 15:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Speedy Move to userspace, delete the redirect, and user can move it back at his leisure. Having this discussion now, assuming sources really will be provided, doesn't accomplish anything. Nifboy (talk) 16:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WPSNOW MBisanz ^talk 05:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infarvision

New Article about a contact lens retailer. Notability anyone? –BuickCentury Driver 08:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no inherent reason why a contact lens retailer wouldn't be notable. I'm getting around 400,000 ghits for this one. I think there are justifiable WP:COI concerns but I don't see the argument for deletion. Could you explain?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article was originally created by User:Infarvision, I initially Userfied the article, but then I reposted it and nominated it for AFD to see if it is indeed notabile enough to have an article on Wikipedia. –BuickCentury Driver 08:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do see the WP:COI concerns, as I said. But COI isn't grounds for deletion and I think the nomination boils down to WP:JNN. Keep.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, let's let this nom run it's course and we'll see whether or not other editors will support keeping or deleting the article. –BuickCentury Driver 10:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:COI aside (which is never grounds for deletion), corporate advert failing WP:CORP, zero GNews hits. Using the internet as a sales medium nowadays is not exactly a valid claim to notability for any corporation. Most of those web hits are directories, pay-to-play listings, mirrors and whatnot. §FreeRangeFrog 17:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems to fail WP:CORP. Stifle (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:CORP. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 21:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no context. Artw (talk) 03:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable corporation. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 07:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete speedily. Deb (talk) 19:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG. --Sloane (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Articles can only be renominated after sufficient time has passed since the last nomination. 7 hours is too soon. Mgm|^(talk) 10:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Militarism-Socialism in Showa Japan

See first comment below. Genkideska (talk) 07:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - as recommended before.

Showa (1926–1989) is far too long and diverse a period.

There is no such thing as "Militarism-Socialism", it is a clumsy neologism coined by the original author of this article.

There are no books on "Militarism-Socialism in Showa Japan"

There is not one scholarly paper on "Militarism-Socialism in Showa Japan".

There are no internet resources on "Militarism-Socialism in Showa Japan" except for copies of this page.

None of the references mention "Militarism-Socialism".

"Militarism-Socialism" is not a recognized term used by Japan (when translated).

None of the references are cited inline, inline citation guidelines not met. No quotations.

There is no topic on right-socialim or militarism-socialism in the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Previous merge tag redundant since one year.

Original research covered in numerous other topics. --Genkideska (talk) 07:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep Previous nomination was discussed and closed only seven hours ago as a keep. I'm sorry, but this is an extreme jump of the gun. Nate • (chatter) 08:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It doesn't really qualify for a speedy deletion Genkideska because the article has been there for sometime now. Versus22_talk 08:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This was nominated for deletion on Saturday, and was kept then. Why should it be any different the following Thursday (i.e. today)? DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I support user:DitzyNizzy's point of view. Meanwhile, we all agree that the "Militarism-Socialism" concept which was adopted by the creator of the article some years ago is clumsy, but there was some interesting proposal to change the name of the article by user:MChew and user:Nikodemos and another by myself to merge "Japanese fascism" (even more clumsy) with it... This repeated request looks more like a way to suppress all the sourced content of the article. --Flying tiger (talk) 14:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. X clamation point 00:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anophora

Article about a new band created by a new user, notability anyone? –BuickCentury Driver 07:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The band is two months old. Hard to be notable in that time.--Dmol (talk) 07:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not-notable. Guy0307 (talk) 07:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC (and are very close to WP:GARAGE, for that matter). sparkl_!sm ^hey! 14:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, oh look another non-notable myspace band. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Bone Rocks

Hoax article. This radio station does not exists in Metro Manila or anywhere else. Given primary source was a social interaction website (similar to imeem). danngarcia (talk) 06:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a hoax. See [36]. However, I question the notability of the article. Guy0307 (talk) 07:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC) See later comment[reply]

Comment I have to doubt the notability of a mention on Friendster. Nate • (chatter) 08:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. User:Rialbbe also insists it is not a hoax, per his unsigned edit at the article talk page. --Eaglestorm (talk) 12:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The DZBN calls are already in use by DZBN (Biñan). I doubt they can be used for two FM entities, so we need someone versed in Filipino radio to help us with this one. Nate • (chatter) 08:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, only one callsign per station anywhere in the Philippines. –Howard the Duck 05:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a call for some input from someone familiar with radio in Manila has been requested from Wikiproject Philippines --Rtphokie (talk) 16:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I live here in Metro Manila where the station is supposed to be located. I nominated this article for deletion since Metro Manila does not have a radio station assigned to 100.7 MHz since it can conflict to the signal of DZRJ-FM (100.3 MHz) and DWYS (101.1 MHz). I also saw station's official website and it looks more like a personal website.

Comment the article does say its a low power station. I'm not familiar with broadcasting in the Philippines, are stations all stations licensed by the government? Are low-power stations licensed?--Rtphokie (talk) 18:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I live in Metro Manila and AFAIK, the only possibly licensed radio stations are those that are in increments of 0.8 MHz starting at 87.5 MHz. This is not a deletion reason, but I've never heard of The Bone Rocks. I've heard of URadio 107.9, another mid-powered radio station that is not in the 0.8 MHz-increment and I actually listen to that one, but I'm not 100% sure it's licensed. --seav (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The last I heard about 107.9 was that it was raided by the NTC. –Howard the Duck 05:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think it has been raided 3 times. Also, I think the article (107.9) should be deleted since it has no sources that I can find. (I wish it wouldn't be deleted, but it's just unverifiable.) --seav (talk) 05:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, and "somewhere in the metro" further adds doubt to its existence. --Eaglestorm (talk) 02:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 07:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Something tells me the secrecy implies that it is a pirate radio station that has not yet been legitimized by the National Telecommunications Commission. Although a list of licensed radio stations was once available on the NTC website, I can't seem to find it now. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 09:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Bluemask (talk) 09:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if the article isn't a hoax, it easily fails WP:N. Guy0307 (talk) 02:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WPSNOW MBisanz ^talk 05:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Ain't No Joke

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/I Ain't No Joke

Non-notable song. Fails WP:MUSIC. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC. Gives no assertion of notability. Firestorm ^Talk 07:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article stands it goves no context or grounds for notability. Artw (talk) 07:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 07:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nominator. Versus22_talk 08:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--not a great song in the first place, and it never became notable. What's next, "Eric B's On The Cut"? Drmies (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No content. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 06:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haldi Kumkum

Appears to fail WP:N. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 06:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Guy0307 (talk) 07:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A nominator should explain why they think an article fails criteria in a nomination. A per nom vote means nothing if the nominator didn't explain their reasoning. _ Mgm|^(talk) 10:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable as is obvious from the plethora of available sources: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. I have added a referenced definition of the term for a start. Abecedare (talk) 09:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A frequent religious/ sometimes non-religious ceremony practised by Maharashtrian women.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Starfucker (band)

Possibly fails WP:MUSIC Guy0307 (talk) 05:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could find no reputible sites with any large (or even small) amount of information in my google search.Oli ^OR Pyfan! 08:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, after searching google with these parameters (as suggested by MichaelQSchmidt on my talk page) I did find a few references.Oli ^OR Pyfan! 09:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

**Comment: In addition, the only references on Starfucker (band) are their official site (which doesn't have much on it) and myspace! Oli ^OR Pyfan! 08:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless there is another band by this name and I'm totally confused, this band is pretty well known. Blast Ulna (talk) 08:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - you may be thinking of this band of the same name, who do appear to be notable. JulesH (talk) 16:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I'm finding it hard to find references to this Belgian band among the references to the Portland, Oregon band of the same name. Ironically, I keep seeing articles about the Portland band describing how hard it is to find them among references to the Belgian band. JulesH (talk) 16:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 07:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BAND. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pretty clearly falls short of the WP:NMG standards. Stifle (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep - passes WP:BAND - a Google search for "starfucker belgian belgium" gives you this. Need to provide clear independent third party coverage. Radiopathy (talk) 02:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What, a bunch of blogs and a face book page! Not exactly WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching pulls up no reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. --Sloane (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just did come clean-up and added a ref. — Reinyday, 05:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive Force II: Force on Force

Notwithstanding coverage in five websites (Cold Fusion Video Reviews, Doug Pratt's Laserdisc Review, DVD Talk, DVD Verdict, and Stomp Tokyo review—a couple of which could be classified full-length reviews, but are all remarkable in that they demonstrate that someone actually watched the movie—none of which constitutes a "nationally known critic"), this (awesomely titled) significant coverage in reliable sources, nor have I found any evidence that it has met any of the other criteria suggested at WP:NF. The editor who removed the {{prod}} suggested that the film had been "widely distributed", a criterion which, to have any meaning, cannot be read to mean "available on amazon.com". I've found no other evidence that it was. Bongo matic 04:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--I don't see any evidence of notability. Having said that, Bongo, I'm getting it on Netflix. C'mon by! Drmies (talk) 07:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 06:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For above... certainly no notable reviews. I also note that the prod tag was removed by our serial deprodder. If he'd be banned from deprodding things it'd save a lot of people a lot of time, as he doesn't ever seem to have any reasoning at all behind removing them and then we all just have to waste our time with what should have been automatic. DreamGuy (talk) 15:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For direct to video releases, I do think that available on Amazon is a good definition of widely distributed. The criterion is meant to distinguish fan films shown in basements or given on home burned DVD's to friends not commercial bombs. As for reviews, I'd say that there are enough. [37] [38] [39] [40]Eluchil404 (talk) 22:09, 3 March 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 05:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks official sources, WP:N and/or WP:V. Versus22_talk 05:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the lack of citations to reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WPSNOW MBisanz ^talk 05:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Panorama of Alabama Agriculture

