Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 March 9

< 8 March	10 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

US Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? notable contestants

Laundry list of contestants on WWTBAM. Except for Carpenter, none of these contestants is individually notable, so why lump them all into a list? This is nothing but a list of miscellaneous information, and the first time I've seen the trivia trag at the TOP of the article. I see no way that this can be sourced. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable list that violates WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information) --Mhking (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as an unverifiable BLP disaster waiting to happen. Borderline G10 as one huge BLP violation. MuZemike 00:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G10 is only for attack pages isn't it? This is hardly attack material. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know that this merits its own separate article, but the website authorized by the program's producers would obviously be a verifiable source for information. None of these contestants is individually notable? Big deal. That's why they shouldn't have their own individual articles. Mandsford (talk) 00:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What defines a notable contestant? Is it someone who was notable before they came onto the show? Then list every celebrity contestant and nobody else. Is it someone who wins a million? Then make it Who Wants to Be A Millionaire Grand Prize Winners. Is it people who miss the first question? Notability questions can be asked ad nauseum. Eauhomme (talk) 02:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but reduce the size of the article to the point where it's basically unrecognizable. The list is misnamed right now - in its current form, it's not for notable contestants, it's for events on the show that someone decided were notable. Townlake (talk) 06:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This topic is really more appropriate for a merge to the main article, but there's so much unsalvagable stuff here, merger would not really be appropriate. Townlake (talk) 14:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the inclusion criteria here appear to be totally random and not anything I would have imagined as constituting game-show contestant notability. (~60 non-starter contestants are notable? really?) I tend to think that the number of really notable contestants who can be supported from independent reliable sources is small enough for the main article. WillOakland (talk) 10:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The celebrities and other notable winners are already in the main WWTBAM article. The rest isn't verifiable (the current possible sources in the ext. link section are a tripod fansite without any sort of track record in factchecking and IMDB which has a known track record for publishing faulty info). - Mgm|^(talk) 12:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If someone wants to undertake a good pruning, and a formatting change, parts of the list could be added back into the main article. But most of the list seems rather pointless, thats why I spun it off. I can't imagine its deletion will deprive people of a solid and useful resource/reference. Nait2k4 (talk) 09:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT FingersOnRoids♫ 23:09, 13 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.

This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Leslie P. Peirce. Please do not modify it. The result was "keep". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Sean Goldman. Please do not modify it. The result was "delete". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Inauguration of Barack Obama. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International reaction to the Inauguration of Barack Obama

This article was created with text copied from Inauguration of Barack Obama. There was no discussion to split the article. Editors of main article do not wish to separate this text from article at this time, see Talk:Inauguration_of_Barack_Obama#New_articles.3F. Thanks. Aaron charles (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with several responses that when deleting this split article, it makes sense to redirect the link to the main article. Thank you. Aaron charles (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redundant text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant and excessive. Could have simply been redirected. Reywas92 ^Talk 00:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of redundant article. Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 02:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect until/unless there is consensus to split. Because it is a plausible daughter article, however, I wouldn't delete it outright. It couldn't hurt to retain the page history for future reference. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a quick point of clarification. There is no original text to merge. It was copied from the article Inauguration of Barack Obama and has not been altered. Thanks. Aaron charles (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect, a separate article was never warranted here. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one level of splitting too far Sceptre ^(talk) 09:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back - no need for this AfD. Bearian (talk) 00:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to main article --Muhammad(talk) 03:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Plausible search keywords Gotyear (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect, I don't think many people would type that in the search box though. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:07, 13 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 a very clear consensus for keep. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Wangan Midnight episodes

unremarkable list Skitzo (talk) 22:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly a notable manga series. Lets drink Tea 23:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Lists of episodes are generally appropriate list topics, and I don't see them being all that hard to source. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 'Unremarkable' at the moment. This is a work in progress. i posted it up so that others may help. Toenailsin 01:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - according to the nom's logic, all stubs should be deleted. This is obviously not true. Stubs can easily be expanded into a larger article. As Toenailsin said, "This is a work in progress." An unremarkable list is usually not a good reason for deleting an article. Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 02:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy Potentially useful, but not ready for articlespace. The list needs to be verified with sources and tied to an article about the series rather than the manga. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valid and typical spinout list for a notable series. Contra MacGyverMagic, the article its linked to covers both the manga and the anime adaptation, and so is appropriately tied. Verification can be taken care of by copying sources from the main article, and I personally would like to follow policy and assume good faith that this would have been done by the list article creator instead of taking it to AFD a half hour after creation, thus showing that the nominator did not follow WP:BEFORE. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "unremarkable" = stub, which per policy is not a crime. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Give it time. It's a stub and a manga that have a solide anime adaptation (here a 26 eps series) usually have a spin-out list of episodes. List of episodes is one trademark of the Anime/Manga project. --KrebMarkt 14:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable series, list meets policy. Seems to be Snowing. Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unremarkable nomination 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 18:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being "unremarkable" is not a legtitamate arguement to delete a list. Especally when this list can be developed with an approprate lead and episode summaries. Also, the list has just been spun out from the main article and should be given time to mature. If no one is going to work on the list any furhter, then consider merging it back into the parent article, but it shouldn't be deleted unless the parent article is deleted as well. --Farix (Talk) 18:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And with some minor work and referencing, we now have a decent lead. --Farix (Talk) 20:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn Skitzo Skitzo's Answer Machine 21:10, 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 delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 00:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dell DRAC Passwords

Simply not an encyclopaedic topic. What is notable about the passwords for a manufacturer's remote management cards? This is how-to stuff from the same source that gave us Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dell DRAC Remote SSH Console Redirection. Guy (Help!) 22:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above, article is written as an instruction manual Lets drink Tea 22:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator (WP:NOTGUIDE Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook) --Mhking (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Mhking. Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 02:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No EV --Muhammad(talk) 03:45, 11 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 as complete and utter nonsense. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plumbo

It is a neologism. My WP:PROD nomination was contested by the article's creator on its talk page, so I removed the tag. Unscented (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Unscented (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete protologism, WP:MADEUP one day by a teenage boy, as the article states. pablo_hablo. 22:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is pure, made-up-in-one-day vandalism. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete WP:NEO, WP:NFT; pure vandalism Lets drink Tea 22:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obviously pointless non-notable neologism made up one day. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see why this wasn't deleted already. Completely WP:NEO. Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 02:28, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Murad Gümen

In [OTRS Ticket#2009010810024398] at https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=2333277&ArticleID=2752114&QueueID=59 (for those with OTRS access), a representative for the BLP subject presented the subject's request that the article be removed.

This is a housekeeping action only, I have no opinion as to the outcome. - Philippe 22:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I can't seem to find any policy or guidelines on this type of situation. Wikipedia is not censored, and its goal is to write an encyclopedia, not to satisfy different individuals. While I would be all for fulfilling peoples' requests when appropriate, I think we have to stick to the main goal of writing an encyclopedia. Note that we have to make sure this follows all guidelines and policy for biographies of living people. ~~So, as I see it now, I would recommend keeping this.~~ — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This request probably stems from some controversy concerning the Tall Armenian Tale website, as mentioned in the article. I think we're treading on thin ice to even mention that there might be some evidence that he is related to that website. I would say we should avoid all statements that cannot be supported by multiple reliable sources, especially for BLPs. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Weak delete per arguments below, namely WP:NPF and the fact that notability is going to be really hard to show, especially after removing OR and references to the authorship of the site. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I removed the original research at the end of that paragraph. Lets drink Tea 22:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BLP and WP:NPF apply here. The man is clearly a relatively unknown figure as there is no significant coverage about his work. All the sources refer to the potentially defamatory claim made by others (one includes the irrelevant tidbit about his father) and of the four, two are not reliable sources. I opt for delete on the basis that the subject is a relatively unknown figure, notability outside of these claims is not demonstrated, that the claims are potentially defamatory and harmful to the subject's reputation, and that he has requested deletion. The possibility of harm to a living person is the most important factor here in my view. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the WP:NPF link- I somehow missed that on the BLP page. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment this request for deletion apparently involves the subject's possible connection with a political site, & I imagine the subject considers that the very suggestion is harmful to him. I want to consider the article regardless of the subject's view: about half the article seems to be the authorship of that site. I've looked at the english translations linked in the article & I've checked the talk p, and the ANI discussions at [1]. I do not think the quality of the documentation is sufficient to sustain the section. The question is whether the notability otherwise can be shown. It might, but I don't think the present references address that adequately. DGG (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tricky. I kind of come up with the same answer as DGG. This is the sort of issue where I think sometimes we need a judging panel. My inclination, open to change, would be to delete with a huge note that there's no prejudice against a better sourced article, or something like. Hiding T 12:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 12:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any evidence that the subject is notable for his animation work, and I don't think that we can keep the information on his alleged Armenian genocide denial. For those unfamilar with the subject I would point out that the Armenian genocide was, although later surpassed later in terms of numbers killed, was one of the greatest atrocities of the 20th century. We certainly shouldn't base an article on one accusation of denial, just as we wouldn't have an article about a person based on one accusation of holocaust denial. If the subject does have any notability for his work then we should delete this and start from scratch without mentioning the accusation. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment maybe the article should be about the website, with the animation info removed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete following WP:NPF and WP:BLP and given that the core of their notability 9as an animator is not demonstrated I suspect WP:UNDUE raises its head here too. Anyone can accuse someone else of something (a newspaper article portrayed me as three angry Americans once - innocent on all three counts) but it doesn't make it true or worthy of inclusion. So neither parts separately or combined prove notability and I can see why they'd be concerned about such claims as they could prove damaging to one's career, at the very least (you could also fear for your physical safety being linked to such a contentious issue). (Emperor (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Comment He worked on various things which were notable, but did he have a notable part in them? Not every single animator is notable, are they? Any awards won? Also, if that website is notable enough to mention, I found wikipedia history which links to a site that traces IP addresses of websites. His official website has the exact IP address with the site mentioned, providing its from him. That is the one key fact that would link him to it without any doubt, wouldn't it? Is that a massively popular or commonly talked about site though? If so, it deserves its own article, with the evidence of who created it listed there, since it'd be relevant. Genocide is horrible, but if someone famous went crazy and denied something, that wouldn't make them invisible to history. Dream Focus 19:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Technical note - IP addresses are not conclusive evidence for much of anything. There can be several hundred sites being served from one shared server on the same IP, and the only link between them is that they chose the same hosting provider. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Non-technical note. While agreeing with LinguistAtLarge, I would add that we are not the ones to judge whether an IP address is sufficient evidence for this claim. To do so would be original research. We can't make the potentially career-threatening (if not worse) claim that someone is an Armenian genocide denier without very strong reliable sources to substantiate it. We don't currently have such sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agreed. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:32, 14 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 00:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theory m

Article created by COI editor, non notable and self referenced theory linked to book by relation of creator also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerald R. Griffin and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hilliard Guy Griffin Mfield (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Much too ad-like Lets drink Tea 23:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the article is promotional and not very encyclopedic (it has text in the 2nd person). It does not indicate the notability of "Theory m" by referencing third party sources. The creator clearly has a COI.Synchronism (talk) 07:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've looked at Google Books and Scholar, nothing there to show notabililty. dougweller (talk) 08:08, 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 no consensus. In the future, it may be better to discuss case edits on talk pages rather than mass lumping of articles for AfD, as it makes it impossible to sort out issues. Der Wohltempierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TCM Materia Medica (Others)

The article doesn't appear to be very useful for an encyclopedia. The content is entirely unreferenced and might be better suited for Wikibooks. At the very least, referenced mentions of their use in traditional Chinese medicine should be incorporated into our articles on these plants (or not? - WP:UNDUE). All articles being considered for deletion/discussion under this nomination are below. Rkitko ^(talk) 22:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Herb (General Usage Part 1), Herb (General Usage Part 2), Herb (General Usage Part 3), Herb (Meanings of Terms), Herb (hyperlipidemia), Herb (anti-cancer), Herb (anti-oxidant), Herb (preparation), Herb (patents), Herb (formulas), Herb (Chinese-Japanese Common Herbs), and others like it also have questionable titles and content that doesn't seem to warrant an article on its own, but I've left them out of this nomination. See Herb usage for a whole bunch of quasi-content forks. --Rkitko ^(talk) 22:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expand and possibly combine. the present article is just a bare list; a fuller discussion might be encyclopedic. DGG (talk) 02:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever your opinion of the others, certainly you can agree that Herb (Translation of herb names) should be deleted per WP:LINKFARM? The other articles are just short lists of pinyin/Chinese names with no links to the actual plants. A more complete discussion might help with a companion List of plants used in traditional Chinese medicine, but these article splits are entirely too small, even for summary style. --Rkitko ^(talk) 03:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(1) If a split-article is too short and creates too many links, then methinks the solution is not to split it (i.e. to join it back to the main article), rather than to delete it.