Unnotable local mural series unnotable outside of the university and the Alabama Cooperative Extension System (which created the article as part of its on-going self-promotional editing within Wikipedia). No reliable sources found discussing these murals beyond the Extension service, its associated University, and local news. Bulk of Google hits just replicas of this article. Won no awards, and not a single news article nor book mention found on it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OrangeMike added a speedy tag shortly after this AfD ... from your description, it sounds like you might want a speedy too, is that right? If you two want it, I'm fine with that. I'd rather the article not hang around in the speedy queue for 5 days, so let's either speedy it or remove the tag. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 05:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed he had. As the user has now been blocked for the same issue, I'd be fine with it being speedied as I really see no redemptive value in it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Delete~~. The speedy has now been declined (by Schuminweb). (Rationale? I don't need no stinkin' rationale.) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My link, Dystopos's link, the fact that the spammer has now been blocked, and support below are all persuasive. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 07:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 07:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Though it remained for me to add one, there are significant independent, verifiable sources. The article clearly has value, even if for a limited field of interest. --Dystopos (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to some of these independent sources? None are in the article except maybe the Alabama Heritage article. Everything is stuff written by the Alabama Cooperative Extension service or its two affiliated university, which makes them all non-independent. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article in Alabama Heritage is the primary independent source. Although the author of the piece is Dupree, the journal's editors are not associated with the cooperative extension service and can be expected to uphold the requirements of scholarship. Clearly there is some promotional activity going on with this article, but that activity seems to be aligned with Wikipedia's own aims -- providing detailed factual information about a legitimate subject of study. It is not marketing a product or service. --Dystopos (talk) 15:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Living New Deal reference is hijacked by a promotional site. The last EL is broken. The WPA database EL is potentially useful. I guess I'm an "incrementalist" in practice: if Alabamians enjoy this level of cultural detail and are willing to put in the work to get the details right, and if that seems to be happening with this article in particular, I'll gladly switch my vote. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would think New Deal public art is notable per se. Let's find some sources and see-- it's a fine article in itself...sourcing the only problem. Rhinoracer (talk) 15:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, mostly because I find the subject intriguing as an interesting American example of social-realist propaganda. Encyclopedic notability, once acquired, does not fade. The article is in fact referenced to multiple Auburn University publications as well as a handful of others, and I know of no reason why these sources might be considered unreliable. Conflict of interest is not a per se reason to delete an article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never said they were unreliable, but they are also not independent. If I go write five books about my own history, that doesn't make me notable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, even if you are notable, circumstances may still conspire to produce a dearth of outside sources about you. It appears that although many public murals from the WPA project have been widely studied, the this one sat in storage, unremembered, until recently, so most of the research about it has been done in-house. In this case, I would expect that the one comprehensive feature story in a peer-reviewed publication would be enough to satisfy us that we're not furthering a campaign of misinformation, which is the danger when covering subjects with few independent source. In other words: Though the recipe for a conflict of interest is present, I think we have enough evidence to be satisfied that the conflict itself is not present. --Dystopos (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, I think that concern about the lack of independence of the Auburn University publications is not really all that compelling. For it is written: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." The academic sources at Auburn mentioned seem likely to qualify. More importantly, there is no real reason to suspect them of fabricating any of the information for personal gain, which at least for me is the chief concern. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the subject appears to cross the thresholds for both verifiability and notability. Sources like the Mobile Press-Register are clearly independent of the creators of the work. - Dravecky (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A well-written and informative article about some extremely interesting artwork. The pictures speak for themselves, and the facts given in the article back up their importance. There is every reason to assume that the article is accurate. Let's use common sense. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 01:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P. O. Davis

Unnotable educator. Fails WP:N and WP:PROF. Entire article is basically self-promotional materials from Alabama Cooperative Extension System, who has a PR person (self-admitted) creating various articles for every one of their directors, all repeating their own existing materials. Article is completely sourced to P.O. Davis' own writings and publications/writings from the Extension service and its associated university. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 07:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 07:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 07:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable broadcasting pioneer for his work with WAPI, in addition to his governmental and educational roles. Sourcing here is a concern but that's a matter for cleanup, not deletion, and a casual search turns up interesting results from independent sources. - Dravecky (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable as academic and as administrator. The article however seems to be a cut and paste from the sources, and a probable copyvio, and therefore really needs to be rewritten entirely. DGG (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:BIO. News coverage indicates notability. Possibly meets WP:PROF as well.--Eric Yurken (talk) 18:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linda van Roosmalen

No evidence (in the form of highly cited papers, major awards, popular press, etc) of passing WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Has published papers, how can you know they are not "highly cited"? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All academics publish, so the fact that she has published papers alone does not make her notable (my grad student has published papers, too...) To know whether a paper is cited or not, you can use Google Scholar, Scopus, or Web of Science. Knowing David, he has checked this and I see no reason to doubt his statement that her papers are not highly cited. She's still young, may become notable later, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Crusio (talk) 08:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot what page it was, but there is a specific page that says you should always double check before voting and do your own research to avoid any sheeping. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish: Google Scholar indicates that her highest cited paper got 11 cites. Web of Science (cannot give a direct link as it is a subscription service) lists 12 articles that together have been cited 26 times, highest score 7. David, therefore, is correct. --Crusio (talk) 12:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - assistant professor, has published papers - but no secondary sources, no evidence of meeting the standard of WP:PROF. JohnCD (talk) 10:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even if we were to regard her CV as if it were a 3rd party source she does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (academics). --Boston (talk) 11:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Crusio and Eppstein: not notable as WP:PROF. Drmies (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable per WP:PROF. Search as "van Roosmalen, L", in addition to "Linda van Roosmalen". Check Google with 320 additional hits and Google Scholar with 80 more hits. Esasus (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your GScholar search does not really give more hits than already found and the most cited article still has only 12 cites. I have no time at the moment to see whether the other Ghits perhaps contain sources to show notability according to WP:BIO, but this certainly does not show notability according to WP:PROF. --Crusio (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - some of these are different van Roosmalens - there is an M.L. van R and a Lieke van R, as well as Linda van R. JohnCD (talk) 10:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete As a rule assistant professors are not yet at the stage of notability. Some are, but it has to be strongly shown by the published work. There can be problems of judging the published work of people in applied subjects, because the important work can be elsewhere than in peer reviewed journals,and most of her work does seem to be published in conferences,m which is not unusual in engineering. . And there can be problems in small specialties like hers, because its harder to tell what the standards are. Looking in Scopus, I see 12 papers, none of them cited more than 9 times. they are in good journals, thugh, and most of the similar papers she cites have similarly low citation frequency. She is additionally that member of several formal standards committees, which is normally a recognition of at least some stature of an authority. But I';m going to tentatively make a value judgement here: her work is concerned with the design and testing of specific wheelchair components, not the design of wheel chair and other assistive systems in any broader sense. Her web page, too, fills in the content with student projects. On balance, I do not think she is notable yet. Perhaps she will be, but not now. DGG (talk) 09:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't seem to pass WP:PROF. There is no evidence that she has published highly cited papers. She also hasn't receive any major awards. I don't think this bio meets WP standard. AdjustShift (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Passes neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO. In addition to the points already made above, news coverage of the subject is pretty much nonexistent. Has potential for WP:BIO-notability in the future, as the topics of research are the type that tend to attract media interest, but not yet there.--Eric Yurken (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not important enough to pass WP:PROF nor WP:BIO. See comments above. Demophon (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. NAC. JulesH (talk) 20:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Parker (musician)

~~Unsourced article about obscure musician; no evidence that it meets WP:MUSIC~~ Orange Mike | Talk 04:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep Googling brought up a number of sources, which I have added to the article. Artw (talk) 07:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 07:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources provided by Artw show that he has been covered by reliable secondary sources, and so he does meet our guidelines. Suicidalhamster (talk) 11:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The good work above shows that WP:MUSIC has been met. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 15:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Author Keep The entire article is a long assertion of notability, and a trivial amount of research would have saved us all this waste of time. Chubbles (talk) 15:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn GuitarPlayer interview alone establishes case. Sorry, Chubbles; the two prior spamverts about the guy probably jaundiced my view. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 01:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mostafa Mahmoud

Article does not establish the subject's notability, nor does it provide any references. All of my attempts to find references failed. This is not to say that they do not exist, but the subject's name is not uncommon and has many variants, making it impossible to determine which articles are associated with subject and which are not. This article is not linked to by articles, only by lists and project pages. Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article reads like an autobiography (use of first-person "he met El Aqqad, who used to give me a hand by reading my writings"). Google search on the name, and some of his works turns up only wikipedia mirrors and a single forum discussing the article. ~Cr∞nium 04:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - First I'd like to thank "Cryptic" for posting the entry on wikiproject Egypt. I'm monitoring the project page and am responsible for any deletion entry or problems of Egypt related articles. About the Subject: The figure is well known throughout Egypt and the Arab world. I added his bibliography and will add lots of citations now. Thanks.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Excellent work! I'm glad you were able to find some off-line references. While searching through the history trying to determine Mahmud's correct DOB, I found this revision. It's written in the first person, meaning it was either written by Mahmud himself (WP:OR) or copied and pasted from somewhere (WP:COPYVIO). The other thing to keep in mind is that, when reading through that version, you'll see that much of the text is Mahmud describing his father, not himself. This distinction was warped and misconstrued over the years as editors changed instances of "my" to "his". Some of the content that's there now might have to be removed entirely. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A single source is used for the entire article! Jack1956 (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The partial bibliography indicates notability. However, the tone of the article is far from neutral, and the only source given is the self-published autobiography on the subject's website. It is interesting to compare to the entry in the Arabic Wikipedia, which is considerably better but also lacks good references. It should not be difficult to find independent references (e.g. book reviews, newspaper or magazine articles) that back up the main elements of the article. The subjective content should be removed. I would be strongly tempted, assuming the decision is to keep the article, to delete almost all content other than the bibliography (e.g. trim down to perhaps a 1-paragraph outline) and ask that editors familiar with the subject expand with content backed up by independent sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment the article is a well done translation with no copyright issues of the original Arabic version. It isn't copied but has all the info of the arabic site. I don't see how this would be a copyvio in any way. Why would you delete all the contents but bibliography?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 06:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. I am not aware of any copyright issue. The problem is failure to give reliable independent sources. The only source given at present is the subject's autobiography, which by definition is not independent. The ISBN numbers in the bibliography are verifiable: the subject did indeed publish book XYZ. But a statement like "He was a pious man with a model character - exemplary behavior, patience, endurance, persistence and work." should be removed unless it can be shown to be based on a reliable independent source, or should be qualified to show possible bias as in "Mostafa Mahmoud states that he was a pious man with a model character ...". The Arabic Wikipedia article is better because it generally avoids subjective statements like this.

Encyclopedia articles should have a neutral tone and give information backed up by sources that can be presumed to be accurate and unbiased. With biographies of living people it is best to avoid assertions about their character and to focus on their notable public actions and achievements, letting the facts speak for themselves. A shorter, more neutral and fact-based article would be more useful to the general reader. I am sure there are good sources that would substantiate an article like this. Readers can always go to the subject's books to get a more complete assessment of the individual. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I agree in the non neutral point of the article. But this can be easily fixed through the deletion of all non neutral sentences. Still this is no reason for deletion. This is a reason for copy editing. I therefore ask you to resolve the deletion request. Thank you--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The administrator closing this AfD will review the discussion and decide whether there is consensus to delete. At this stage, I think that deletion is unlikely. The subject seems to be a well-known and prolific author. But you would greatly strengthen the argument for retention if you could add some reliable, independent sources that confirm the content of the article. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Al Jazeera source cited in the article shows pretty clear notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There still needs to be a proper source. The present article says the entire bio section is take from the subject autobio. This is OK for uncontroversial facts. In this case, i think it is not acceptable as the sole source for the claim to notability as presented in the article. The other source given is a special issue of al-Jazzira. T~~he link to it however goes to a translation of the arWikipedia page. Could someone please link to an English translation of the matgazine source. Phil, do you know what it says?~~ DGG (talk) 01:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My fault - I have just fixed the link to point to the Al Jazeera article. It does seem to indicate notability. But the bulk of the article is still based on self-published material. It needs a serious overhaul. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The translated material there appears to be tributes from various people. I agree with you-- it would be much better if we had something specific. DGG (talk) 05:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. X clamation point 00:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Campus Crusade for Cthulhu