(2) If there are no links to the "original plants", then methinks the solution is to create such links, which has already been done for some plants, as shown below. It takes time to create more links for the other plants. The article is a work-in-progress, and deleting it will simply make it impossible to update it with the relevant links:

Bark-Eucommia, Bulb-cardiocrinum, Flower-loquat, Fruit-tangerine, Leaf-guava , Plant-typhonium, Rhizome-rehmannia, Root-tung oil tree, Seed-oleander, Stem-lambsquarters, Tuber-potato, Oil-walnut.

Based on availability, links are frequently made to the common English names, rather than to the Latin names. For example, it is not possible to link to "Folium Psidii Guajavae" but somewhat trivial to link to guava, although they refer to the same plant/leaf. In this case, the rose by any other name isn't quite the same. Cottonball (talk) 09:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do your sources list the exact species of Guava or is referring to the entire genus Psidium? --Rkitko ^(talk) 12:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sub-articles will be expanded in due course. As the list is large, even for a single category, a bare-bones structure is created to hold latter content. References are not found in each sub-article but are found in the main article,Herb (TCM Classification), namely, "Ou Ming and Li Yanwen. The Traditional Chinese Drug and Its Usage. (page 328). Hai Feng Publishing Co. 1994. ISBN: 962-238-199-5." and "Nigel Wiseman. "English-Chinese Chinese-English Dictionary of Chinese Medicine. Pages 1-387. ISBN:7-5357-1656-3." However, if deemed necessary, these references can be repeated at the end of each sub-article. Cottonball (talk) 02:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References of works in Chinese will be included subsequently, as these need to be translated. Cottonball (talk) 02:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the above, English references have been made to one or more herbs in each of the sub-articles. More research or scientific references will be made to illustrate or confirm the medicinal use of these herbs in the modern context.Cottonball (talk) 05:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep All The nomination's statements that content is not useful and is entirely unreferenced both seem to be false. The contradictory statement that the referenced portions should be merged elsewhere indicate that this is not a deletion discussion and so should be handled using a more appropriate process such as WP:MERGE. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the pages should be deleted: Herb (Translation of herb names) and Herb (patents)? The first because of WP:LINKFARM and the second for its questionable encyclopedic value. Do we have any other lists of patents? I suspect only when they're notable... And, in my humble opinion, WP:MERGE is broken. The merge tags sit there for months or years until its dealt with. I still maintain, however, that the level of detail in each of these articles is unnecessary and not useful. Why start each entry with the pinyin name in the English encyclopedia when they're not loan words? The common English names listed are vague and ambiguous - which species do these refer to? --Rkitko ^(talk) 12:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The word species itself can be vague. For example it is said that "A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. While in many cases this definition is adequate, more precise or differing measures are often used, such as based on similarity of DNA or morphology." Are you referring to similarity of DNA or morphology? Hair-splitting can be attempted at any level of detail, and may not be very productive, especially when we are talking about terms that were used hundreds or even thousands of years ago. Even authors like Nigel Wiseman would have considerable difficulty in finding references to DNA similarity in ancient Chinese texts.

Keep as per Colonel Warden. Edward321 (talk) 14:03, 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 delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 00:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Edmund Smythe

Unknown to Google. I suspect he and his friend Charleston Millar are a hoax. William Avery (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hoax. No trace of him on Google Books or Worldcat. JohnCD (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Smells like a hoax to me as well. Lets drink Tea 22:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced at best, probable hoax. Edward321 (talk) 23:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - probably a hoax as can't be found on Google. Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 02:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like a hoax --Muhammad(talk) 03:50, 11 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 00:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charleston Millar

Even this author's "more famous works" are, like himself and his pseudonyms, unknown to Google. I suspect he and his friend Thomas Edmund Smythe are a hoax. William Avery (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hoax. No trace of him or his works on Google Books or Worldcat. JohnCD (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spelling of the name Millar (noob version of Miller) suggests that this is hoax Lets drink Tea 23:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 23:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - most likely a hoax as can't be searched on Google. Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 02:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete found only 2 results with google search both linking to wikipedia. --Muhammad(talk) 03:51, 11 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. I'm closing this, since the nomination obviously no longer applies to the current version of the article. Mgm|^(talk) 12:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Polygamy in India

Delete while the topic may be encyclopedic, this beginning is not helpful in its creation. I think we should start it again, sourced, rather than starting with an unsourced extraordinary claim. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm such an obliging guy, I started it again for you, and this time with sources. Keep. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above Lets drink Tea 22:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Current version is organized and sourced, thanks to LinguistAtLarge. Edward321 (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." from WP:ATD. If the page can be improved (and it has already been shown), then it shouldn't be deleted. Killiondude (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 06:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. You seriously wanted to delete "Polygamy in India"?!—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:24, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Yellow Notepad

Non-notable software, no notable characteristics, no notable incidents surrounding it. It appears to be quite new, maybe from 2008. On google I can only find the download review at ZDNet and its own support forum Enric Naval (talk) 01:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - after a google search, I don't see any page about it on Microsoft. Thus, this has to go. Versus22_talk 04:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Why would you expect to find anything about this on the Microsoft page? I'm not sure what you mean. §FreeRangeFrog 18:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 21:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable software Lets drink Tea 23:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources writing about this software -- Whpq (talk) 16:40, 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 delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 00:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where is God (short film)

Student film of unclear notability. Google search for "Bryan Fernando" "Where is God" results in four links. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 20:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Afkatk - The Mind Reader (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Baleet Per above Lets drink Tea 23:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In agreement with the nominator's concerns. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator --Mhking (talk) 00:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 00:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a complete lack of any coverage whatsoever in any sources whatsoever (even unreliable ones) -- Whpq (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a hoax made from a popular joke about a priest scolding 2 naughty kids. --Muhammad(talk) 03:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See first joke here --Muhammad(talk) 03:56, 11 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 09:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Palh

Delete a surname? a caste? a tribe? no indication of notability whatever it is. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability and short useless stub. Afkatk - The Mind Reader (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. The page contains insufficient material to make sense of it. Lacks substantive content and context. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of context. The content is so insufficient that if notability is established, a recreation from scratch is not a great effort. -- Whpq (talk) 16:48, 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 Speedy Delete by Akradecki as A7. {NAC) Pastor Theo (talk) 00:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MuktiBangla

Delete no indication of notability of this group; no sources; no significant coverage in 3rd party reliable sources. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, no claim to notability. Benefix (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 keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pet monkey (formerly Monkeys in ships)

Unencyclopaedic article, pretty ridiculous title Jack (talk) 19:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete And if you think this title is ridiculous, it was originally called "Sailor Monkey", and then there was someone who thought that "Monkeys on ships" would sound more intelligent if it was called "Monkeys in ships" (it didn't). The page survived deletion three years ago, apparently because it was considered to be as fun as a barrel of... anyway, it hasn't gone from fun to encyclopedic. An article can be well-sourced and entertaining. In this case it's neither of those things. Mandsford (talk) 20:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The article is now about monkeys as pets, rather than monkeys in ships. Since this isn't the same article that I voted to delete a couple of days ago, I see no reason why we shouldn't have an article about monkeys as pets. The admin want to do one of those relisted thingies rather than making a ruling. Mandsford (talk) 01:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (regretfully) - one day someone will write the definitive article about pets on board ships, to include parrots, sloths, Pottos, wombats etc., but this isn't it. . . Rcawsey (talk) 20:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Enough monkeying around. Lets drink Tea 23:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pretty ridiculous nomination. To see what can be made of such a topic, please see Crushing by elephant. It's a Featured Article. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unlike the elephants, the monkeys apparently did not have official government duties. Not these monkeys, anyway. WillOakland (talk) 10:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have been bold and rendered the discussion moot by moving the article to the title Pet monkey which is a more general topic which we do not yet seem to cover. This seems a reasonable home for this content while allowing us to expand in related directions. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (even with the renaming) as the sources do not support this as any kind of broad phenomenon. Warden can create an article about another subject if he wants.WillOakland (talk) 10:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under the new title, we can easily see numerous sources. These indicate that there is often a nautical connection but we no longer have to confine ourself to this and can observe that Frederick the Great had a pet monkey, say. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a far better use of the article, a problem I can see however is the title. Maybe it should be pet simian as "monkey" generally excludes apes (and therefore poor little Bubbles (chimpanzee)). Jack (talk) 12:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I originally found the article title humorous, but upon further review I discovered there are multiple sources listed on the talk page, and Google Books reveals many more: Anecdotes of Monkeys by William Stewart Rose, Singular Creatures, and how They Were Found by George Cupples, et al, Four Hundred Animal Stories by Robert Cochrane, Anecdotes of a Life on the Ocean by David Cowans, et al, etc. This is an interesting slice of history which could definitely be improved to a respectable article (the fact that no one has yet done so, while not probative, might have more to do with the current title—I'd recommend "Shipboard monkeys" or "Ship's monkey"). This article reflects the spirit of Wikipedia, and should be preserved (again) rather than deleted as "unencylopedic". – 74 14:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would propose to close this AfD for mootness, because the nominated title has now been made into a redirect. Apparently what was once on this page has been redirected or merged to an article on Pet monkey, and the AfD header has been added to that title. "Pet monkey" (I'd prefer monkeys as pets for the title, myself) is an easily article-worthy subject; we have articles or sections about snakes as pets, ferrets, and so forth. Monkeys as pets have indeed been the subject of a minor American-style moral panic, complete with proposed legislation that would ban all primates as pets in the United States, as a result of the misadventures of Travis the chimpanzee. So you've got potential multiple "reliable" sources on the subject now as well. (You wonder whether our iggorant Congresspipples are even aware of how broad a brush they're using.) - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This material should be kept in some form. I too prefer monkeys as pets but Pet monkey seems more standard for Wikipedia naming conventions. — Reinyday, 16:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep if renaming per conventions needs to take place then so be it. Article has been renamed and broadened to rest the original article in a historical perspective and there is plenty of notability of pet monkeys and sourcing to document this. Hopefully those who simply love the cuties will choose to work on and expand this appropriately. -- Banjeboi 22:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No proper reliable sources support the article.--Sloane (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Here's a few that might help out of 500 searchable books with the phrase "his pet monkey", Here's another 300 using trained "pet monkey" and here's a few dozen news search possibilities. -- Banjeboi 12:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the now expanded and sourced article and discuss renaming on the article's talk page. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per pet monkey suggestions rdunn PLIB 10:31, 12 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 09:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of management topics

As with the AFD for List of hospice-related topics this doesn't have any function beyond that of a category and Category:Management already exists. It doesn't even have any of the redlinks which seem to be keeping List of BDSM topics alive. Benefix (talk) 19:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Useless list Lets drink Tea 23:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep most categories can support lists. They are a useful alternative form of navigation. some peoplewill prefer one or the other for different purposes. it is no secret that i much prefer lists, but I accept that some people may like it the other way. The previous deletion was wrong, though understandable being a relatively small number of loosely related topics. This would be much more wrong, since it is a much more useful and more extensive list. DGG (talk) 03:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a workforce development professional, category lists like this highlight the diversity and detail of a subject, which helps me inform others as well as create more accurate subject areas for reports (and my PersonalBrain). I agree that it's an alternate, and sometime more accurate and insightful form of navigation. (talk) 11:34, 09 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Redundancy with categories is never a reason to delete a list, especially since lists, unlike categories, can be broken down topically without the use of separate pages. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid list topic, although I'd like to see each entry expanded such that it was not totally redundant with the category. -Atmoz (talk) 17:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because lists should not be deleted in favor of categories. This is a far more useful navigational device than Category:Management. And a lack of red links is certainly not a reason for deletion—article development is only one of the purposes of lists. DHowell (talk) 01:07, 13 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 00:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perry Welman

This is a young artist with limited notablity at this time. The only references appear to be word-of-mouth, and therefore not reliable. In order for this to even be considered an accpetable article, it would need to be edited down to a stub. It's essentially about one work. However, the references at this point are not verifiable. freshacconci talktalk 19:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —freshacconci talktalk 19:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable yet... the only entry on Google is the Wiki article itself! Teapotgeorge^Talk 19:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not ready for an encyclopedic entry....Modernist (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless additional sources and grounds for notability can be established.Vartanza (talk) 04:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it doesn't reach notabilty level for Wikipedia and very much looks to be self written. Where did all this info come from? It doesn't look to have come from a third party source.--Artypants, ^Babble 15:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promotional tone could be fixed, but no independent source, nor can I find any. JohnCD (talk) 16:12, 12 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 09:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of rap rock vocalists

As with List of hip hop singers, a pointless list which is better served by categories. Benefix (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Punkmorten (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this contains redlinks to needed articles, something a category can't do. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a general rule, every category that is not hopeless unmanageable should support a list also if people are willing to make them. Some people actually prefer categories, and they do have their uses, but that is no reason to remove navigational devices that other people find useful.As this list gives the name ofthe group, it provides more information than a category could. DGG (talk) 03:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If lists aren't wanted then why is there such a thing as WP:FL? --WebHamster03:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Linguist & DGG. In no way is this list redundant to a category. JulesH (talk) 12:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because lists should not be deleted in favor of categories. "Pointless" is a personal opinion, not a reason for deletion. The category is far less populated than this list, which demonstrates that categories are not always as well maintained as lists. This list should be used to help update the category, and vice versa. DHowell (talk) 01:13, 13 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 09:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of guitarists

As with the AFD for List of Vocalists the category is more than enough for this infinitely expandable list. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of keyboardists. Benefix (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It serves its purpose as a quick access point for, err people interested in guitarists. 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? WebHamster19:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a general rule, every category should support a list also if people are willing to make them. Some people actually prefer categories, and they do have their uses, but that is no reason to remove navigational devicesthat other people find useful. As this list gives the name of the groups, it provides more information than a category ever could. DGG (talk) 03:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a list is more than a category could ever be and even can evolve into a WP:FL.--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 03:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CLN. This is a list that provides functionality not provided by categories which makes them valid navigational aides. The length probably warrants sublists, but that can be handled through editing instead of deletion- Mgm|^(talk) 12:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you notice List of lead guitarists and List of rhythm guitarists are linked in the intro? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I note that Miley Cyrus has just been added to this list. And because the same editor added that bit of info to her article, I know that Miley Cyrus is a guitarist, just like Mark Knopfler and Earl Klugh (to pick two random guitarists whose names start with K). This list can never be complete and because of the lack of entry criteria will be stuffed with entries like Miley Cyrus or any other minor celeb who is photographed holding a guitar. A category serves the same very limited purpose. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You doubt the notability of Miley Cyrus as a guitarist? Even Jimi Hendrix cited her as a big inspiration and wrote "Foxy Lady" especially about her. Not to mention legions of female guitarists like Jennifer Batten, Wendy Melvoin, Steve Vai and Prince who followed her pioneering work. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 13:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I always suspected that Vai was a woman. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. Any issue with individual items on the list is an issue for editing, not deleting the entire list. The list may also need to be split up into individual lists by genre or time period; this does not mean it should be deleted. Lack of completeness is not grounds to delete the list; we even have a template that explains that the list in question cannot hope to be complete... such a template would be unnecessary if the situation is was intended for were grounds to delete the list. JulesH (talk) 13:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (from the aforementioned and Kept AFD) 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) ... As I said then is still true, what in your Nom Rational is the grounds for deletion? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 02:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CLN, DGG, and Mgm. This serves a different purpose from a category. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 07:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because lists should not be deleted in favor of categories. This is a far more useful navigational device than Category:Management. And a lack of red links is certainly not a reason for deletion—article development is only one of the purposes of lists. DHowell (talk) 01:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because lists should not be deleted in favor of categories. Nor are there an infinite amount of notable guitarists, so this list is not "infinitely expandable". If it gets too big it can be split by genre and/or time period per JulesH. As for Miley Cyrus, she may not be Eric Clapton or Stevie Ray Vaughan, but she has actually been noted for playing the guitar. Also note that the List of keyboardists AfD resulted in a near-unanimous keep, and the nominator has admitted to being a sockpuppet. DHowell (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nomination withdrawn, no delete !votes

List of drummers

As with the AFD for List of Vocalists the category is more than enough for this infinitely expandable list. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of keyboardists. Benefix (talk) 18:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It serves its purpose as a quick access point for, err drummers. 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? --WebHamster19:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since this list serves a couple of purposes a category can't. (1) It lists the drummer and the band he is/was in. (2) It contains a drummer who does not have an article, but whose band does. (3) It can be used for redlinks to drummers who need articles. The WP:OTHERSTUFF argument is irrelevant. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a general rule, every category should support a list also if people are willing to make them. Some people actually prefer categories, and they do have their uses, but that is no reason to remove navigational devicesthat other people find useful. As this list gives the name of the groups, it provides more information than a category could. DGG (talk) 03:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - With the caveat that the restriction on only including drummers with their own article is kept, otherwise the list quickly becomes overrun with people adding themselves or their friends who play in an un-notable band. Actually expanding that restriction to allow drummers who don't have their own page but who have a section within the article for a band they are/were in would be good. srushe (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:LinguistAtLarge who adequately worded the WP:CLN criteria that apply here. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the above, and agree with Srushe's suggestion about a change in criteria, as expanding to include drummers in notable bands but who do not have their own article will allow this list to become even more useful. JulesH (talk) 13:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn. Benefix (talk) 19:36, 11 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 00:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Kufayev

I believe this doesn't pass WP:BIO. The subject does not seem to have been the subject of multiple independant articles, except for 2 reviews, the only other sources seem self published. Delete TheRingess (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. —94.196.64.239 (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —94.196.64.239 (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems notable, and interesting..Modernist (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to be inspiring and fascinating the subject does not have to be a future of articles from the media Mahasidhi 11:53, 10 March 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahasidhi (talk • contribs)
Keep. The two reviews mentioned by the nominator are in The Independent, one of the United Kingdom's four serious national general newspapers, and by Brian Sewell, the country's best-known art critic (although not one of my favourites). There's no need to look any further for notability when we have two such sources. Of course any content that can't be sourced can be removed from the article, but that's not a reason for deletion, just editing. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Phil Bridger. The article certainly needs cleaning up. Ty 01:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it has references, and should be kept, only items not showing source should be removed, such as the "Spiritual transformation" section, otherwise it just needs a little bit more work.--Artypants, ^Babble 15:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep seems notable to me.--Judo112 (talk) 17:42, 12 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, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AlMaghrib Institute

No Credibility I really have no answer to what this article is doing on Wikipedia. It was created a couple of weeks ago and written as if it is a personal blog for a person with no notability, by one user who I suspect is the article's subject himself. I think this article should be deleted. Board56 (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC) — Board56 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The lack of citations is definitely an issue, but I can find sources like this with a Google search so the institute may have enough notability to avoid deletion. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 00:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Updated I've taken the initiative to update the article with more information and citations. Please consider keeping the article. Uzairkhan31(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC). — Uzairkhan31 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — neuro^(talk) 00:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close this flawed nomination--eh, nominator, care to actually check the article history? "Created a few weeks ago"? It's been around since 2006! Moreover, it's not about a person, and it certainly doesn't read like a blog. Admins, I propose that this AfD proposal is so flawed that it should be withdrawn, regardless of the article's merits. And even if the AfD continues to run, it doesn't stand much of a chance of success, given these Google News hits, which lists such articles as this one in the Washington Post. A bunch of right-wing websites refer to the institute as a Jihad school; surely that is almost a guarantee for notability. Then, in 2005 the school had 2800 students, according to the San Jose Mercury News. I hope that's enough. Drmies (talk) 01:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: User Board56 has made no edits outside of AlMaghrib Institute and Muhammad Alshareef, a person associated with the school whose article Board56 also put up for deletion--citing the exact same rationale, incidentally. It's a pretty blatant case of SPA. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support Drmies's statements74.69.39.11 (talk) 16:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I get a hint of spam from reading this article. Might just be me, but... Peridon (talk) 22:52, 14 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. — Aitias // discussion 00:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darling (Eyes Set to Kill song)

Article about a musical recording (album, single, etc.) that does not indicate the importance of the subjectQuestionOfAnarchy (talk) 01:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication that this song has stand-alone notability. Normally I would say to redirect, but 1) this song claims to be off of two albums, so there's no clear album to redirect to, and 2) it's a specific enough title that you'd have to be looking for this song specifically, so if you didn't find it, you'd just go to the artist's article. —C.Fred (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable non-charting song. JamesBurns (talk) 09:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:08, 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 delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Degree programs at Brown University

This is a directory of courses offered by a university. Elcosamagna (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a prospectus replacement. Nuttah (talk) 15:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:POINT nomination from banned user/sockmaster. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. Ohnoitsjamie raises a good argument, but it seems silly to permit spam just because a banned user suggested we delete it. THF (talk) 03:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY TrulyBlue (talk) 10:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (violates WP:NOT) --Mhking (talk) 00:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Even though we should, per WP:BAN, discard, I can see this getting nominated again by a user who is not banned. Continue with the AFD per the WP:IAR policy. MuZemike 00:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and then consider whether to Merge back into the main article or list. Deciding that is inapprorpiate for AfD. DGG (talk) 03:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article does not provide secondary, reliable sources. The only sources is directly from Brown University which is primary. If any Brown degree program has received notable coverage in secondary sources to require an article it can be made. However, as is, this article is a directory of programs derived from primary sources, and is not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. -Atmoz (talk) 17:33, 11 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. — Aitias // discussion 00:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gay women against rape

Reason the page should be deleted Aside from the organization itself not being notable, the band Gwar's name is indicated to not mean or stand for anything (as indicated on their own wiki entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwar#Etymology )-=Worloq=- (talk) 09:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've notified the author. Drmies (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm a big fan of the graphic novel, but this "organization" only gets a passing mention at best in it. I can't imagine how this is notable enough to have an article. Rnb (talk) 21:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no out of Universe significance indicated or possible (given that the band do not take their name from the graphic novel). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a two-frame passing mention in the graphic novel. Were FICT up and running, it'd easily fail Sceptre ^(talk) 09:34, 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 Nicole Scherzinger. As pointed out below, references don't necessarily mean it doesn't fall afoul of CRYSTAL. Per general precendent I've seen elsewhere and sensible comments below, letting a redirect go ahead so that relevant info can be folding into a more proper ___location in parent article. Der Wohltempierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Her Name Is Nicole

No evidence when or if this will be produced, nor is there evidence of what will be on the album. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL Ejfetters (talk) 00:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:CRYSTAL. JamesBurns (talk) 09:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is evidence of its release. one of the references in the article says that the album will be released some time after doll domination. i dont think it should be deleted as of yet.

KEEP (Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The album will be released after the PCD tour and two singles of the album have been released.