Tongue in cheek group based on the work of Lovecraft. The page has a single google news reference, and the only external links are to the group's webpage. There is no apparent notability warranting inclusion in an encyclopedia. Pstanton (talk) 03:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:N. Though, ARS has nominated it for rescue, so let's see how that turns out. Firestorm ^Talk 07:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify, anyone can nom for rescue, ARS folks specifically try to help. -- Banjeboi 19:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Aftr some discussion I've zapped the resuce tag, as it didn't really seem to be helping. Artw (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ORG. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 07:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG, and appears to have been more of a joke than an actual organisation anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment keep per WP:ILIKEIT. Campus Crusade for Cthulhu: when you're tired of the lesser of two evils.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even though I like it too. Lacks the basic prerequisites for article inclusion. Nice picture though. -- Atama ^chat 22:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also like it. I think this is an amazingly cool idea. That doesn't the fact that it hasn't established itself as notable, and isn't referenced by any other sources. I REALLY do hope Wiki Rescue can save this article, personally. But realistically I think it should be deleted and hopefully someone can write a good article at some later date. --Pstanton (talk) 01:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That's not going to happen. The article doesn't have any problems with the way it is written. The fact is that the Campus Crusade for Cthulhu itself needs to change. If it can manage to become notable in some way then an article on it might have a chance. But the article just won't be rescued, it can't be rescued, because the organization itself isn't up to snuff. Not everything that's cool is notable (and it's definitely true that not everything that's notable is cool). -- Atama ^chat 01:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Interesting organization, but seems to fail WP:ORG. Stifle (talk) 18:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Everything is under control covers them as well but you'll have to read the book offline first. Certainly some of this could be condensed and merged, unsure what the best target would be. -- Banjeboi 19:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually have that book, so if I managed to dig it out I could add the ref. Given the lack of other sources I'm not sure it would be worth it though. Artw (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG.--Sloane (talk) 02:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think there's any content worth merging anywhere. DGG (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WPSNOW MBisanz ^talk 05:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Local Championship Wrestling

Non-notable backyard wrestling group. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 03:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 03:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I doubt a high school would endorse a ring wrestling match or that 90% of the school would care enough to watch it. Nate • (chatter) 06:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability established in article, and google search turns up no reliable sources. [41]. The only marginally reliable looking ref, the sportingtimes one, ends up as a dead link. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 14:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Backyard wrestling feds are usually not considered notable. No signs that this one is, or that it even exists. TJ Spyke 20:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- per WP:CORP.--₮RU CӨ 15:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish history month

Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. The article establishes that the controversy behind Black History Month exists and, perhaps, could be notable. However it does not establish notability for the Jewish History Month proposal made by some high school students. If not deleted, perhaps a redirect to Jewish American Heritage Month would be in order. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 03:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Jewish History Month program, while started in one school, as since been discussed and debated in area schools and student forums. The establishment of the controversy surrounding Black History Month is well documented, but also no the only driving reason behind the creation of this article. This article is not meant to draw attention solely to the idea of Jewish History Month, but also provides useful information about the thoughts and ideas being shared in communities nationwide concerning American race relations. Because of this this article is necessary and is not merely a report of an idea made up in school one day. The ideals behind Jewish History Month are founded in group discussion and comprehensive debate over the merits of race recognition and the history of contributions by ethnic groups in America since its founding. I appreciate you concern and the attentiveness with which you police this site - your contribution is the reason why I and many others feel Wikipedia is one of the foremost research tools on the web. EqualityMan (talk) 03:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It should be noted that the line "It was created by students at Solon High School to highlight the important contributions of Jewish culture on American history" has been removed since the nomination for deletion, however no additional information supporting notability has been provided. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 04:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references to establish notability; the refs provided are on different topics. Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing more than rant heard every February that since there's a Black History Month, there should be a "_____ History Month". It reminds me of the joke of which month is "White History Month" -- all twelve. Mandsford (talk) 14:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification?: Nick-do you have any suggestions for aiding in establishing notability? The article is not a rant nor does it push any racial joke. It solely speaks to different ideas that exist for recognizing the contributions of other races. This article does not advocate the idea or attack the premises of Black History Month. The notation regarding the deletion of the aforementioned phrase is in to highlight the fact that this idea has now spread to be discussed on a wider scale. EqualityMan (talk) 16:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Find some reliable sources which cover this proposal in sufficient detail to meet the notability criteria. Nick-D (talk) 07:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There already is a Jewish American Heritage Month. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. X clamation point 00:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Atomic Planets

Does not meet criteria of WP:MUSIC. The only claims are that one member is also a member of another group that does not itself meet notability criteria; and that they worked with New Wave pioneers, which is unsourced and vague. Google search results in 26 unique results. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 03:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: MySpace band. No independent 3rd party coverage. Google showing mostly myspace & blogs and unrelated terms [42] WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 04:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per discospinster and JamesBurns. Plastikspork (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching pulls up no reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The merging does not require deletion at any point. In fact, it specifically mentions it shouldn't because the edit history of all contributions should be retained. Mgm|^(talk) 10:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy of menace

Article is a stub not likely to be expanded, merely a definition or quotation, should be merged into main Harold Pinter article Jezhotwells (talk) 03:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination appears to me to be part of an editing war that the above user is engaged in relating to the main article Harold Pinter. Please see Talk:Harold Pinter. There is no justification for deleting this article. It was originally split off from the main article at the request of editors during a "good article review", which it passed. See the section on that in archive 4 of the talk page and the current talk page section on that. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 03:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted my concerns about the fact that there is no likelihood of expansion of this stub on the article talk page. NYSCholar commented on January 2, 2009 "Is it really necessary to propose a merge? Perhaps someone will come along and work on it to develop it into a fuller article". But no-one has. I suggest deletion and merging into Harold Pinter or perhaps Characteristics of Harold Pinter's work. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Stephen Colbert (character). MBisanz ^talk 05:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stelephant Colbert

Non-notable animal Mhking (talk) 03:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Stephen Colbert (character) (as a namesake) or The Colbert Report (as impact of the show on the world at large) 76.66.193.90 (talk) 04:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOT#NEWS. Redirect at best. The only claim to notability here is the fact that someone decided to name the animal this way. This merits nothing more than a passing mention on here. Maybe. Stephen Freakin' Colbert and all. §FreeRangeFrog 17:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per 76.66.193.90. And cut down the excessive info while we're at it, most of which is clearly original research (linking to documents talking about elephant seals in general, not this specific one). JulesH (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: extensive WP:OR. JamesBurns (talk) 07:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a new section at Stephen Colbert (character) about things named after Colbert. (Please, only a brief mention of each item named after him.) This is a regular event for the character, but one he plays up quite a bit on the show. However, outside from brief mentions at the time of the naming, this particular naming won't have any real world impact beyond the show. People will search for the name every time it's mentioned on the show, so leave a redirect to help them out.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Tagging of Pacific Predators. Mfield (talk) 05:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 00:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Classical Hamiltonian quaternions

Procedural nomination after addition of AfD by anon. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This page has severe problems, but its core is an account of William Rowan Hamilton's own notation for quaternions. I'm not sure this warrants an article. An anon put on the {{afd}} tag during the discussion of the matter, and may be right. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the section on context (which expresses Hobojak's own POV, which he repeats below) after this comment, but before any of the !votes. That in itself was an improvement. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have a fair number of articles on historical mathematics. In modern terms quaternions are interesting as an important algebraic structure and computational technique; but the history is also quite interesting as a major development in algebra, and for introducing terms like "vector" and "scalar" (and using them in a slightly different way) long before the later development of vector analysis which re-interpreted them. An article on this material is admittedly specialist, but it is encyclopedic. It is useful to have this as a separate reference, rather than getting in the way at Quaternion and History of quaternions (however the latter article ends up). Jheald (talk) 10:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Believe it or not, I think Classical Hamiltonian Quaternions are quaternions. The sad fact is that just about all of the vocabulary of Hamilton's calculus has been poached by other writers. According to this logic, a quaternion is a mathematical entity as defined by Hamilton. A large number of really good old books have been written on this mathematical entity. Hamilton's ideas are still relevant. On the other hand, some mathematician can name his pet donkey a quaternion, claim that Hamilton's ideas are old, and steal the name space created by Hamilton for an article about donkeys. The sad fact is that in a lot of ways, this is essentially what the main article on quaternions had degenerated into. So this article essentially serves to keep Hamilton's ideas from getting in the way, of new and different mathematical entities which have stolen the name quaternion but are not the mathematical entity defined by Hamilton. But there is another problem. I am feeling discouraged. I was reading about where it talks about this in the guidelines. When the first article an editor ever writes gets deleted, it tends to convince the editor, that contributing to wikipedia is a waist of time. While I might think about contributing a little more on the subject of entropy and H-theorem, right now I feel that contributing to the subject of quaternions, especially given the current level of mass hysteria on the subject is a waist of time. Wikipedia is created by people who are unpaid. Sometimes I have found that when you do volunteer work, no matter how much you do it is never enough, they always want more. So for example careful research into Gibbs 1901 writings on vector analysis are not enough. Apparently it does not matter that you hot link to the very page on google books were Gibbs wrote the very argument of interest, because in the idiocracy of wikipedia, giving the exact page number where Gibbs said something is not good enough. You have to find some secondary source that says Gibbs said what he said, and then some other source to say that was relevant. Some day very possibly all the information in the universe will get sucked up into black holes and vanish for ever. The sad fact is that it appears that some law of entropy dictates that any useful information created by my efforts will vanish from wikipedia log before that.Hobojaks (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- For example, John Baez's paper (to which there are several links, in multiple formats here, is a reliable secondary source. Reading it first would have simplified and speeded the writing of this article, and much more so the history of quaternions. But writing here will be edited mercilessly; as it says below this edit screen.

Note: the above "Delete" note was entered by the discouraged single most productive contributor to named article; sorry, User:Hobojaks, but your contribution might be valued by some after all :) ... thanks for your hard work!

Keep Still needs work, especially by anyone who has read through the infinite blizzards of Hamilton's prose. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - the article is primarily historical, and points out many details that were "hot" at the time. Its length or detail shouldn't be a problem, and since it's historical I see no need for hurry in getting the material polished. Seriously, I have never before seen an encyclopedic article on historical quaternions, of that detail. I read a copy-edited version of Hamilton's original 1944 paper (ed. Wilkins, 2000), and that's it. The article here in Wikipedia has the tags up top that make it clear that this article is being worked on, and if it's in good shape in five years, then it's a wonderful addition to knowledge. Give a man a break - in this case, User:Hobojaks. Jens Koeplinger (talk) 02:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- PS: Actually, the article has already come long ways from when I saw it last. It's really becoming a good article; again, I see no need for hurry at all. Thanks, Jens Koeplinger (talk) 02:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is clear that quaternions have a long and varied history, and quaternions as they are used today appear to differ in many ways from quaternions as they were used in Hamilton's era. While they are essentially the same mathematical concept, they were originally the precursor to linear algebra and vector calculus. While the classical use of quaternions was largely replaced by linear algebra and vector calculus, quaternions have found new applications in computer graphics and some newer theories of physics. There are a number of independent sources that go into details on the classical quaternions, for example: A History of Geometrical Methods has a section on "The quaternion calculus of Hamilton", and Oliver Heaviside: The Life, Work, and Times of an Electrical Genius of the Victorian Age has a secton on "William Hamilton and Quaternions"; in addition any of the numerous sources about quaternions written in the 19th and early 20th centuries would be appropriate to use for this article. This should be structured as a summary style spinout from the main quaternion article, but that is an editing issue. DHowell (talk) 06:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note Hamilton should be considered the single most important authority on the subject of quaternions who has ever lived. I feel that Hamilton's books on quaternions have more authority than all the other books on quaternions ever written. There are a large number of perfectly good books written on the subject of quaternions which address the subject of quaternions with out redefining them. Sadly I don't think I have found any that were written after the year 1905. About the last good one was written by Jasper Jolly, and I plan on ordering the 2006 edition, which is exactly the same word for word as the 1905 addition. May I remind you folks that we are now living in the 21st century. After about 1905 just about everything written about quaternions now caries the vile stench of the mass insanity of that century. But I have to get to school now, I can type a little more on this subject soon. ~~The whole idea of classical hamiltonian quaternions is an original research idea, that I created by accident. Sorry about that.~~I will concede this point in the interest of a obtaining concensus. I would like to keep a copy of some of the work I have done on my personal talk page were it can have unlimited revisions. If you want to keep the content of this article, it which I agree with, it should be put in the main article on the subjec t of quaternions. Also alot of the unverififiable stuff in the current article by 20th century crack pots probably at some point needs to go. Why should Hamilton's ideas be ghettoized into some obscure ~~original research~~(argument retracted)Hobojaks (talk) 03:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC) article that no one really works on? Having this article which should not exist seems to provide an unreasonable justification for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobojaks (talk • contribs) [reply]
- We are not here to express anybody's very strong feelings. That's what WP:NPOV means. Hire a blog. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Please don't count this little trolls vote, he has basically wasted a lot of peoples time and effort with his doomed plot to delete this article and wasted a lot of peoples time and effort in a discussion that was forced upon us by the desire to cause trouble in his black little heart. These snide little remarks don't really contribute to an intelligent discussion. My new tactic in dealing with the your continued unreasonable and disruptive annoyance is to simply ignore you.Hobojaks (talk) 03:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hobojaks - you name "classical hamiltonian quaternions" an original research idea of yours, which would be a problem to have in Wikipedia unless it receives attention. But as for terminology, the current page title serves its purpose well: It shows a classical concept (not the modern one), information on quaternions is distilled in the way Hamilton would have written it. I see value in an article of this sort; if the lead-in is clear, then readers will know what to take from it. Tracing modern ideas (modern tensors, Clifford algebra) to its roots (Hamilton tensors, vectors, scalars, versors, and so forth) is valuable and notable information. With original research, the first sources appear often cluttered when looking back, and this article attempts to arrange it (sourced). I also opt for keeping the page separate from the main quaternion article, and have the main article focus on current attention, terminology, use, and similar. Thanks, Jens Koeplinger (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me like the trouble with that is that we would be creating an artificial fictional mathematical entity. Are you willing to admit that the mathematical entity created by Hamilton and his cohorts and called a quaternion, is a different mathematical entity from the this so-called modern quaternion that now controls that name space? This diabolical plan to exclude more reputable sources from the discussion of quaternions has some major flaws. The next book I was planning to buy and read, and possibly use to source some material on the subject of quaternions was Jasper Jolly's book, from 1905. What we are proposing is that this new mathematical entity that I basically invented and then forced to be ever frozen in time since no sources for it are allowed after 1901 can't possibly be related to what Jolly is talking about since he wrote after 1901. So Jolly's book being written after 1901, mysteriously becomes a book about a another new artificial entity called a modern quaternion.

There is another problem I am worried about. The article on this other fictional mathematical entity we are essentially creating, this so called modern quaternion to Hamilton's way of thinking has glaring factual errors in it. The worst one being the number of square roots of minus one. Hamilton in his treatment of quaternions proves very early on, that in addition to the infinite number of square roots of minus one listed in the current article on so called modern quaternions, which could be thought of as the geometrically real kind there has to be at least one more. The square roots listed in the current modern article are what he calls the vector kind. But Hamilton proves that there was at least one more imaginary of a scalar nature. In other words an imaginary number having magnitude but no direction. The imaginary of plain old ordinary algebra. As he continues he proposes in his later writings to call this new number h. Then interestingly in each one of his proofs he says states over and over "assuming that h follows the rules of a scalar, that is that it is associative and commutative" as if he is planing to eventually talk about another case. We know from his private letters that he knew about the idea of a non-associative non-commutative imaginary scalar roots of equations as well. I don't pretend to understand octonians all that well, but with the proper rules 1,h,i,j,k,hi,hj,hk it would seem would be the basis for an octonian, and with the other set of rules as the basis for the bi-quaternion. But this was not thought of as 8 dimensions, but rather as the one real scalar, the three geometrically real vectors, then h, the indicator of geometric impossibility. I don't see how this can be left out of any credible article on the subject of quaternions, unless of course, you invent this artificial entity called a modern quaternion and force it to be based on the misguided drivel of misinformed writers, who you elevate based on some very questionable time based criteria. If you want to have a quick look an important demonstration is in <a href='http://books.google.com/books?id=fIRAAAAAIAAJ&dq=elements+of+quaternions&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=sqyxSdbSDJmktQOkkKR8&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result#PPA217,M1'article 214</a>

So this might be a little to technical for an administrator reading this, but by creating these two artificial new entities, we essentially block, or at least create an method for blocking out Hamilton's and most of the other more credible authors on the subject from the very entity that they created.

I was frankly shocked, by the book I read written in 1995 on quaternions quantum mechanics. I only got to look at a little bit of it, before they started wanting me to pay $200 dollars for it. The guy might have been smart and had interesting things to say, but it sounded to me that he just started out with the boughham bridge law, and invented his own new mathematical entity, and completely ignored a lot of things that Hamilton had proved years before. It sounded to me like the poor guy had never really read a worthwhile book on the subject. It sounded like a lot of what he was writing about was based on his misconceptions from what he had learned about bi-scalars, (complex numbers).

Modern Quaternions don't really have very much consistency at all that I can see. More like different authors are just making things up as they go along. Another example of this is the sight ranked just below the wiki site on quaternions on google, written by this guy who is attempting to write all the laws of physics in terms of quaternions. But his quaternions are not like anybody elses, just a bunch of symbols and names that he basically made up. I am not really sure that this so called modern notation and terminology being proposed is enough to really discuss the subject with intelligence. It is getting better, some classical ideas are starting to slip into the article, like now at least we explain that a quaternion has a scalar part and a real part, which was not explained very well when we started. When I first came here, there were 10 different quaternion products, now we at least have a Hamilton product.

Another thing, a Quaternion is defined as the ration of two vectors. If you don't believe me, ask Hamilton, and Tate, and Jolly, and Hardy. If division isn't defined as is the contention of the laughable article on modern quaternions contends, how can you define a quaternion??????????

What the article should probably say is that some crack pot, who never really read a real book on quaternions, put a chapter in the back of his book, that used the word quaternions, but didn't really contain any real theory of quaternions, and didn't even bother to define division, because that would force them to admit that the rest of the book could be proven to be absurdity by a full exposition of Hamilton's ideas, of course that is just a guess because the whole article is with out inline sources.

It doesn't really matter if you keep the article or not, I am not going to work on it any more, and chances are that no one else is willing to actually expend any effort on actually reading what these now ghettoized authors have to say, people are now deleting whole large blocks of text out of the article with out discussion rendering the article logically incoherent. Most of the links to the external sources are now broken, very possible because people found the subject interesting enough and followed the links enough that cornell us down. I can't really be sure of that.

Looks to me like the same mentality that is seeking to delete the article, is just going to delete it one line at a time, if we keep it, or turn it into gibberish, unless someone puts in the effort to baby sit it which I am no longer willing to do.

Look what happened to the history article, I thought that it was improper to delete properly referenced material? And also a nice move delinking it from the main article so no body can find it.

So I am tired of typing right now, I don't really think anybody is going to change their minds based on this discussion.

Do I at least get my three reverts a day on this article?

I thought consensus meant we talk it over and come to a solution every one can agree to, democracy doesn't really work all that well when there are three or four wolves and one sheep voting on what we are going to have for dinner.

Whats next, are we going to have modern 5 and classical 5 and claim that the number five somehow changes based on what century it is in as quaternions apparently do?

No, you do not get three reverts a day. The three-revert rule limits edit warring. It does not entitle users to revert a page three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique.
Whether Hamilton's quaternions are "the same" as the modern objects of the same name is a metaphysical question; we cannot discuss it in article space unless a secondary source has used quaternions as an example in the long wars between Hilbertians and constructivists - which may well have happened. There is little profit and no likelihood of settlement outside article space.
- Certainly, however, they follow the same laws of addition and multiplication; there is therefore a series of isomorphisms between the two. (I say series, because Hamilton's extra root of -1 should, if followed out, yield the tensor product (in the modern sense) of the quaternions and the complexes - a consistent algebra, but not a deeply interesting one: it has zero divisors, like 1+hi; it is not the octonions, because the squares of hi, hj, and hk are +1.)
  - If the expression (hi)(hi) is considered, as long as you allow h to jump over i to get to the other h, like an ordinary scalar you are correct, you get positive one, a case that Hamilton states in proof sheet after proof sheet, but remember him and Graves were talking about these stranger rules were things were both anti-commute and anti-associate. The key part of Hamilton's work, if you include private letters, is the number 8, where I think it must constantly be born in mind that the imaginary scalar is not some mysterious new dimension but rather an indicator of geometric impossibility. But while I think this is a good thing to think about the question remains which I will ad at the end of the page.Hobojaks (talk) 05:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My opinion of the philosphical question, for what it is worth, is that objects identical up to isomorphism are the same for practical purposes, but that it doesn't really matter. I therefore hold that Hamilton used a different notation in describing the same object. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hence, a quaternion should be by definition the quotient of two vectors????
As a Hilbertian, I define a quaternion as an element of a four-dimensional vector space over the reals which has a product yielding a division algebra. Hamilton's construction (without h) will yield one of these, and it will not be difficult to show that all of them are isomorphic.
The "crackpots" you are decrying include G.H. Hardy, John H. Conway and Lord Kelvin. I would be the last to deny that they are all a touch eccentric, but they all know more mathematics than most Wikipedians, including myself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No wrong century I am talking about more recent books on the subject, some of them use the word quaternion in ways that I don't think Hamilton would even recognize as being remotely related to the entity he defined. Many of them starting with the absence of a distinction between a vector and an imaginary scalar, and ending with the absence of the concept of dividing vectors.Hobojaks (talk) 05:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why should a main article on quaternions exclude Hamilton's thinking? I thought that this was supposed to be based on so called reputable sources. Why shouldn't Hamilton be the most reputable of these? When other authors make statements that Hamilton proved false, can we really say that the time limit on Hamilton's relentless logic has expired? If you scroll back up the link I made, you will find that the existence of some imaginary non-vector quantity according to Hamilton is a logical consequence of the fact that quaternions obey the distributive property. Maybe algebra lets you make up these strange groups that exclude imaginary scalars, but according to Hamilton geometry does not.