KEEP Nrxd (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums & WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 14:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP BGTopDon's User Page Contributions 18:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--a lot of words and a lot of 'references' that don't add up to an article that can avoid the Crystal Ball. Drmies (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete violates WP:CRYSTAL; we don't know when or even IF this album will be made. --Mhking (talk) 00:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The whole crystalness of this is lost in this nomination as this article has existed for two years. This album has supposed to come out multiple times, but something (record company egos, PCD album conflicts, the music media, lousy choice of singles, an ex of Nicole's putting a pin in a voodoo doll) keeps it from being released. If this does get a deletion at least redirect it to a sourced section on Nicole Scherzinger. There are sources for this, especially for the futility of the album coming out. Nate • (chatter) 00:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain. Because it's futile, the article should be kept? If you're arguing for a redirect, or perhaps a merge and redirect, which I think you might think a good idea, please make that clear and explain why. Drmies (talk) 02:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because it was supposed to come out multiple times, but factors like the conflict with the creation of Doll Domination and the lousy marketing of the singles have cursed the album to a sort of development hell that can easily be traced through these two years. I'm saying I'd rather it be kept, but if it is deleted that a redirect be maintained since it was a proposed part of her career. Nate • (chatter) 03:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deletebecause the references dont add up, ASCAP doesnt prove what songs appear on the album and we dont even know if it will ever be released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lil-unique1 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Eve (rapper)'s album Flirt has the same situation as Nicole's. If this article should be deleted, there's no exception for another albums. 123.203.65.44 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- And has been nominated. Ejfetters (talk) 11:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep seems a bit hasty to delete this article.--Judo112 (talk) 17:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Im changing my mind to say strong DELETE because there is no release date for this album, interscope has not officially confirmed that it will be released, nicole has not said she plans to release it any time soon so technically all of the information will be out of date when the album is released in 2020 (SARCASM). plus half the songs are being given to other artists. i was once a big contributor to this article now i see no point to it. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

You say it yourself their is no release date as of now, their is no confirmation on either release or no release. We cant delete on speculations about a not possible album when its very likely that the album will be released sooner or later.--Judo112 (talk) 18:24, 13 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 00:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Lotto (1990s)

The former version of HL was a very small game that might be confused with the current game. I don't see any reason to continue this article. No Annuities (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It was only in Idaho, and you couldn't win more than $2,000. Doesn't sound very notable. Dream Focus 16:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything on this other than [2]. Hobit (talk) 13:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- DELETE-if it were a current game, OK, but then we have the multi-state HL... Loveyourcar (talk) 17:19, 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 delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 00:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jürgen Flüss

No evidence of notability with the German or English spellings of his name. Scarcely a claim to notability and ghits establish only some self published links. StarM 02:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 02:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 02:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He claims to have received several awards, don't know if they are notable. See here: [3] His website is a mess, and I won't say a word about his art. I'd say if he's notable enough and currently lives in Berlin, why does he not have an article on de.WP? Or, to begin with, why do I not find anything about him on Google? Plus, do we need an article where the tags need more space than the content? --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 03:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability shown. Agathoclea (talk) 08:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable artist. Drmies (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above..Modernist (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is nothing I can see that is notable. All links are sites/info that he has created. If no one writes about him, then he can't be notable. Interesting music from his site though (note I don't mention his art).--Artypants, ^Babble 15:33, 12 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 00:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Muslim soldiers

Baseless, and pointless topic. Most people in the talk page seem to think it should be deleted. I also feel the same way. Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with caveats- List as it stands is overly broad. Perhaps trim out the 1900s and rename List of historic Muslim military figures. A central list of historic figures would be easily maintained and verified. Problems come in when we start talking about modern Muslim military figures. So, create a different page called List of modern Muslim military figures. If that needs to come back to AfD, so be it, but there is no reason to throw out the easily salvageable parts of the list. SMSpivey (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural - there was a previous AfD of this article that resulted in a keep. SMSpivey (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spivefy Sceptre ^(talk) 18:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment haha, sure, I can do it. SMSpivey (talk) 18:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep The article is encyclopedic, but it needs a cleaner title (perhaps "List of historical Islamic military leaders"...or something better) and focused editing. But I don't agree with the argument for deleting it -- it is not baseless or pointless. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY --Mhking (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is no definition of "Muslim soldier" that will satisfy even the majority of users. Deb (talk) 12:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a general rule, every category should support a list also if people are willing to make them. Some people prefer categories, and they do have their unique uses, but that is no reason to remove navigational devices that other people find useful. As a list gives associated information, such as the military conflicts involved s, it provides more information than a category ever could. I did some cleanup. Dividing the list might be reasonable, and could be discussed separately. As should be needless to say, it doesn't violate NOTDIRECTORY, for it lists only the notable 0.001% or so with wp articles (or red links qualified for them). What "baseless' or "pointless" means in this context i cannot determine. DGG (talk) 03:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just think creating a category instead would be better. Or else son, you'll have a List of Hindu Soldiers and List of Christian soldiers, and soon Wikipedia would become a Wiki-battlefeld of religions. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, the title of the article should certainly be changed to something less inflammatory. Once that happens, there shouldn't be a problem with articles like List of historical Christian military figures, etc. It is an encyclopedic and logical list that could be expanded to include a ton of contextual text. SMSpivey (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just realised that there is a list of Hindu soldiers as well, which is being well maintained. If we maintain this article equally well, and make sure terrorists are not a part of it, then it can go upto the status of a featured article. So I guess, we can close the AfD and keep the article.--Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I'm trying to AGF, here, and perhaps I'm a bit confused, but bear with me. So, Wikipedia is not censored, and "terrorists" will probably be added to a list of notable Muslim military figures if they are Muslim, notable, and related to military action. All of these determinations on particular individuals are independent of what we decide in this AfD or about this article. As I said before, it makes sense to change the title of the article to be less inflammatory and suggestive, but it Wikipedia generally doesn't leave out a group of people thought to be "terrorists" by another group simply for that reason. See the AfD and arguments about List of war crimes to see how everyone's voice should be heard, and tempered against one another, in a place like Wikipedia. SMSpivey (talk) 06:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, so lets us all pretend that this AfD never existed, and leave this article for Wikiproject Islam to pickup and maintain. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 02:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As a list of people selected for importance in this category and who have, or can reasonably be expected to have, their own articles, this topic satisfies the Wikipedia guideline for appropriate topics for stand-alone lists. The list includes information such as dates and reasons for prominence that may make it more useful than a category. References should be added and the list should be edited for consistent formatting, but it contributes to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia and should be kept. BRMo (talk) 04:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's a perfectly fine list, and is notable. Per DGG for most of my reasoning. Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 04:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per DGG and MathCool. -Axmann8 (Talk) 12:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move this to a sensible title, since this article is an Officers' Club and not a place for the enlisted men. If you're making a list of "Muslim military leaders" then say so. Mandsford (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to List of historic Muslim military leaders and rescope. The intersection of "Muslim" and "military leader" is, in most cases, trivial and not worthy of mention in a list. There is nothing special about the fact that a particular military leader from Iran, for instance, is a Muslim given that most Iranians are followers of Islam. What this list should contain is Muslim military leaders who are known primarily for their connection to and/or actions in the name of Islam (e.g. Saladin). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:34, 14 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 01:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Los Super Reyes

Fails V with no footnoted RS including info about BLPs, fails wp:music with no albums for this band, written like a spammy, COI, MySpace page. -- Jeandré, 2009-02-28t08:31z 08:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Los Super Reyes page shouldn't be deleted.~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelo61 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have stricken this !vote because there is a second !vote with more rationale by the same editor below. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you guys don't know who they are then go to their myspace or mtv tr3s page or google Los Super Reyes and find out.
- Their debut album is called El Regreso De Los Reyes go to billboard.com to find more info and they are coming out with a new album this year.
Delete: Can find no evidence their only album ever charted. None of their singles have ever charted either. JamesBurns (talk) 04:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: Never heard of them before, but the same applies to like a million other groups. Pretty well-written, but without cleanup, it's a mess. --Kaizer13 (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable. JoannaMinogue (talk) 08:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since Chelo61 gave a reference for their album charting, and since MGM encouraged me to separate the wheat from the chaff. A charting album on a major label, that's good enough. Thanks Mac. Delete since their only album hasn't charted (but it is on a major label), and there is no evidence given of notability. If the band goes, so should El Regreso De Los Reyes, their album. Drmies (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Their album El Regreso De Los Reyes is charted and they are coming out with a new album in 2009. Go to billboard.com to find more info on their album or just google their album. Their hit single "Muchacha Triste" was #1 on MiTRL on MTV Tr3s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelo61 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're interested in Wikipedia keeping this article, don't tell editors to Google something. This is an encyclopedia, not a chatroom. Add the relevant information from reliable sources to the article in the proper fashion. Oh, Google is not an authority. Drmies (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Here's a link of their album chart info billboard.comChelo61 (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do y'all want to delete Los Super Reyes?Chelo61 (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note--that's the fourth "don't delete" vote by Chelo61; I condensed his earlier three votes into one. He's also engaged in edit-warring in the article, twice reverting my cleanup efforts. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Billboard link Chel061 provided is a valid source and it clearly establishes they had a charted album thus meeting inclusion criteria. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A 130 peak on The Billboard 200 and a high peak on a genre list does not qualify per Wikipedia:Music#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. -- Jeandré, 2009-03-10t13:59z
  - How exactly doesn't that meet "Has had a charted single or album on any national music chart." As far as I can tell both those charts are national and the Billboard 200 is valid because it is based on sales information. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - They are national, but 130 is not notable (tho several top 20s may be). Hitting a genre list also doesn't make it notable. If doing these were notable there would have been reliable, published, third party news articles. -- Jeandré, 2009-03-11t14:05z
Keep While I think that artists shouldn't have to have charted in order to be notable, thank you for supplying us with this. Hey, it's good enough for me now. --Kaizer13 (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BAND criterion #6, since this band has 2 members who were formerly members of the independently notable Kumbia Kings. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 08:02, 12 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 and redirect, preserving the history for GFDL compliance. Mackensen (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waldo Faldo

I am also nominating the following related pages:

very insignificant fictional characters, hardly enough real world information to give them their own articles, no where apparent to merge either Ejfetters (talk) 10:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have learned from reviewing Adrian Monk at WP:GAC that a fictional character can be largely sourced by the primary source. Thus, if the shows are available on DVD all that is needed is the actual episode name or number as a ref. If there is any reasonable real world info these articles can be sourced. The question is where the notability borderline falls. If the show were a current show, these characters would probably be kept. Since the show is a pre-internet show, it has limited resources. I am not sure it should be treated differently than current shows, however.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- My only thing is I don't see enough Real World information. I know the information in the articles is probably correct, its just can't see enough real world information to give them their own articles. How about if they get merged somehow into a List of page? Thats the only thing I could think of, but then again, still would need real world info. Maybe enough real world info on the group of characters together is out there to piece them all together in one article. I am torn. I will try to look for real world info. on them though and see. Ejfetters (talk) 02:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just because there is a long list of things the character said and did in the series, that doesn't make him notable. Might as well copy the whole script into the article! Deb (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All. Minor non-notable fictional characters which haven't received substantial coverage from reliable secondary sources. Articles contain only plot summary in the form of character backgrounds, other in-universe details, and trivia. Without secondary sources, it is impossible for the article to have real-world information. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All as these articles are completely unsourced, as well as failing WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:FICT. There is no information beyond what is revealed in the plot of the television series Family Matters, as none of these articles contains any real-world coverage these fictional characters. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and then consider whether to Merge or Redirect into a suitable article or list. Such should be the default way to deal with these, and it does not take AfD. these were long running characters in a major show. Tony's argument that they should be deleted because not current is a gross violation of a basic notability principle, that notability is permanent. indeed, one might even say that to keep the information for older shows is particularly important in an encyclopedia. We are not the encyclopedia of the internet world only. Given that provision of WP:N, and that he admits he would keep them if current, i expect he will withdraw the nomination. Deb isright, that the present articles need drastic trimming, but I do not see why the need for editing means the need for deletion. DGG (talk) 03:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They aren't long running characters, they were insignificant recurring guest roles that were not a major part of the show. There is no real world information that can be found on them. The major characters have articles and are not AFD. Even those should be merged into one article, as was decided to be done in Home Improvement. Also, he didn't nominate them. I did. Ejfetters (talk) 03:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all I don't know anything about these topics but had no difficulty finding sources which indicate that Waldo Faldo is an endearing character in a highly successful TV show and so has attracted significant notice. The nomination thus fails WP:BEFORE in that proper searches for sources have not been made and obvious alternatives to deletion, like merger with Family Matters, have not been properly considered. Deletion of numerous articles on such flimsy grounds is unacceptable. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry Colonel, but please forgive for stating that you regularly make this kind of unsubstatiated claim. None of the sources you have found in your "research" identify the characters per se. Sure it is easy to find lots ghits about the series Family matters, or about specific episodes, or the actors that feature in them, but you have failed to find significant real-world coverage from a reliable secondary source about the fictional characters which are the subject matter of these articles. You need to be more specific, as vague unsubstatniated claims need to be backed up with firm evidence that the characters themselves are notable. Scattergun claims are the badge of a scatterbrain mind. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. I provided a search link and the first hit was an article in the Washington Post entitled The Rise of Waldo Faldo which is specifically about this character. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the article in question is an interview with the actor that plays the character. You really must learn, Colonel, to back up accusations with real facts, not pretend ones. Notability requires objective evidence - "pseudo-research" that you are so fond of just won't do. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is named for the character not the actor and contains material about the character such as Of late, Waldo, with his 1.0 grade-point average, has found his calling in cooking and enrolled in culinary school. Waldo first appeared as sidekick to the school bully (Larenz Tate) who terrorized Urkel. The material about the actor who plays this character provides the real world content of which you are so fond. There is no case to answer here as the character is clearly notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't judge a book by its cover: the interview provides evidence that the actor is notable, not the character. If it was the character that was being interviewed, I would be inclined to agree with you, but fictional characters can't give interviews - they aren't real people. You are going to have to come up with at least some real-world evidence that this character is notable to support you claims, but an interveiw with an actor is not it. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be creating a burden that would be impossible to meet. If there's no "real-world" information, then it fails PLOT; if there is "real-world" information, then it only shows the notability of a "real-world" subject, but not the fictional character itself. How exactly can any fictional character ever be notable under such requirements? DHowell (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is general consensus on Wikipedia that articles should not be split and split again into ever more minutiae of detail treatment, with each split normally lowering the level of significant real-world coverage contained in an article. This means that while television series Family Matters may be the subject of significant real-world coverage, it is not normally advisable to have a separate article on every fictional character, episode, or scene that appears in the series, such that the coverage contains only trivial details or only information about the plot. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all into a list of characters. Hobit (talk) 15:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect all to List of Family Matters characters, which was redirected to Family Matters in January and should IMO be restored. Character lists are an often recommended practice for characters whose articles do/would lack significant real-world information, but who have "some" notability otherwise (per Family Matters, these characters were ~~main~~ characters for multiple seasons). – sgeureka ^t•c 14:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the list above unless it was redirected through an AfD.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or merge to List of Family Matters characters after reverting that redirect. But whether to keep or merge doesn't need to be decided at AfD. That's what talk pages are for. DHowell (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Character is clearly part of notable television series, and there is enough information on the page to warrant his own article. Dream Focus 12:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Family Matters characters which should be turned into a full article for this purpose. These are relatively minor characters which are better served by selective coverage in list than stand alone articles. I think the nominator has drawn the line in approximately the right place as to what should be listified and what should be kept outright (i.e. Laura Winslow and Steve Urkle, are not bundled in this nomination). Eluchil404 (talk) 20:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Family Matters characters. Individually, these character articles do not satisfy the guidelines in place as part of WP:FICT at this time. Several of the characters could have reasonable, well-sources, articles about them and I can be convinced of their individual notability-- but the articles as they currently stand do not do this. If these better articles are subsequently written, then the redirects can be removed. JRP (talk) 17:23, 15 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. A7 Tone 18:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nabil Rastani :history of ancient Iran

(Twinkle stole my long-winded rationale, so here's the digest version:) Fails WP:NB by miles. Zilch references / sources / GHits. Author's page (same creator) CSD'd under A7. Prod removed. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per "wtf" :) Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:50, 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 List of elements by stability of isotopes. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Radioactive Elements

Article that claims to list "all radioactive elements"; previously PRODed and SecondedPRODed; all elements have radioactive isotopes, so the list would have to list all elements and their respective levels with radioactive isotopes —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 17:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any useful information to List of elements by stability of isotopes and redirect as a plausible search term.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of elements by stability of isotopes as it is entirely redundant to that list. Reyk _YO! 05:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article contains information not in "List of elements by stability of isotopes". First, it is in order of the Atomic number which the other is not. Second, it has the ionic charge which is not listed in the other article. JRSpriggs (talk) 09:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- the list in the other article is sortable if you want to see it in order of atomic number. Click on the little square icon underneath the "atomic number" heading. Reyk _YO! 09:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ionic charges are wrong, and what is even meant by them is unclear. All elements can have no charge, and all can form ions, usually with a variety of charges. Where are these numbers coming from, and what do they mean, and why does it link to a different concept altogether? I think they are made up.Yob Mod 14:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- The first point JRSpriggs makes is not a reason to not merge the article, though I certainly agree deletion isn't useful here. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 17:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - The point of the article is to show which elements have only radioactive isotopes. Chlorine Trifluoride (talk) 12:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Then it should so be named; "List of elements containing only radioactive isotopes", not List of radioactive elements. —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 13:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then the article should be moved, not deleted. Chlorine Trifluoride (talk) 14:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - per below. The list is incomplete and redundant. Chlorine Trifluoride (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per preceding; this list is pretty basic notable stuff for any chemistry student. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of elements by stability of isotopes, as that seems a more mature list that covers the same material. I'd not be opposed, however, to merely clarifying the scope of the list and fixing the capitalization of the title—the current phrasing "The following is a list of all current radioactive elements" is clearly at least misleading, and "List of Radioactive Elements" should at least be changed to "List of radioactive elements". {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 17:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merging looks like the best option here. -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There really doesn't seem anything here to merge. The list is incomplete anyway: what about carbon, hydrogen, indium, potassium, for example? Physchim62 (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the scope of the list is supposed to limit it to elements that have only radioactive isotopes, which makes it redundant to List_of_elements_by_stability_of_isotopes#Elements_without_stable_isotopes and should be redirected there. That said, it is still incomplete because Bismuth through Radium are missing. Reyk _YO! 22:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or if needed be, merge and redirect). I think a reasonable high school or college student may be looking for exactly this information, in this format, for a research project. It's not just that I may like it (and I do), but that other users would find this very useful. Needs a lot of work: wikification, citations, etc., so a merger may be just as well. Bearian (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If it's going to be kept as a junior high school level list (and that's not a bad argument for keeping it, in fact), can editors please say what they want to see in it. Physchim62 (talk) 00:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Redirect to List of elements by stability of isotopes . This list is redundant, incomplete, and gives no useful info about the primary charactersitic used to group them (radioactivity). Is the Ionic charge data even true? - i've been marking student exams that state elemental Uranium has 92 protons and electrons, hence no charge. Any student using this list would be in danger of failing any exam on radioactivity, so i hope there are not many. Nothing to merge, nothing is sourced, and the target already covers this more proffesionally in its own section.Yob Mod 14:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification I just rewrote the description of the list to be — "The following is a current list of all elements which have significant radioactivity in their natural state or have only been produced artificially (and thus are highly radioactive).". Hopefully, this will make it clear that the distinction between this article and the other one is that this one is focused on the element in its natural state (including all isotopes in their natural proportions) while the other is on an isotope by isotope characterization. JRSpriggs (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect this list adds no information that IS correct. It lists the number of neutrons without explaining which isotope is it referring to, and lists an ionic charge that is 100% random, without providing any kind of referencing. Nergaal (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of elements by stability of isotopes. Most information seems to be redundant and the rest is simply wrong.Isron (talk)
Redirect to List of elements by stability of isotopes. I think I'd have to agree with most of the arguments here that this article doesn't really add anything that isn't already covered by the aforementioned article and is therefore redundant. Matt (talk) 01:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested above. Every element has radioactive isotopes (furthermore, this list includes an element that has yet to have been discovered). B.Wind (talk) 11:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, very definitely. The reason originally given in the proposal to delete (article claims to list "all radioactive elements") has been fully dealt with by JRSpriggs's editing of the article, and essentially two other arguments have been introduced in the discussion above: redundancy and inaccuracy. (1) Reundancy: Of course it is true that every element has radioactive isotopes, but many laymen may not know this, and there is a clear sense in which Uranium (for example) is normally considered radioactive while Oxygen (for example) isn't; while anyone with sufficient scientific knowledge will know how to find this information from other sources, such as a list of elements by stability of isotopes, not everyone using Wikipedia has this much knowledge. Arguments based on the list being redundant, as the information is included elsewhere, miss the point that a lot of people of limited scientific knowledge may look for a list of radioactive elements, but not for a list by stability of isotopes, and indeed might have no idea what the latter means if they are redirected there. Bearian mentions high school and college students in this context, and it could well apply to others. Most of the arguments given above ignore the needs of people without specialist scientific knowledge: i.e. the substantial majority of Wikipedia users. (2) Inaccuracy: The argument that some of the information in the article is inaccurate is scarcely ever a good reason for deletion: it is usually a reason for editing the article to make it correct. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who exactly would be looking for an incorrect table of elements that only have radioactive isotopes? Why would such ever be useful for students? Nobody teaches this as a separate topic - anyone wanting to learn about radioactivity is better served by seeing this list in context, which the target article does. I doubt any exam in any subject has asked a student to ever name an element that has only radioactive isotopes - why would they? There is nothing special about them that makes them a class of ther own, either scientifically or practically. Non-chemists telling people what is useful chemistry knowledge does not add up.Yob Mod 10:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how many people look for "radioactive elements", but I imagine many might. I don't see the relevance of what exams might ask: presumably a student preparing for an exam would prepare what is likely to be on the exam, but other people might want this. Perhaps it was a mistake to refer to Bearian's mention of high school and college students, as they are probably irrelevant. As for "Non-chemists telling people what is useful chemistry knowledge does not add up", I'm afraid I don't understand the point: people may want to look for this information whether or not chemists regard it as useful, and I don't see that including the information tells people that it is useful chemical knowledge. Incidentally, although chemists naturally have an interest in anything to do with the elements, radioactivity is more a physical property, so there is no reason to regard chemists as the only people with relevant opinions. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that all the info is already elsewhere, as stated above. Chlorine Trifluoride (talk) 14:14, 13 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 00:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Lacy

AfDs for this article:

Queried speedy delete. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is the reason for bringing it to AfD? More detail than "Queried speedy delete" would be helpful! Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Someone speedy-delete-tagged it "not notable". Its author appealed "well, i kinda thought the William Kittredge quote implied notablilty: "Robert Lacy's stories are direct, honest, grace-filled, and useful. The Natural Father is that good thing, a book that both sweetens and illuminates our lives. [4]." i take it, i can retry, when he gets his novel done. pohick (talk) 15:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Weak keep - There seem to be some pay/subscription only articles available on Gnews. Does anyone have access to them? Or can anyone else find something to establish the subject as a notable author? — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — He won a Minnesota Book Award in 1998, if that helps?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That, along with DGG's comments below are good enough for a weak keep from me. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 08:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment hard to find references to link, given British historian of same name and Robert de Lacy, will drill down, to find more evidence of notability. pohick (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep on the basis of being included in an anthology, which is one of the indications of critical acceptance. It should of course never have been tagged for speedy--assserting published books, other than self-published books is at least a minimal indication of possible notability, which is enough to pass speedy. As for actual notability this really needs some reviews published in reliable sources, not just amazon. the award helps, but it is minor. the novel is in on;y 70 worldcat libraries, which isnt that much. His published work in major peer reviewed academic journals of criticism is a significant positive factor. The additional material found in Google can be linked to--people can check it free in appropriate libraries. But they appear to be just mentions or to show local notability. This is at the present borderline. DGG (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Lack of real content and very little references does not an article make. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 9, 2009 @ 23:57

and what provision of speedy delete is that? DGG (talk) 03:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, (article author) i agree this is a borderline case: a regional writer with a one hit wonder. the quality of the writing is there, but it would be an easier call if he had another short story, or criticism collection, not much outside criticism of the stories either. (in fact might wanna do an article, on the british historian, of the same name.) pohick (talk) 18:32, 11 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 00:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who's your daddy? (phrase)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Who's your daddy? (phrase)

Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. Nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information. None of the sources cited give this phrase primary notability; merely, they show unrelated examples of the phrase's use. HeniousMacaw (talk) 17:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep While slang terms of this sort are frowned upon, the Washington Post link is an article that goes in depth as to the usage and origin of the phrase. This seems to indicate notability to me, especially if other similar articles can be found. The Seeker 4 Talk 16:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, sigh --colloquialisms are fair game for articles. In such cases, at the very least WP:IAR suggests keeping. No reason not to get readers by appearing in search lists for such colloquialisms. For what it's worth, Upon further investigation...:

Upon further investigation...:*~~This can be considered a {{Db-author}} by this very new HeinousMacaw (talk · contribs) newbie.~~revised per this My bad! // FrankB 16:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC) (mistooken page// FrankB 19:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

How can G7 possibly apply? The article was created in 2004 by a different editor and has been substantially contributed to by many editors? Or an I missing something? — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See above... I saw two entries in the edit history and took the second as someone fixing the AFD tag... THINK NOW, twas this page's history

No worries. :) — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (edit conflict) This is a notable phrase/neologism. There are TV shows, songs, a company and a movie that go by the phrase. Here are some references that include in-depth discussions of the phrase itself. Wash Post, Chicago Tribune (not free) A lot more can probably be found given the sheer number of Google books, scholar and news results for "Who's your Daddy?". — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's definitely notable given WashPo Sceptre ^(talk) 18:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep = The article is a complete mess, but the phrase itself is notable and there are reliable sources to improve it. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 20:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Phrase is notable, all that remains is to find RS. — neuro^(talk) 02:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WaPo source is good.--Sloane (talk) 04:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a notable expression, found throughout media sources of various types, and commonly used by many people in the English speaking world. Dream Focus 22:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the phrase is very obviously notable. As DreamFocus pointed out, the phrase is in so many media sources and is widely used in film and TV as stated above. I'm just learning, but I believe I agree with the WashPo and Tribune debate as it fits with the rules on notable, there has to be verifiable sources Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 04:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The number of Wikipedia articles that are titled this show the phrase has entered mainstream use. Sources provided also shows that the article is verifiable. -Atmoz (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep...More popular in the Great Lake States as "Hoosier Daddy"...(sounds exactly the same) which was a battlecry used in many Big Ten arenas whenever Coach Bobby Knights Indiana Hoosiers basketball team would visit. Especially true at NorthWestern's Arena where Coach Knight was goaded into a vociferous response by the student body in 1999, I believe. The term has many uses and meanings. Many exist in the realms of Sex or Sports, a couple of popular human endeavors. Editor:McCaw is not from the Midwest. The terms common use is regional. It is widely used and is verifiable. It deserves article space at Wikipedia. The Internet is endless, lets not worry about space!--Buster7 (talk) 10:06, 12 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alfredo Padilla

Others more knowledgeable about club level play in Colombia let me know if I'm off the mark. It is unclear if this young player has risen to the level of play to warrant an encyclopedia entry. He can be mentioned on the club entry so that seems adequate. The content is not directly sourced and seems outdated if the club article is accurate (not sourced in a language that I can read.) FloNight ♥♥♥ 15:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep If he has made appearances with the first team, then he meets the guidelines for professional footballers. This team is in the top flight in the Colombian leagues. article needs editing though. "new sensation of the season..." etc. could be cut. DarkAudit (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he's made a number of appearances for the first team - 14 starts and 2 goals in the 2008 season according to this page though he doesn't appear to have played this season. This is a fully professional league - thus he meets WP:ATHLETE.Black Kite 22:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He has played two seasons in the fully pro Copa Mustang (with Junior) and has now begun his third season (with La Equidad). I've updated the article, and it satisfies WP:ATHLETE. Jogurney (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks for updating the article and adding the references. It is in much better shape now. :-)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Fooling of America

The article has no sources and this book does not seem to be notable. Its author, Pío Andrade, Jr., does seem to be notable but his article also has some issues. The subject of the book, Carlos P. Romulo, was an important figure in the history of the Philippines. This article serves mainly as a WP:Coatrack to make allegations against him, as does Dr. Andrade's to a lesser extent. Northwestgnome (talk) 15:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find reviews for this book nor good hits in Philippines only Google searches such as this one which produced only hits in UP Diliman's and De la Salle University's online book search tool and WikiPilipinas (a Filipino wiki whose articles are based mostly on Wikipedia). Normal googling, google books and google scholar didn't do better either. The strongest hit that I got is a passing mention here. There's also an amusing but still unsourced blurb here which seems to sum up its reception.--Lenticel ^(talk) 16:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of reliable sources concerning the supposed claims in the book. Only reference is the author himself, and nearly no coverage in popular media... sounds like a fringe theory to me. --Aeon17x (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Book appears to have little independent notability. There's not much useful, but potentially a bit could be merged into Carlos P. Romulo and Pío Andrade, Jr.. Cool3 (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Definitely not notable. Ignored by the press, ignored by the National Historical Commission, ignored by the Academe... how much more un-notable can you get? - Alternativity (talk) 17:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:BK standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Now that you mention it, I do recall the author saying that the book was self-published after his frustration in not having anyone sponsor his work. That makes it all the more non-notable. --Aeon17x (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Bluemask (talk) 07:18, 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 delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Mifsud Canilla

No sources support the claims in the article. Can't find any relevant ghits. Possibly just a hoax. Closest thing I can find is Michael Mifsud but it seems totally unrelated except for a Maltese connection. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 15:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It reads like a hoax. If half the stuff was true he whould certainly show up in Google.Northwestgnome (talk) 15:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I had nominated this page as vandalism (blatant misinformation) but that was deleted by another editor. I still think it's vandalism, and should be speedily deleted. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as probable hoax. Stifle (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Every paragraph screams "hoax". — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches under the full name find nothing; searches for "Michael Mifsud" are complicated by the Maltese footballer of that name, but I have found one newspaper clip which confirms that a Michael Mifsud was, not the sole founder as claimed, but one of five concerned with a "Gibraltar Group" which organized cheap air fares. It seems there is a real person, but I can't find independent reliable sources for any of the other extravagant claims, and it looks as if his career has been exaggerated to the point of hoax; for instance, the term Thatcher's Spymaster finds only this article. It is beyond belief that so sensational a career would have left no verifiable traces. If all the unverified claims were removed there would not be enough left for an article that met Notability (people). JohnCD (talk) 11:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. On the basis of e-mails received, I can confirm that it is this Michael Mifsud who "owns about 501 other domains". — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:45, 11 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. — Aitias // discussion 00:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Archibald

Non-notable person, and an autobiography to boot. Claims of notability arise from a pageant that, as best I can determine from Google news searches, serves only as a parody or spoof of actual beauty pageants. (See [5]) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not the place for 16 year olds to post their resumes, although I wish her well. Northwestgnome (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a no-doubt pretty girl who's won some very minor local pageants and placed very low in some not especially significant larger-scale pageants. Can't find any evidence that the theoretically significant sounding "Miss European Princess" actually exists. Also, you'd think that by March 2009 she'd have worked out whether she'd been accepted for The X-Factor 2008..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find "Miss European Princess" either, though it sounds mighty impressive.Vartanza (talk) 22:18, 13 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 a7, webcontent with no indication of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retarded Online

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (software). E Wing (talk) 15:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable web content. -Senseless!... says you, says me 15:05, 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 01:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom "T-Bone" Stankus

Non-notable musician who fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching pulls up no reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 14:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 14:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOTE and WP:MUSIC cf38^talk 15:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep "Existential Blues" is a cult classic, and appears on multiple Dr. Demento best of discs. DarkAudit (talk) 17:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: trivial coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 05:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per DarkAudit. That song regularly appeared in Dr. Demento's "Funny Five" throughout the 80s. Notability is not temporary. -MrFizyx (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- He was a fairly prominent performer related to the Dr. Demento show in the 1980's. AnonMoos (talk) 19:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a novelty performer with regular airplay on Dr. Demento. A search for news articles about him turns up many hits behind pay walls but I did find this one. A google book search identifies 3 hits. The first looks to be likely of substance. -- Whpq (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – In addition to what others have noted, I found the following article, half of which is about Stankus and there is content from it that can be added to the article: Canfield, Owen (August 9, 1994). "Folks tune in, tune out for summer music", The Hartford Courant, p. D3. For most newspapers, my database goes back only to the mid-1990s, and I suspect that there would be newspaper coverage of him from before that time. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:41, 13 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. — Aitias // discussion 00:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surface of the Earth (band)

Non-notable band who fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Has released 3 non-notable albums on some non-notable labels. Searching brings up no reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 14:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 14:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:MUSIC cf38^talk 15:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and per WP:BAND. Lugnuts (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:24, 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 delete. SNOW DGG (talk) 12:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poem-'bicycle'

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Poem-'bicycle'

Either someone posting their own poem, which Wikipedia is not for, or someone posting someone else's poem, in which case we can delete as a copyright infringement. I don't think any speedy criteria apply, though. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating:

Delete. I can't think of any speedy categories, either; the poetry at least makes some sense, and it would be stretching the no context criterion to cover this. But this is a source text from a non-notable poet. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There isn't any reason to have a page for this poem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.229.168 (talk) 14:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Non-notable poems that fail the GNG at the very least. --Ged UK 15:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both articles WP:NOTE;WP:LIT cf38^talk 15:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and the author can post the poem on a poetry page, or Facebook, or something. It's a nice poem. Northwestgnome (talk) 16:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete both. Wikipedia is not a aplace to post your own poems. Apparently the author doesn't get it. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, well it is a brand new user, please don't bite them, they're probably not knowledgeable of Wikipedia policy yet. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 18:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but Lilac, you are a kind soul. Drmies (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's hard not to bite; an online encyclopedia normally is not the place for someone to display their poems. Mandsford (talk) 20:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A1-speedy or per above. The Rolling Camel (talk) 11:36, 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 keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australia-Indonesia Prisoner Exchange Agreement

AfDs for this article:

Again, I'm trying to get rid of this page. There is no such treaty, I see no news reports of current progress or negotiations towards such a treaty. When I nommed once before, some stuff got added about Australia's general policy towards international exchange of prisoners, not really to the point. Sure, there might be such a treaty someday, but WP:CRYSTAL. Time to make an end of this article. Wehwalt (talk) 13:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —94.196.56.183 (talk) 15:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —94.196.56.183 (talk) 15:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The ~~ongoing~~ negotiations regarding this treaty have been widely reported and over many years, and I would have thought, of interest to a great number of people. Perhaps the title needs fixing, but that's trivial. Djanga 07:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You got a cite on that to show it is "ongoing"?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No I haven't, my bad. Word struck. Djanga 12:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The legacy of this article is indeed unfortunate - laboriously produced by one of Wikipedias most over productive and enthusiastic returning banned user/sockpuppet creators - however despite David's starting this article it is valid article concerning an on-going and valid historical process which is well documented - and as a consequence of importance to both the Indonesian and Australian projects. I agree with Djanga in that perhaps the title could be changed - but the process of discussion between the two neighbouring countries is something that is also an important barometer of the relationship - and is a notable and valid interaction deserving of an article Satu Suro 09:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above two editors, but rename to Proposed Australia-Indonesia prisoner exchange agreement or Australia-Indonesia prisoner exchange agreement negotiations or something similar to make it clear that this isn't in place. Nick-D (talk) 09:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any negotiations are completely stalled, progress is WP:CRYSTAL. WWGB (talk) 09:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there any updated info on this? --Merbabu (talk) 12:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is not temporary, and this was clearly notable while it was being negotiated. JulesH (talk) 13:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Citing what reliable sources say is fine. It's only when Wikipedians or unreliable sources are speculating that we've got problems. Andjam (talk) 11:10, 13 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 03:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchel Hahn