The key point here isThis is an interesting discussion, but why create an article for no purpose other than to Ghettoize Hamilton's thinking outside of a its rightful central place in the main article on quaternions. The way the main article should read if this resolution passes is, This article is about just about any mathematical entity that anybody wants to make up, as long as they lived after 1901, and specifically excludes Hamilton's definitions of another mathematical entity of the same nameHobojaks (talk) 05:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hobojaks - thank you for explaining in detail your thoughts about the article. You've made it clear that your concern is about what the material means, as compared to what Hamilton, Tait, et al wrote about it. Wikipedia is at is most powerful as an encyclopedia, i.e., a tertiary source, capturing and referencing the "who-said-what-when" and organizing it. This is not always possible, for example in the current article, where we're mostly forced to draw from the original material. Wikipedia here becomes more like a secondary source. That is no problem to me, either, as long as we keep that in mind. As far as separating what quaternions "really mean", whatever that might mean in itself, I believe the material is organized well: The main "quaternion" article is written as a tertiary source, it aggregates and organizes material from other secondary and tertiary sources. It is the topic-entry page for most readers of Wikipedia, who are looking for quaternions. Conversely, the "classical Hamiltonian quaternion" article is placed alongside, but one click removed from, the topic entry page. Only if the reader of the "main" article is interested in how it all started, or has some doubts, or wants to drill to the bottom of it, or doubts the mainstream, or ... you name it: Whenever the reader choses to be interested in it, he or she can drill down to the historical entity. If you personally believe that the modern conception of quaternions is skewed, not because of differences in its definition (which are nil, as you point out), but in differences of its interpretation, then this might become your personal field of research. For Wikipedia, however, this is out of scope for the main "quaternion" article. This is not "mainstreamism", pushing through a majority opinion; to the contrary: Wikipedia allows to separate other agendas main articles, and to place them alongside for the interested reader. To me, that's one of the many things that make Wikipedia so powerful.

In general, I believe the AfD here it mute, as the above discussion clarified that the dispute is about the meaning of the content, not about the content in itself. Thanks, Jens Koeplinger (talk) 15:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of achieving a consensus can we stipulate that agreeing to the need for a detailed article on the ideas of some particularly important thinkers on the subject of quaternions, does not imply agreeing that their ideas should be entirely excluded from a main article? Also I now believe that those who argue against my contention that the article as presently constituted contains any original research, have argued more eloquently that I have and to achieve a consensus I change my opinion to agree with theirs if we can agree to make this view unanimous. With this concession, I suppose I could make the vote to keep the article unanimous?Hobojaks (talk) 22:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What is left of it after being mostly gutted. Assuming every one agrees to the stipulation aboveHobojaks (talk) 06:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.Biophys (talk) 23:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on procedural grounds: anonymous editors are not capable of nominating an article for AfD, see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination, since they cannot create new pages. While the same guide says: "You must perform all three stages of the process" (so also create this discussion page) and "If this is the case, consider creating a user account before listing an article on AfD." My conclusion is that the nomination by the anon is not valid. If interpreted as an AfD by the nominator here: PMAnderson voted keep, so that would mean a withdrawal of the AfD. -- Crowsnest (talk) 13:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think anons should be able to nominate, but agree that there is, now, consensus against deletion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarships.com

Contested prod. Article as it stands is spam. This website has recieved no independant detailed coverage on the news nor in academic journals. Fails WP:N. Themfromspace (talk) 02:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: spam. Passing mention here suggests the only really notable websites are Fastaid.com (23,000 results), FastWeb (495,000 results), College Board, Peterson's (295,000 results) and The Princeton Review (324,000 results). This is compared to a staggering 81,600,000 results for "Scholarships.com +college". Ottre 03:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete as spam on a non-notable website. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 03:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - spam info. Versus22_talk 04:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete given the absolutely grotesque number of links to the site itself, this appears to be an incredibly inept attempt at "SEO" / spam. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly a spam article Unionsoap (talk) 14:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, weakly, and stub. To my mild surprise, the site is at least referenced as a scholarship source on the MSNBC link and the WSJ link that are all cited as references to the first paragraph. This isn't really a very good reference style, but the site does seem to have topical coverage in multiple, general-interest reliable sources. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Of the nine references currently in place, four appear to the reliable. Of those four, three of them appear to be trivial mentions (wsj, seattlepi, and wash times). The msnbc article is a one-paragraph mention, but still a bit trivial. All-in-all, it makes a case for notability, but I don't know if it really meets the requirements of WP:WEB. Either way you look at it, it needs cleanup and stubification at the very least. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contesting Deletion - I respectfully and wholeheartedly contest the assertion that this is some ploy and should be considered "SPAM" and hope you will read, review and reconsider the submission.
To begin with, just in case it was the links to our scholarship winners that were causing this recommendation, I removed them all, at least for the time being. I thought they would add credibility as references, but assume you saw them only as links to a page on our site. As for this being an SEO ploy, I assure you it is not.
This is simply a case of feeling we should be recognized and noted in this wiki. We have edu sites of colleges and high schools alike directing their students to Scholarships.com, which I can assure you they would not if they didn't recognize Scholarships.com as a legitimate site and service that benefits their students and fits the brief description in our wikipedia entry. I have stripped the definition down to hopefully appease those questioning the intention here. Please bear in mind that I am new to this and am just learning how best to write wiki entries, but intend to write many more in the future, on many different subjects, so any help will be much appresiated.
To address these nomination for deletion:

Passing mention and # of results: I think there are a sufficient # of media mentions from reputable sources to justify inclusion here. I would like to assert, also, that just because Carol Isakson doesn't mention Scholarships.com, does not mean it is not a notable scholarship search site. How it is even possible we were not mentioned makes absolutely no sense, considering how long Scholarships.com has been around and the degree to which it has excelled. I didn't see the specific entry where the other sites are mentioned and we are not. Would you please provided that? As for the # of results - Is the fact that there were so many results what is making Scholarships.com look bad in your eyes? I don't understand, but I saw less than 11.5% of #claimed - 9,270,000 for "Scholarships.com +college" when I clicked the link supplied. And did you look at the results? Many are "collegescholarships.com" or "college-scholarships.com" and, as our ___domain is an actual word, this is apt to happen a lot, Whereas for Fastaid and FastWeb it would not. Perhaps this is causing the inflated number of results being attributed to Scholarships.com. I certainly cannot imagine how else we would have even the smaller number of 9 million, as I doubt we have significantly more pages than the other sites mentioned. Further explanation or insight with regard to this entire exercise and result would be very much appreciated, though.
Delete; non-notable (Nick): I reduced the entry down to a basic, summary description. I believe it to be a neutral one, and welcome any further suggestions.
Delete; spam info (Versus22): As stated, I have removed most of the entry and consider it neutral and brief. Your comments/suggestions appreciated.
Delete; "grotesque # of links" (Starblind): Please see my above response to Ottre with regard to links if it is the alleged 81,600,000 results and my removal of all the links to the winners' essays if those are the links to our site you meant. Also, I do not understand the incindiary language with which you feel it necessary to make this accusation, but maybe the reason it appears to be an "incredibly inept" attempt at SEO/spam is because it is actually not such an attempt at all. Perhaps the lack of skill at doing such a thing could convince you that is not my intention at all if you chose to look at it from that perspective.
Delete; "spam article" (Unionsoap): I don't know what else to say, beyond my above refutation that this is spam in any way. I understand and appreciate the aversion to and vigilant protection against spam and am by no means a perpetrator of such tactics. Additionally, I have noticed you yourself currently being questioned over your wikipedia membership and behavior, all of it recent due to the fact that you are apparently quite new here.

I must admit that I am feeling a bit abused in some of these discussions. I don't think they give new participants much weight, so don't be to concerned about my comment. Good luck with your article. Oh, and please sign your comments. Unionsoap (talk) 02:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Thanks and yes, we have been covered by major media on occasion over the years. Moreover, we were mentioned on Oprah years ago, but I do not have a link to the coverage. Additionally, Scholarships.com provided a drop-in scholarship search for "CollegeJournal", Wall Street Journal's college site for a few years.
Neutral - Thank you, too. I believe I have significantly cleaned-up and stubbified the entry, though I am not entirely sure I know what stubbify means. I presume it has to do with removing links and content, though.
Thank you for your consideration. chicagoscholar

For further support, I ask you to consider these edu links to Scholarships.com. Does this not lend legitimacy and notability?

http://www.uncw.edu/intprogs/abroad-financialaid.htm
http://www.chc.edu/scps.aspx?id=92
http://www.uwplatt.edu/library/guides/money.html
http://www.winona.edu/financialaid/455.asp

Chicagoscholar (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – "Chicagoscholar" + Based in Highland Park, IL = likely conflict of interest. Hence, I have tagged article as such. MuZemike 18:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to MuZemike - Chicago is a city of 3,000,000 people, 9,000,000 in the Chicagoland area. I am sure most of these folks don't work for Scholarships.com. The content has been edited and is quite neutral in tone and furthermore is written about a relevant, noteworthy topic. Why is this not the focus, but instead users stretch to try to show why it shouldn't be published? To assert that it is likely that the writer has a COI because they live in Chicago seems a stretch. This just feels like people piling on when I have done what was asked of me to shape the entry to what is desired.

--Chicagoscholar (talk) 18:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It IS a conflict of interest when you associate Scholarships.com as "[your] company" as you did here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Capricorn42 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Livewireo (talk • contribs) 20:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete That site is just a splash page with pop up advertisements. When you see a "free" service that is for profit, that's a red flag right there. I'd say more but they might sue me or Wikimedia for defamation. Kingturtle (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. The 'refences' are all passing mentions that prove that the place exists, but nothing more. The creator wants to claim that the article is less promotional than that of Fastweb.com, but the latter has two references that discuss the actual company (even if briefly). Drmies (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To make myself more clear: There is not significant coverage. NONE of the citations in the article refer to stories ABOUT Scholarships.com. In each of those instances, Scholarships.com gets a mention deep into the article. What exactly is notable about Scholarships.com? I can't find anything. Yes, it's been a company for 10 years, but so has the hardware store down my street. Scholarships.com is not noteworthy. Kingturtle (talk) 04:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Kingturtle Both comments are absurd, the first libelous. A Splash page? Did you explore the site at all? As for the assertion that no for-profit offering a free service is to be trusted, I would like to know whether you use Google or Yahoo? Watch TV? Listen to the radio? --Chicagoscholar (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scholar, may I suggest something to read? Drmies (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Drmies, Good one. Point taken. It is just frustrating reading some of these attacks, particularly that one. Also, maybe the media didn't go into great depth about Scholarships.com on multiple occasions because they didn't bother. Not because the site is not legitimate and deserving of the press. Oh, and I will read that book, but only if the publisher is a not-for-profit.

--Chicagoscholar (talk) 21:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Response to Drmies' "spam" assertion - Not spam and the site has been finding scholarships for students, for over a decade. Every bit of information in the entry is accurate and it has been noted on legitimate sites, is linked to by over a thousand sites. If it merely "existed" or was a "splash page" as Kingturtle asserted, the educational institutions wouldn't link to them, would they? I don't think anybody reading the entry has gone and conducted a search, given the site the benefit of the doubt and researched it as a possible legitimate site and deserving entry. Why is that? --Chicagoscholar (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- More References to Scholarships.com

These are just from the last couple of days. Do these help? http://www.themusiciansite.com/2009/03/scholarships-for-music.html
http://www.neptunuslex.com/2009/03/02/on-the-joys-of-retirement/ (Note - listed by an independent source, alongside sites being defended herein)

- - I DID look for coverage (thank you very much), discussion by independent sites--in-depth coverage, that is, not mere mentions. Please check the conspiracy theories at the door--and assume good faith, as I do for you. That institutions link to them does not mean the site is notable; it means institutions link to them. They do not assume liability. The last two webarticles you mention, I do not consider these to be posted on reliable sources. Besides, both only mention the site; as for the second, HomefrontSix may be independent from Scholarships.com, but that user also has not established credibility. That's plain to see. Drmies (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've not accused you of neglecting to do research, at least not intentionally. You seem to be the only one who is willing to pursue any sort of discourse over the matter. My question and assertion is that nobody has really gone through the site in question thoroughly and the general feeling is not that of inclusion. It was more specifically directed at Kingtoad, who called the site a "splash page" which, I'm sorry is absurd. That is not meant to be combative, it's just that it is absurd and nobody who spent ten minutes researching, five even, could make that statement. You must concede that. As to your assertion that no substantial, credible reference has been listed, I still feel msnbc having published what they did is substantial enough for the entry. I am not a conspiracy theorist, but please don't tell me the overall vibe here is not accusatory and cynical, if you read all the "delete" entries at once. And surely you must see that I am invested in this, and that this is a matter of principle to me. I believe this entry should stand and have spent far more time than I intended defending it. I will continue to do so. Do you have a position on any of my refutations at the beginning of all this? I noticed they didn't come back with further comment yet and am anxious to know where I stand. Believe me, I am taking what I can from this, frustrated though I may be. It is still very educational and helpful. I really do appreciate your comments, I sincerely do. Lastly, let's be fair here, to open the way you did and say I should assume good faith as you are doing for me is tough to read when the first thing you posted accuses me of spamming, etc. and that I "want to claim" something. That sounds like you quite don't assume good faith, doesn't it? And, may I remind you, I am not being combative, just asking you see my side is all.--Chicagoscholar (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never accused you of spamming; I did say that the article was spam--that is, promotional and not verified by notable sources, and I stand by that, though I readily concede that from your position that sounds like a horrible thing; I'm sorry, it's one of those shorthand terms that we employ because on this forum we do run into a lot of awful stuff (just look around). And I will add that "spam" covers a lot of things: I do not believe, for instance that your article goes too far into the realm of spam in tone, for instance, though the website is mentioned an awful lot. But at least it's not stuffed with awful superlatives. The MSNBC thing, that's all-too brief and it describes, in three sentences, what the site does rather than discuss and evaluate it. That's what "significant," "in-depth," and all means. Believe me, I know what it feels like to be on that side of the argument, and it is difficult to keep one's cool.

Note, I never remarked on Splash--I looked at the site and did not have anything popping up, but I'm also not in the position to doubt another's experience (different settings, browser, etc.). I'm not going to address every point in detail, except for this one: a fairly large number of passing mentions (incl. in the Washington Post, cited below), for me, do not add up to significant coverage by a few reliable sources. That a lot of editors make similar comments is probably because they all have the same or a similar opinion...but not all of them, see below. Best, Drmies (talk) 01:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I looked at this one early on and decided not to tag it. (Slightly unusual, that...) I quote from the Washington Times article referenced: "Some of the best-known scholarship search sites include Fast Web, Scholarships.com and the College Board's Scholarship Search (http://apps.collegeboard.com/cbsearch–ss/welcome.jsp)". That to me indicates a certain degree of notability. I do not find the current version of the article under discussion to be spam, nor did I find it so when I first looked at it. (Things that are .com in an article are certain to be investigated by me.) I must confess that I do object to the pop-up on the subject's website, but I object to any pop-up ad anywhere. (I rarely see them because I block ads - this one gets through because it seems to be actually a pop-under.) Pop-ups are not the heart of the matter here. The creator of the article seems willing to tailor the article to our specifications, so the question is notability. In view of the above quotation and other references, I would say notability was established to my satisfaction. I am only one voice in the discussion, however. Peridon (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no significant mentions in any of the references in the article. Just listings that the company exists and is in the market. A quote saying " Some of the best known are x y and z " is not significant unless it actually discusses them--otherwise it is just a random mention. DGG (talk) 10:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems the major and continually argued point of contention is the reference and whether msnbc or any of the others give enough information about Scholarships.com to keep the entry. There are those who say it does and others who argue the references are not thorough or strong enough. Who, ultimately, decides whether the entry remains? If the entry is kept on Wikipedia, do the deletion suggestions come off at that point? Again, I am new to this. --Chicagoscholar (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Drmies - Got it and point taken. I see that it was not your intent to imply I was a spammer and appreciate your taking the time to clarify. My thanks to you for continuing to communicate and explain your position and your issues with the entry and reasons for not feeling it should stand. Though I disagree, as do a few others, with your position that the references are not viable, I do respect both your position and your candor. --Chicagoscholar (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete WP:SPAM w/ very poor quality article. WikiScrubber (talk) 14:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sobek. Black Kite 21:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crocodile God

Non-notable band with limited release of music (a few hundred copies if they're lucky) and no substantial coverage in media. Article is unreferenced and does nothing to assert notability Astronaut (talk) 02:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very minor group with no secondary coverage. And darn, I thought it was going to be about the ancient Egyptian crocodile god, Sobek. Borock (talk) 02:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (with prejudice) and create redirect to Sobek. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 04:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment two appearances on Peel Sessions [43][44] but not sure if that is enough for WP:MUSIC, and I can't find any more information. Article only cites primary sources which don't appear to be reliable and none of their records appear to be on notable labels. —Snigbrook 09:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sobek; nn band; seems to be a no-brainer. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sobek. The band fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching pulls up no reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 00:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cereo

Unverifiable product of questionable notability. The sole source is a dead link, and even if it did once work, not clear that it's a reliable source. My searches for alternative sources return only Wikipedia mirrors. Jfire (talk) 02:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was the first manufactured baby food with a brand name. This counts as notable. The reference did work in the past so is potentially verifiable, although we cannot verify this online. The ref was from a real estate agent that may have had a conflict of interest, but no reason to lie. This article is from the WP:AFC process, so the original contributor 192.203.40.2 from July 2006 is probably not around. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment updated ___location seems to be [45]. "Deming House: Built in 1790. Macy Deming manufactured first baby food, Cereo, here." I do not believe this constitutes a RS for the claim that this was the first manufactured baby food with a brand name. Jfire (talk) 02:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I suppose it might be SYN, but if it was the first manufactured baby food (per cite) and it had a brand name, it is not that big a stretch to also say it was the first manufactured baby food with a brand name. Deming's heirs were notable in nutrition studies it appears [46] etc. as examples. Verifiable product, and cited in medical studies. Collect (talk) 15:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - link worked for me. Because of the subject (a "first") it could be argued that this is indeed notable. Keep in mind that there's a difference between "well known" and notable. A product, or a person, or whatever, may have become less "well known" because of the mists of time, but that doesn't make it any less notable. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My research hasn't turned up any reliable source evidence that Cereo was in fact the "first baby food", first "manufactured" baby food, first baby food with a "brand name" or any other notable "first". Wikipedia's article doesn't list it, this page doesn't list it, it's not mentioned in this "History of the Development of Infant Formulas," or here. The "Baby Food" article in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Food and Drink in America does not mention it, instead crediting Henri Nestlé with creating "the first artificial infant food". Others credit Justus von Liebig's "Liebig’s food for infants" as the first commercially produced baby food. In summary, we have zero reliable source evidence for the article's claim. Our sole source is one gramatically incorrect sentence on a relators website, which in fact does not even support the article's claim. "Macy Deming manufactured first baby food, Cereo, here." Perhaps that was meant to read "Macy Deming manufactured her first baby food, Cereo, here." In any case the source is miles away from meeting WP:RS, and the reliable sources we do have refute the claim. Jfire (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I've updated the source of that information, which actually comes from the Tappantown Historical Society's paper-published guide to the historical section of that town. I think this gives the source a bit more credibility. I have also contacted the historical society to see if they have any old publications on file that would provide more information. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I recommend redirecting to Baby food, adding a section with the journal reference I just added to the article. I cannot find a reliable source that would support the claim of being the first manufactured baby food, but I think it does have historical value. I have no problem doing this, once the AfD closes. There are a lot of available references to this company on Google Books, and in some cases it seems that "cereo" was a sort of generic name brand as well, which would also indicate notability. §FreeRangeFrog 18:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - About the "generic name brand", looking closer it seems it was considered a dextrinizing agent as well. §FreeRangeFrog 18:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do see some good search results for "Cereo Company". Perhaps the best course would be to rename to Cereo Company and include coverage of the product but remove the "first baby food" claim. Jfire (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here's a source, that comes close to discussing what Deming developed, and claims: "These products were the forerunners of America's first commercial infant formulas." [47]. In light of this, it could be argued that this historical society's note on the house should be interpreted that Deming first created the material at this ___location, rather than the material being the first actual production baby food. As such, I think the idea of a move to Cereo Company and detailing this research might be better than just a claim of "first". AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Found a book reference that supports the claim as America's first, and added the citation and quote to the article. (Many thanks to Mary Cardenas of the Tappantown Historical Society for researching this and faxing me the relevant pages!) Despite my striking out part of my previous comment, I still support a move to the new and an expansion of the article, as there are enough refs to accomplish this. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kaidensu

I can't find any evidence that this martial art exists. See Kaidensu martial which results in two links (both from Wikipedia). Maybe there's a different transliteration? Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 00:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nonsense. JJL (talk) 01:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —JJL (talk) 01:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strike with Hirak and leave a note to that effect in the JMMC's underground files. WP:Hoax. Slightly more creative than the use of pressure points in PENIS AID SEX [48] [49] though so at least their editing is improving. Ha! (talk) 02:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources cited, none found, fails WP:V. JohnCD (talk) 10:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - absolutely no reliable sources. Just a poor article. Versus22_talk 16:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No references and Google search does not indicate that references may exist. --Belasd (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Suleman octuplets. I'm being bold here. Seems like a reasonable search term Mgm|^(talk) 10:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kamrava

Dr. Kamrava is only notable for his roles in the Suleman octuplets IVF, little media attention has been focused on him, he doesn't meet the criteria for notability to justify his own page (WP:BLP1E). — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 00:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article adds no encyclopedic information that is not amply covered in Suleman octuplets. His notability is only in relation to theirs; no separate article is merited. - Eron^Talk 00:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article as it is does not really assert notability, just that he did one treatment. I see a problem with neutrality if more sources were to be added since they will, I am confident, only give their opinions on this one case. Or anyway focus on it so that a fair picture of the whole person is not given.Borock (talk) 02:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Suleman octuplets. I think it's plausible someone might search for him, so a redirect is useful, but the man himself isn't really independently notable; anything worth covering can be done in a sentence or two in that article. --Delirium (talk) 03:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mgm|^(talk) 11:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Padres

Defunct amateur baseball team fails notability. JaGa^talk 21:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't verify page since weblink's dead. --Sigma 7 (talk) 20:39, 4 March 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 00:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notablity, no article, simple as that.DinosaurDan (talk) 00:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is DinosaurDan's first edit.Smallman12q (talk) 01:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oh, then I must go to DQ and buy a cake. Mandsford (talk) 01:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article has no claim to notability for this team, and the only source provided is a "page not found". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 08:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Howlett

Non-notable musician and businessman, can't find any reliable 3rd-party references supporting notability of subject MuffledThud (talk) 17:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 17:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not sure how Greg Howlett notability is open for debate. First, there is a reliable 3rd-party reference used in the article. It is a university publication.