My prod was removed by an anoymous IP editor. Reason for prod was "I saved this from speedy as at the time the article was suggesting that he'd palyed once for Southend United first team, who play in a fully professional league so if true he'd probably have met WP:Athlete (depending on what sort of game it was). That claim has now been removed and I can't find any references to him having played for the first team, hence delete for failing notability requirements." Dpmuk (talk) 13:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no record of any player of this name ever having played professional football in England, so either the claims of having been at Bolton and Southend are untrue or he never progressed beyond the respective club's junior/reserve teams -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Skitzo (talk) 13:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Player appears to have been at both Bolton and Southend, according to Enfield Town official site, but only as a youngster; no evidence of him playing for the first team of either club, so fails WP:ATHLETE. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Raymond Giggs 14:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, search engine results have produced nothing, possible WP:HOAX cf38^talk 15:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The link provided by Struway2 above shows that it is not a hoax - player seems to be more usually known as Mitch Hahn, if that helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - And Mitchell should be spelt with 2 L's. The only other "inaccuracy" in the article seems to be the idea of him finishing leading scorer for Southend, where he spent only a few months and never played for the first team. Struway2 (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 18:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Uksam88 (talk) 15:27, 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 no consensus, particularly given the dramatic improvement the article underwent mid-AfD. Mackensen (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mushroom Kingdom Fusion

AfDs for this article:

NN, OR, somewhat self-promo. Game over. roux 13:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 14:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note – the content is nearly completely copy-and-pasted directly from its Wikia entry here. I'm not sure on what actions to take as this is copying of GFDL-compatible text and hence does not constitute a copyvio. MuZemike 14:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Very Weak Keep, Trim down & Tag for Cleanup~~ While no improvements have been made since the last AfD, potentially useful sources have been cited in there which should definitely have been brought up for discussion. Nom offers a It's just not notable argument which isn't enough to delete, OR is a reason to tag for cleanup instead of deletion. For the sake of this present discussion I suggest evaluating whether This joystiq article and this Kotaku review (and possible other, more RS) can be used in this case (both sources are considered conditional use by the WikiProject VideoGames Sources List) and whether these are sufficient to rewrite a (much shorter) Neutral Point of View article or not. I'd answer with a weak yes (hence my !vote). Not opposed to redirect to interwiki link either. MLauba (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vote Changed to Replace with MuzeMike's Version MLauba (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Not notable is an excellent reason to delete. //roux 14:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not when it's not argued and substantiated. A blanket WP:JNN appears to indicate that you didn't bother following WP:BEFORE, if you did, please do mention what efforts you undertook in AfD Nominations. As it stands, it reads as if you were confusing notability and importance. MLauba (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - None of those indicate that it passes WP:N to me. Which is an excellent reason for deletion. If NN isn't a good reason for deletion, what's the point of the notability policy? //roux 15:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're missing my point. I kindly request that you argue why you think it's NN (in other words, what steps you have taken to reach this conclusion in accordance with WP:BEFORE) or withdraw your nomination for failing to do the required homework. MLauba (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You're not reading. I did read the previous nom, I don't agree with its withdrawal, I don't think those sites establish notability due to largely being fansites, and I kindly request that you start A'ing some GF or withdraw your previous comment for failing to actually read anything. That good enough for you? So glad. //roux 15:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Next time you could just specify all of this in the nomination proper so that we don't have to second guess your reasoning, and I'd also kindly remind you of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Thanks for clarfying though, it is appreciated. MLauba (talk) 16:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Beg your pardon? Telling me--quite erroneously--I didn't do my homework.. that's civil, yep. Christ. Look in a mirror before you post, k? Thanks. //roux 16:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - I initially only requested you demonstrated that you did, I do believe that is civil and is still admissible under AGF. That being said, as the requested substance is here now, I suggest we drop the rapidly growing tit-for-tat game, I don't believe anything is to be gained from there. MLauba (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - (edit conflicts) That is, (taking from the deletion policy) the article fails to meet the relevant notability guideline; attempts to find reliable sources establishing notability have failed. That would be a reason for deletion. MuZemike 16:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (edit conflicts), but not per lack of established notability (albeit very very weakly), but because the entire article contains content not suitable for an encyclopedia—mainly not a mirror of the web site, not a web host, not a extensive guide about the game. MuZemike 16:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate proposal – I whipped up something really quickly in my sandbox which (I hope) is far more encyclopedic, does not contain the unsuitable content I mentioned above, and is reliably referenced. I still recommend that the current state of the article in the mainspace should be deleted (that is, it could be deleted and then recreated with my version or similar), but I will not oppose straight keeping it and replacing it with a cleaned up version (namely my version or similar). MuZemike 17:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really a hack of Super Mario Bros., is it? I vote replace with your sandbox but that one statement bothers me. The only way in which I can see calling this a hack of SMB is that it borrows some sprites from SMB3. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 22:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed "is a hack of" to "is based off" (upon suggestion by MLauba) to avoid any negative connotations. MuZemike 23:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replace with MuZemike's stub so that we at least have an article that follows the style guide and verifiability policy. <pendantry>Roux, we don't have a policy on notability.</pendantry> I think the kotaku and joystik sources are pretty borderline for the coverage required by WP:GNG, so this is a "weak keep". Marasmusine (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. Though MuZemike's sandbox version is a vast improvement neither of the sources used go near what I'd consider to be the letter and spirit of notability in terms of significant coverage. At the very least articles need a single secondary source of moderate depth and misc. smaller sources, these are just signposts. It may be that more sources appear in the future but that's just a possibility. Someone another 23:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam. Fails WP:Note.--Sloane (talk) 03:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced now with my version from the sandbox [6]. Gotta change to keep as a result. MuZemike 06:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per notability and lack of significant coverage. Andre (talk) 21:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MuZemike's improvements Elm-39 - T/C 17:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 02:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still voting delete, of course. MuZemike's efforts notwithstanding, notability hasn't actually been shown. //roux 02:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and userfy as WP:N hasn't been established. Thanks for the help, MuZemike, but it's still not yet ready. Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 03:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete exhibits no proof of notability Paul75 (talk) 06:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep MuZemike's version as a well-sourced and encyclopaedic article. Notability's a guideline so it gets trumped by policy.

Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of removing, try to rephrase, correct the inaccuracy while keeping the content, move text within an article or to another article (existing or new), add more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced, or request a citation by adding the ^{[citation needed]} tag - policy.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on MuZemike's improvement of the article. Edward321 (talk) 23:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for now. There may be additional reliable sources which confer notability when this fan-produced game is released from beta, which will in my mind make the article keep-able. However, I am not convinced that the article as it stands meets inclusion guidelines. JRP (talk) 17:20, 15 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 Crumb. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crumb family

Article is an orphaned stub. There has not been any significant work done on this stub in years. Content of article contains nothing which is not found in the articles it lists. Content is better suited for a navbox which has been created. Danleary25 (talk) 12:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a tough one, as I'm not completely sure which category this comes under. This 'list' is unnecessary. I'd suggest creating paragraphs in the articles mentioned in the list referencing other notable people in the family. Anti venin 12:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and possibly merge to Crumb, a disambiguation page. This seems to me to be the way hallowed by precedent to deal with multiple people sharing a last name. I like this text slightly better than the disambiguation text, if only because it gives a bit more context. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Create disambiguation page, possible merge, but meets WP:NOTE cf38^talk 15:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Crumb, the article really doesn't hold any real difference to the Disambiguation page Afkatk - The Mind Reader (talk) 21:33, 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. — Aitias // discussion 00:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lew Marklin

lacks notability. References are a link farm to IMDB. Zero google news hits. Google web hits are generally to his blog. Articles was created by and largely edited by Lew Marklin (talk · contribs). Rtphokie (talk) 12:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Host of a late-night TV series that doesn't seem notable, and no evidence of a large fan base. I recommend deletion per WP:ENTERTAINER. Anti venin 12:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTE & WP:ENTERTAINER cf38^talk 15:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:31, 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 delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 00:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Visionary Minds

From reading the article, it seems quite evident that it fails WP:ORG, hence why I nominate for deletion rather than starting with the {{notability}} tag. Not a speedy candidate, however. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 12:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Visionary Minds seems to be a team of people created for an MBA project, and thus fail both criteria under WP:ORG (Non-commercial organizations). Anti venin 13:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A minor consulting business apparently started as a college project. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom cf38^talk 15:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator. Afkatk - The Mind Reader (talk) 21:35, 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 00:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfterWorld (virtual world)

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable MMORPG video game with little or no media coverage (Google news archive searches—here and here). Created by a single-purpose account. The game's Beta release is scheduled for "the end of 2009" i.e. the game's not even finished yet. Fails WP:NOTE. TheJazzDalek (talk) 12:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 12:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MLauba (talk) 12:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V. I spent the morning trying to find usable reliable sources and came up empty. Not enough verifiable third party mentions to allow for a neutral article. I'd also vote against userification this time considering the article re-creation did not address the notability issue in the first place. Not opposed to recreation after beta release, if and when it gets significant 3rd-party coverage. MLauba (talk) 12:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N, WP:V, WP:CRYSTAL and possibly WP:SPAM. -Senseless!... says you, says me 12:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GNG, CRYSTAL. However, I'm okay with userfication as long as the user is told to come to DrV before restoring (and pointed at WP:N and WP:RS). Last time he was told to take back to mainspace whenever. Probably worked out to be poor advice. Hobit (talk) 13:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V WP:SPAM & WP:CRYSTAL cf38^talk 15:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. G11able, but I'd rather see it deleted outright: The real-cash economy involves the virtual currency "AWD" or AfterWorld Dollars. These can be obtained from other players or by donating cash crosses the line into promotion, in my mind. Jclemens (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Play our game and give us money! – S P _ M → I would like to solve the puzzle... MuZemike 18:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys. I created the article. It is not "my game" and I have nothing to gain by its publication. I just happen to know that thousands of people play it every day and that it can be considered "Beta" because they are not wiping some items upon release. This will eventually be a mainstream game...all that remains is a few months. Please do not be so hasty to delete this inoffensive, important article. Thank you very much. Epicahab (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We understand you mean well but unless anyone comes up with reliable sources demonstrating that there is decent third-party coverage of the game at present, the fact is that there shouldn't be an article on it on wikipedia until it does become a mainstream game. It doesn't even have to become mainstream, niche is enough. But it needs independant coverage for that. It's simply too early for an article. MLauba (talk) 23:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete violates WP:NN; WP:CRYSTAL; WP:SPAM --Mhking (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails inclusion criteria as per WP:NOTE. No reliable sources.--Sloane (talk) 04:25, 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 WITHDRAWN. I've reviewed this further, and have come to the conclusion that it would be more beneficial, encyclopedically, to be moved from the original article to the article on the painting, contrary to my original assertion. My original reading of the situation was flawed, I think; it seemed to me that the painting article was simply pasted, but I see potential for expansion here having just rifled through Google Books. There would indeed be too much content for the military article, and this is what has changed my mind. Therefore, I apologise for the expenditure of time and the error. I would be happy to presently assist with the movement of the text from one article to the other; this really does need to happen, because redundancies like this are unhealthy and are not proper. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Brunswicker (Millais)