Secondly, Greg Howlett is a fairly well-known Christian concert pianist who performs numerous concert dates a year. He is a well-published writer (search on his name) and is the founder and CEO of a multi-million dollar company. Fredkelly1 (talk) 20:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should have been more specific in the nomination. I can find no evidence in the article or in a Google search that he is notable per WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO. A CEO of a notable company might himself be notable, but the company itself isn't notable, so it's unlikely that he's notable as a businessman. The university publication is potentially reliable, but might also have a potential conflict of interest in a report about how successful its alumni are. Can you find any further WP:Reliable sources supporting his notability as a musician or businessman? MuffledThud (talk) 23:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A university publication is only potentially reliable? That seems strange to me considering that academic resources are considered reliable. However, there are also multiple reputable news sources online that print his bio such as http://www.webpronews.com/user/greg-howlett.

Fredkelly1 (talk) 20:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The article cites three sources - one is self published (throw that out), one is a university publication, but it's a marketing brochure, and the other is to archived articles on an eCommerce site. A google search yields nothing of note musically, but contributions to several on-line business sites. Now, the content of the articles wouldn't establish notability (for the subject), but that the subject is on several different sites may be the notability key. IMO, the sites are minor, and the articles themselves don't seem to be cited by anyone else. The number of different sites is the rationale for my weak in the delete, however.Vulture19 (talk) 01:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: trivial 3rd party coverage WP:MUSICBIO. JamesBurns (talk) 03:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources included with the article do not show evidence that the subject currently has the life achievement for an encyclopedia entry. FloNight ♥♥♥ 18:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 08:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Epidemiology_of_suicide

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Epidemiology of suicide

The article seems redundant to the suicide article, like a POV fork. Few or none of the sources actually address the subject matter, and few or even none of the sources are reliable. I tried working on it, starting by deleting a L O T of unsourced stuff, but what is left I can't see ever becoming encyclopedic. Maybe a sentence or two can be integrated into the suicide article (which, when all the questionable stuff has been removed, will have a section on this longer than the article itself...). It seems like a completely unsalvagable mess to me. Dendlai (talk) 12:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think this sounds like, strictly speaking, an AfD nom. Tell me if I'm wrong, but it sounds as if the nom proposes a merge back into Suicide, which doesn't require a discussion here. Ray (talk) 13:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right. I just turned Suicide and evolution into a redirect to suicide because it was completely unsourced, fringey and... less than good. I may have been entirely right to do that with this article too, since there is nothing worth merging into the main article IMO. That was a very short article though; this is still 18k long. Erasing it all and making it a redirect seemed a wee bit bold to me, even though I think it's the only sensible solution, and doing that would be much the same as deleting it. Hence why I brought it here. Dendlai (talk) 14:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect back to suicide article. Far too much like original research and point of view fork to be worth keeping, the epidemiology section of the Suicide article covers the matter in a far more encyclopaedic way. Maybe this article would go into Wikiversity. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 14:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is wide enough and there are enough sources available, to have the general article and this one as well. There are many valid perspectives. DGG (talk) 01:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: article history suggests that nobody has bothered to update the statistics per the December 2008 issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, but that study and other more recent findings have clearly been in the news. Bias should be corrected soon enough. Ottre 02:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep, seems like a reasonable topic. Although care should be taken to avoid violating WP:SYNTH. Stifle (talk) 18:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regular editing should be able to address valid concerns raised here. Lede should be expanded to highlight the rest of the article's content as well. -- Banjeboi 20:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A possible merger shouldn't be discussed here.--Sloane (talk) 02:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Commission for Environmental Cooperation. MBisanz ^talk 05:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NAFTA's Impact on the Environment

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/NAFTA's Impact on the Environment

(well sourced) original research Mystache (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Commission for Environmental Cooperation which is mainly what the article is about, and from which it seems to have branched off. Northwestgnome (talk) 17:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per very well sourced WP:OR. Seems to be someone's personal essay or POV. --Artene50 (talk) 01:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Not exactly sure where this should go, but I think it makes some well-researched points and should be at least merged. It obviously needs to have all original research removed, but some of the sources look good. At the very least mention something under "NAFTA." Criticism, or something like that...Spring12 (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the article on the Commission--a very short article; eventually the content might develop, but for now it would be better to have one strong article. DGG (talk) 01:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 05:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rebeka Kim

Non-notable novice level figure skater. Does not pass WP:ATHLETE or WP:FIGURE's notability guidelines. Kolindigo (talk) 13:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Ray (talk) 13:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Ray (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Ray (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:30, 3 March 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 00:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Notability through being the subject of most popular Korean television network ~~biography~~ documentary. Needs english language citations, though.Vulture19 (talk) 01:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Is the Nestle Nesquic Cup an important event in figure skating? It seams to be an international competition. Also what is the difference between novice and junior level in figure skating?09er (talk) 01:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. The Nestle Nesquic Cup was a very minor, non-notable event. There are many small, non-notable international competitions. In figure skating, junior level skaters can compete at high-level international competitions such as the World Junior Figure Skating Championships, which is at the ISU Championship level. They can also compete on the ISU Junior Grand Prix, which is the junior-level version of the Grand Prix of Figure Skating. Beginning this season, the ISU Junior and Senior Grand Prix Finals have been combined. That's pretty high level. Novices, on the other hand, do not have high-level international competitions. Novice level skaters are not notable because they cannot compete on the highest level of sport. Kolindigo (talk) 02:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Does not meet WP:ATHLETE, but does barely meet WP:N standards.--2008Olympian^chitchat 19:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A single KBS documentary does not create encyclopedic notability. Only 524 Ghits. THF (talk) 02:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incursion: Halls of the Goblin King

Non notable software. No notability indicated in article. Provide sources or evidence of notability. Shadowjams (talk) 07:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an as yet to be finished game with no coverage in reliable sources. There's gaming forum discussions, but that's not reliable sourcing. -- Whpq (talk) 14:34, 3 March 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 00:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google search shows only results in game forms, that does not make it worthy of an article. DinosaurDan (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is DinosaurDan's third edit.Smallman12q (talk) 01:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallman12q - I'm sure DinosaurDan will have many more edits. You don't need to say his edit count in every single discussion. (Not trying to be mean here, but we're discussing articles!) :) Versus22_talk 05:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not criticizing dinosaurdan...but its rather unusual to see an editor make there first edit in AFD.Smallman12q (talk) 14:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks official sources, fails WP:N, WP:V, + WP:RS. Versus22_talk 05:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: While it is perfectly okay to say an article needs sources, an article lacking is unverified, which is significantly different from unverifiable. Rather than focusing on the article's current state commenters should attempt to find sources prior to nominating (see WP:BEFORE, Wikipedia:Deletion policy and WP:AFD). - Mgm|^(talk) 10:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources would you include? WP:BEFORE is not a trump card that can be used for any afd. This is a particularly bad one since there haven't been any presented sources. WP:Before is a kind suggestion, not a policy. If you believe this article is worthy of inclusion, please add those citations to the article and indicate you did so here. I'm certainly not gunning to get rid of this article, or any other ones, if they meet the criteria for inclusion. Shadowjams (talk) 10:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The comment was directed at the nominator. The nomination specifically calls out that there are no sources in the article, but then does not indicate what action the nominator took to address this before nominating for deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 10:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's me. Typically I'll google search and see what comes up, this eliminates most false hits. If the article has other indica of credibility, I may dig further, using other databases available to me. I look harder for some articles than I do for others based on the impression I get. This is why AFD is such a valuable process, because the original nominator only needs to bring attention to the subject. I didn't nominate this article just because it didn't have sources, but because it didn't look notable, and it didn't have sources, and after looking, I didn't find sources. Hopefully that helps explain more. Sorry if I cam across as dismissive. I maybe should have been more clear about my process in the beginning. As a general rule though, most AFDs follow this format, and so long as they don't systemically waste time pursuing debates on clearly notable articles, I don't think there's a problem with it. Shadowjams (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - When I nominate for AFD, I usually indicate what sort of search or effort I've already put into correcting the problem to forestall these types of discussions. -- Whpq (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of notability and no reliable sources. A game (or any software) would have to be spectacularly notable to get an article while still in alpha testing(!), and by all evidence this isn't even close. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Non-notable game still in beginning stages of development, no coverage. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of third-party coverage. Stifle (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Big Sur Moon

Article for an individual song that has no indication of notability. didn't chart or win an award. unsourced. This was bundled at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Somewhere Over the Slaughterhouse (song) but has been moved to it's own afd. Discussion has occurred there. Duffbeerforme (talk) 05:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The song, originally released on Buckethead's solo album Colma in 1998 (see [50]) was also included into the Guns N' Roses live set when Buckethead was a member from 2000 to 2004 and for example played at the third Rock in Rio (2001), the largest rock festival in the world (see: [51]). Therefore it might be one of the most famous Buckethead songs with 18,000+ Google hits. The article is clearly in bad shape and the Buckethead Taskforce is willing to change this in short time. Therefore the article has been tagged as "needing immediate atention" even prior to this AfD.--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 08:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 19:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Insufficient independent 3rd party coverage WP:NSONGS. JamesBurns (talk) 03:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as several new sources have been found since nomination.--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 05:58, 4 March 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 00:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The new sources consist entirely of trivial mentions in reviews of the album the song is on. Duffbeerforme (talk) 02:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSONGS. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see that Hexachord redirected the article under discussion at AfD when consensus had not yet been reached, so I reverted that to facilitate discussion. Not that a merge might not have been the right thing to do. I can't judge the actual notability or the significance of the mentions, but I do think combination articles tend to be a good compromise. DGG (talk) 03:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the other songs on the same template seem to also redirect although that could be a sign of conspiracy. A 1998 song though should have more coverage if it's that notable. a summary elsewhere would be fine for now. -- Banjeboi 19:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The closing admin should note that several editors have violated WP:ATA, especially the topics WP:JUSTA and WP:PERNOM. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 22:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And, for that matter, the closing admin should note that WP:ATA is an essay, which does not have community consensus or wide-ranging support. Stifle (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to fail WP:NSONGS, no seperate coverage.--Sloane (talk) 02:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This shouldn't be at AFD if I'm reading WP:NSONGS correctly and should be a redirect. Thus procedural keep as the wrong forum for the discussion (talk page being the right one). Further, sources in the article would appear to be near the GNG. Hobit (talk) 03:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the album. This is not a keep vote. Stifle (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Monsters & Robots. Redirects can be changed if a merge of these articles into a single Buckethead album is desirable, but thta is an issue beyond the scope of AfD. Redirects preserve the material in history, allowing such decisions to be made later Fritzpoll (talk) 10:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Ballad of Buckethead

Article for an individual song that has no indication of notability. didn't chart or win an award. unsourced. This was bundled at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Somewhere Over the Slaughterhouse (song) but has been moved to it's own afd. Discussion has occurred there. Duffbeerforme (talk) 05:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The song features high profile guest musicians Les Claypool and Bryan "Brain" Mantia of Primus and was released as a video single to promote Monsters & Robots in 1999. The video clip was made by notable artist Dave McKean, as described in the book The Alchemy of MirrorMask (Published by Collins Design, 2005, ISBN 0060823798, 9780060823795), and got airplay on relevant media (see screenshot). It also was sold on VHS tape. The lyrics deal with Buckethead's fake biography [52] as stated on his official website [53]. The article is clearly in bad shape and the Buckethead Taskforce is willing to change this in short time. Therefore the article has been tagged as "needing immediate atention" even prior to this AfD.--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 06:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 19:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Monsters and Robots. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 20:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as several new sources have been found since nomination.--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 05:58, 4 March 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 00:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking at the sources, my nomination still stands. With the possible exception of the McKean book none of the new references go beyond trivial coverage of the song. Duffbeerforme (talk) 02:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: trivial 3rd party coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 03:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't yet have an opinion about whether to keep this, but I do believe that if the consensus is that this shouldn't have its own article, it should be redirected to the album rather than deleted. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see that Hexachord redirected the article under discussion at AfD when consensus had not yet been reached, so I reverted that to facilitate discussion. Not that a merge might not have been the right thing to do. I can't judge the actual notability or the significance of the mentions, but I do think combination articles tend to be a good compromise. DGG (talk) 03:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The closing admin should note that several editors have violated WP:ATA, especially the topics WP:JUSTA and WP:PERNOM. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 22:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: the closing admin should not give any weight to the above comment, violating an essay is not of any importance, and e.g. a "per nom" is equally valid to determine consensus if the "nom" is well thought out. If you agree with the opinion of someone else in a discussion, there is no need to repeat that opinion at length or in your own words, just noting that you agree with it is sufficient. Fram (talk) 07:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but I'd strongly suggest a merge of the moderately notable buckethead songs into one article. Hobit (talk) 03:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough reliable sources.--Sloane (talk) 23:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific about the problems with the sources? Hobit (talk) 17:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, they're not reliable. Wikipedia requires reliable sources. Read up.--Sloane (talk) 04:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Enter the Chicken. consensus is against retention - a merge of content may be appropriate, and for this reason, I am setting up a redirect as the result of this close Fritzpoll (talk) 10:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three Fingers

Article for an individual song that has no real reason given for notability. didn't chart or win an award. references give no indication of notability and do not go beyond trivial coverage. This was bundled at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Welcome to Bucketheadland but has been moved to it's own afd. Discussion has occurred there. Duffbeerforme (talk) 05:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The song features high profile guest musician Saul Williams and, besides being released on the album Enter the Chicken (2005), was used as part of the soundtrack for the highly successful 2005 movie Saw II. Media coverage included MTV and the Boston Herald, as stated in the article. The article is clearly in bad shape and the Buckethead Taskforce is willing to change this in short time. Therefore the article has been tagged as "needing immediate atention" even prior to this AfD.--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 07:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 19:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as several new sources have been found since nomination.--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 05:57, 4 March 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 00:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The new sources which mention the song are all trivial mentions in reviews for the album on which the song appears. Duffbeerforme (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: trivial 3rd party coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 03:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Non-trivial third party coverage is just one way to gauge notability. Taken together, the sources allow for a reasonably detailed article to be written. WP:CREATIVE says that people who make a significant contribution to a work of fiction are notable and since this song is on the Saw II soundtrack, the same reasoning can be extended to the song. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CREATIVE is for people, not for things they create. Other thing like WP:MUSIC (which directly adresses songs), Wikipedia:Notability (books) and Wikipedia:Notability (films) are there for their creations. Extending the notability as you suggest would in many cases contradict these other guidelines. Duffbeerforme (talk) 06:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the double standard is disturbing when compared to articles like this: 237 (song) - around for three and a half years and offering much less than "Three Fingers", "We Are One", "The Ballad of Buckethead" or "Spokes for the Wheel of Torment". Not to speak of all the songs included to this quick list: User:HexaChord/AfD. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 01:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No double standard. I do not know the contents of every page so I can't be expected to treat each page the same. When you find a page like that you could yourself do something instead of expecting someone else to. Duffbeerforme (talk) 06:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see that Hexachord redirected the article under discussion at AfD when consensus had not yet been reached, so I reverted that to facilitate discussion. Not that a merge might not have been the right thing to do. I can't judge the actual notability or the significance of the mentions, but I do think combination articles tend to be a good compromise. DGG (talk) 03:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The closing admin should note that several editors have violated WP:ATA, especially the topics WP:JUSTA and WP:PERNOM. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 22:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough reliable sources.--Sloane (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Enter the Chicken. Non-notable material does not tend to get deleted when a redirect is preferable - redirecting to album title is an obvious outcome of this discussion Fritzpoll (talk) 10:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Botnus

Article for an individual song that has no real reason given for notability. didn't chart or win an award. reference gives no indication of notability and is not a reliable sources. This was bundled at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Welcome to Bucketheadland but has been moved to it's own afd. Discussion has occurred there. Duffbeerforme (talk) 05:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 19:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Insufficient independent 3rd party coverage WP:NSONGS. JamesBurns (talk) 03:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as several new sources have been found since nomination.--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 05:58, 4 March 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 00:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All of the new independant sources are trivial coverage in reviews for the album on which the song appears. Duffbeerforme (talk) 02:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSONGS. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The closing admin should note that several editors have violated WP:ATA, especially the topics WP:JUSTA and WP:PERNOM. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 22:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSONGS.--Sloane (talk) 02:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Enter The Chicken. This is not a keep vote. Stifle (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bibleman. Stifle (talk) 10:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bibleman: PowerSource

Shortlived (only 6 episodes listed) and extremely obscure sequel series to the almost-as-obscure Bibleman video series. No sources, no indication of anything even resembling notability. Unsuccessful WP:PROD. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google search returns 4000+ hits. This isn't a biography so I'd say keep; it's always a good thing to have relevant information. -down load | sign! 04:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: how many of those hits were stores selling the DVDs of this series? That's the problem with WP:GOOGLEHITS arguments. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage. Plenty of Google hits but none that ascertain notability. JamesBurns (talk) 00:50, 4 March 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 00:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Bibleman. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Bibleman. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Synactive

Entirely unsourced, written as an advertisement (they offer this, they strive to do that, etc.), and doesn't explain why the subject is notable. TheAE talk/sign 03:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spam Duffbeerforme (talk) 06:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 05:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul BW Chaplin

Three prongs suggested for notability here; being a lawyer, authorship of legal textbooks, and media career. With regard to the first, there is no source to suggest that subject has become notable for any of his causes (or effects); as for the second, the only evidence is that his books are on sale; as regards the third, the only source would appear to be promotional. To paraphrase a famous judgement; "There are three points in the appeal, and there is nothing in any of them; thrice nothing is still nothing". Rodhull andemu 02:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article seems to be autobiography: that is not in itself grounds for deletion, but it makes one look more carefully at the claims of notability, to be sure that WP is not being used for self-promotion. There are two references to Amazon entries for books he has written, and a link to the website of his TV show. The only secondary sources are three "external links" which all refer to the same fraud case, in which he was found not to have been dishonest. I don't see the substantial independent secondary coverage required by WP:BIO. JohnCD (talk) 12:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Autobiographical concerns have been addressed by editing. The subject meets the threshold for notability. In addition to his notariety, Chaplin has authored two text books, one of which was published by Butterworths.Esasus (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I Googled the name and one of the first results was involving him in a case of fraud.^[1] He was mentioned by the BBC,^[2], sued over his show^[3], and got suspended.^[4] It's weak because it centers around one event, but as long as these things are mentioned we might as well keep it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spring12 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not one event, because it wouldnt have been worth the news comments in the first place had he not been a well known lawyer. For a specialist in commercial law to be disbarred for running a notorious tax avoidance scheme is notable. DGG (talk) 02:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep mostly due to having a book published by a real publisher and having a TV show with notable guests. This is a very borderline case by any measure and could easily go either way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete There's only one event in his life that's a bit notable and I'm not convinced it's enough to have an entire article dedicated to him. Also the article is unlikely to be expanded, except maybe by Chaplin himself, because of WP:HOLE. Laurent (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was The result was withdrawn. [54] (non-admin closure). 16x9 (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zikula

~~non notable software. No significant third party reliable sources. Originally prod and IP removed without comment. 16x9 (talk) 02:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)~~ marginally more notable under its previous name, Postnuke and thus I withdraw my nomination and will be merging postnuke to this article. 16x9 (talk) 16:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- 16x9 (talk) 02:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this kind of thing doesn't usually get discussed by significant third party reliable sources. RenegadeMonster (talk) 12:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is actually a "reboot" of PostNuke, which was quite notable on its own. §FreeRangeFrog 03:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Question- are you saying that Zikula is a rebranded postnuke and the articles need to be merged into one or that notablity is inherent, which it is not, because zikula is similar to postnuke? 16x9 (talk) 13:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect he means it should be merged. A "reboot" is usually a when a new team starts working on a piece of software or when the existing team takes a piece of software into a new direction. Merging seems a reasonable solution if the link is indeed proven. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I am investigating. 16x9 (talk) 13:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The motivational disorder

This article is pure WP:OR. The term was obviously invented by the author. Looie496 (talk) 00:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As original PRODer. This is nonsense. §FreeRangeFrog 00:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources from offical sites, fails WP:N, WP:V, and possibly WP:RS. Versus22_talk 00:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Devoid of reliable sources.--E8 (talk) 02:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Zero meaningful ghits, refs in article are irrelevant to the topic. Non-notable neologism. Anaxial (talk) 19:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ Paul Baxendale-Walker
^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4763984.stm
^ http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2007/08/31/2901683.htm
^ http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/high-court-backs-sdt-verdicts

[1] Paul Baxendale-Walker

[2] ttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4763984.stm

[3] ttp://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2007/08/31/2901683.htm

[4] ttp://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/high-court-backs-sdt-verdicts

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]