WP:CFORK of Black Brunswickers#Inspired art. Pretty much exactly copy-pasted. -- —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are many articles on specific paintings by Millais and other Pre-Raphaelites. The most important works of these artists have been red-linked for article creation for a long time on List_of_Pre-Raphaelite_paintings#John_Everett_Millais. This article follows the standard format for these articles. In this case it began as a short section in the article on the Black Brunswickers, but was split off and expanded by User:Mattis and later by myself. It follows the standard model in this respect. If a subsection overbalances an article it should be split off with a short version retained in the main article (see article spinouts - covered in WP:CFORK). In this case it was inappropriate to have a long section on art in an article that is essentially about military history. It made more sense to create the separate article that would join all the other Pre-Raphaelite painting articles. The sensible option here is simply to shorten the section at the Black Brunswickers page. Paul B (talk) 10:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is true. However, the majority of the content here has merely been copy-pasted. Further to that, it is inaccurate to assert that the material in the original article is unbalanced. It is highly pertinent and certainly not over-long. I think this comes down to whether participants feel a separate article for this artwork is necessary or appropriate here. My original analysis was that this article was exactly the same as the section; however, I see there is indeed potential for further expansion. I'm not sure. I will concede that there is merit in the solution proposed in shortening the section in the Brunswicker page; my concern with that, however, is that the original section was of fine length anyway. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is no need to shorten the section if you think it is appropriate in length. There is plenty of material in reliable sources with which to expand this particular article. Paul B (talk) 11:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will shorten the section presently; see my withdrawal statement. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:32, 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 procedural close. Reverting series of bad faith nominations by notorious AfD trolling sockpuppet. Wikidemon (talk) 02:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

E-A-Ski

The subject is not notable, any claims therein are not verified by reliable or any other sources. A single reference is provided. Searches found no reliable non-trivial coverage in published sources. Troyster87 (talk) 09:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:MUSIC, WP:CITE & WP:NOTE cf38^talk 15:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since articles such as this, this, and this suggest notability. The article needs a cleanup, no doubt--I started but can't finish. Drmies (talk) 19:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Followed another weak Bay Area rapper AfD here. Please use google.[7] Discography is useful.[8] Seems to satisfy WP:BAND criteria 1,5,6,7, O1,O2,O5, etc. Wikidemon (talk) 02:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - user who nommed this is a banned sockpuppet. //roux 23:28, 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 merge to Papatoetoe. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Papatoetoe Seventh-day Adventist Community church

Article on single congregation, which fails to assert notability., => fails WP:CHURCH. No independent sourcing. dramatic (talk) 09:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.
I especially enjoy it when churches are fail notability since I am anathema to them! so delete itTroyster87 (talk) 09:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The above editor is a now-banned sockpuppet of an oft-banned editor. - Dravecky (talk) 03:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Papatoetoe, fails WP:N for own article, see only a trivial mention at NZ Herald [9]. XLerate (talk) 11:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Papatoetoe per WP:LOCAL for articles on local subjects that are notable in a local sphere but cannot pass WP:N in their own right. -Senseless!... says you, says me 12:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Papatoetoe per above arguments. No indication that this more than an average local church.-gadfium 18:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: On what independent, non-trivial source do the above three users base the suggestion to merge? We add non-notable schools to suburb articles because we have good sourcing. Also, I suspect that user DZadventiste (talk · contribs) hoped to create articles for every redlink in List of Adventist churches in New Zealand, and it would be wrong to set an example that might lead to every equivalent suburb article having an unsourced advertisement for the SDA while having nothing on the half-dozen or more other churches that most suburbs have in them. A suburb article is not a repository for random unsourced information (I've seen people enumerating the shops in a shopping centre). It should mention a church if that church plays a notable role in the community or is of national significance. For example, you couldn't write about Temple View without mentioning the LDS church (since the suburb is mor or less 100% LDS members), and the article on Parnell ought to mention the Anglican cathedral. dramatic (talk) 20:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, per WP:CHURCH same guideline used to nominate for deletion. For Dunedin I see an average 1.47 churches per suburb, but whitepages has 23 listings for Papatoetoe, which I don't think ought to all be included per WP:NOTDIR. If DZadventiste wants to add churches to suburbs then please cover all denominations. XLerate (talk) 23:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If someone had added a few sentences about this church, with the existing sources, to Papatoetoe, would you remove it? I wouldn't, since the sources are sufficient to indicate that the church exists, and although the attendance figures are not from an independent source, I have no reason to doubt them.
Having 23 churches in Papatoetoe does make me pause. However, this church article is only two paragraphs and a photo. I think the second paragraph could be dropped as non-notable, and the suggestion that its one of the largest Adventist congregations in NZ removed as unsourced, leaving three sentences. If we merged it into Papatoetoe, then there is a reasonable chances that paragraphs would be written about some of the other churches, and this is rather a good model for such paragraphs, being phrased in factual and neutral language.
The Papatoetoe article gives a population of nearly 40,000, but I suspect that's including surrounding suburbs which most people would not consider part of Papatoetoe. At some point I'll try to reconcile the figure in the article with the figures for Manukau City in [10]. The census divides the area up into Papatoetoe North, Papatoetoe Central, Puhinui and several others, and it may be appropriate to divide the article into several article on smaller localities as well. I've been doing this for other suburbs as I've added school information to them.-gadfium 03:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Papatoetoe. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:16, 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 Speedy delete. (non-admin speedy closure) Master&Expert (Talk) 09:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fayyaz ahmed

Nothing apparently meeting WP:BIO. Normally, I'd call for a {{notability}} tag first, but based on the amount of WP:WEASEL words, I am fairly convinced notability cannot be established. If it can, quickly enough, I'll withdraw my nomination, of course. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 09:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete- author blanked; I've tagged it andy (talk) 09:17, 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 00:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Priy rai

Apart from the poor writing and layout, she fails WP:PORNBIO. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 08:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:PORNBIO. Searching pulls up no reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Still not notable under WP:PORNBIO or general notability guidelines. Previous discussion was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priya Rai and this should be a csd g4. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:09, 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 delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 00:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Libby Booth

Booth doesn't appear to be especially significant. None of the "Artcles and media" references indicate she is notable. She doesn't seem to have received any major awards. I've Googled her for a while but can't find anything non-trivial. A bit iffy (talk) 08:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —A bit iffy (talk) 08:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. —A bit iffy (talk) 08:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Let's see... the "external links" section links to her website and DeviantArt pages, the "articles and media" section contains links that have only a few mentions of her name, I can't see anything to assert that she is particularly notable in some way as to warrant having a full Wikipedia entry. Master&Expert (Talk) 09:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. freshacconci talktalk 09:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, not an encyclopedia candidate...Modernist (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - perhaps some day she'll attract notice, but it hasn't happened yet. Bearian (talk) 00:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not much in the way of google news or tertiary sources Vartanza (talk) 04:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable and no third party independent refs. Redgramsci and 97.84.132.167 are the only ones to have worked on this article, and only on this article, so it might be self written.--Artypants, ^Babble 15:26, 12 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 on whether the article meets the threshold for the song notability guideline. In the interests of disclosure I do read German and it wasn't clear to me either. Mackensen (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beaucoups of Blues (song)

Article on song with no real indication of notability. Unsourced. Prod removed for a pointy reason Duffbeerforme (talk) 07:31, 9 March 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 07:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would say merge, but what is there to merge? Though the song was released as a single, it doesn't seem to be suitable for an article. The relevant text from the specific notability guideline WP:NSONGS seems to be:

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

This song only charted on one chart, the Billboard Hot 100, at #87, and seems unlikely to grow beyond a few mere sentences in length. Delete. Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 08:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable song. JoannaMinogue (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Beaucoups of Blues (album). Master&Expert (Talk) 09:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see why a redirect would be necessary or useful. You have to, obviously, type in "Beaucoups of Blues" before you can type in "Beaucoups of Blues (song)" and such a redirect would only be useful to people who are familiar with such titles. There are only a tiny number of existent links to this article, and they would take mere moments to remove. I see no purpose to a redirect. Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 09:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It should be noted that the single not only charted in the USA - what, it did chart? - but also in Germany at #43 in February 1971. [11] Wow, this is even more disturbing than I could expect. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 13:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you find that link before or after you suggested the article was worthy of deletion. Did you consider improving the article with this link? Are you defending this article or are you still trying to make a point. Your claim of double standards does not seem to hold water.
- Does anyone know if this is a reliable source? If so and it says what it seems to say ~~the nomination is withdrawn~~. Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Updated due to continuing discussion. Duffbeerforme (talk) 05:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I did not suggest the song for deletion, but contested a proposal for deletion, since I'm quite sure that there's enough 3rd party coverage incl. libraries of secondary literature on everything any of the former Beatles members has ever recorded. I don't have any books on the topic, so can't improve the article much. I didn't even realise that it was released as a single until Nosleep coined the USA charts. Note that the infoboxes for songs and singles are quite often mixed up. It took me less than two minutes to find the charts entry for Germany. Musicline is the reliable source accepted by German Wikipedia (see: link). IMHO the nominator should have done a small research on his own before proposing or nominating the article for deletion (see WP:BEFORE). The best case would have been to improve the article and thus save a lot of time and energy. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 00:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-Assuming (as it appears to) that the song did chart at #43 in Germany. Nonetheless, the comments above about WP:BEFORE seem a bit harsh in this case, given that the key information in in German. And while I am certain that there are sources for the song, given all the books on the Beatles, the ones I have do have very little to say about this particular song. Rlendog (talk) 01:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Two further German charts [12], and [13] indicates that although the single exists it did not chart. No covers of this song either. JamesBurns (talk) 04:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The second link provides a chart entry for the sixth week of 1971 but you can't see the exact data because of license issues. The first link does not show any charts data for a couple of singles and albums by Ringo that I checked. I know it works for Swiss and Austria, but seems not to show German data (cross-check this #1 single and musicline). Note that both links you provided are not accepted by German Wikipedia (perhaps because they show no data at all?). I recommend secondary literature on the topic. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 04:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

germancharts.com is used on quite a few song articles within wikipedia, and not listed as WP:BADCHARTS. Musicline is difficult to use for most editors as it's all in German (no English language used). JamesBurns (talk) 04:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how, even the current #1 song is not indicated, as compared to the start page where the current singles Top10 is listed. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 04:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ps: Have a brief look at this discussion - it does NOT contain German data at all. Note that the site operator is the same for Swiss and Austria where other licenses allow charts data to be shown. Note also, that a warning on the bottom of the page strictly tells you that charts are COPYRIGHTED and are NOT allowed to be posted in this forum. Don't be confused by the ___domain name... ;-) --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 05:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

charts-surfer.de is actually used on more wikipedia articles than musicline.de. I don't see it listed on WP:BADCHARTS either. JamesBurns (talk) 04:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charts-surfer tells you that something charted and when, yes. But because of missing licenses it tells you no exact data. I just did some research on recent Top10 hits and they say all the same - COPYRIGHTED. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 05:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ps: THIS is the official site but you have to register and pay... ;-) --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 05:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)Comment-*On link #3 (the Chart Surfer link) I just get a copyright symbol for the chart position. What are you seeing there that states that it did not chart? On link #2 (the GermanCharts link) I don't see any chart information for this song. But when I link to the similar pages for "Photograph" and "It Don't Come Easy", both of which were Top 10 in Germany according to Wikipedia's Ringo Starr discography, I don't see any chart information for them either. So where does that site indicate that "Beaucoups of Blues" didn't chart in Germany, or didn't chart as high as stated above? Rlendog (talk) 14:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I see that it charted in the sixth week of 1971. It's the other guy who doubts my source, without taking a closer look at the sources he himself brought into the game. As stated before, it's quite disturbing how sloppy AfDs are handled. We still have more "votes" for deletion (4) than for keeping (1) in this discussion. That's plain ridiculous. I'll add my KEEP, though it does not change the picture much. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 19:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant my question for JamesBurns, not you. I unindented to make that clearer. The nominator has stated that he would withdraw the AfD nomination if the #43 charting in Germany is true (and my keep vote is contingent on that). So I would be disappointed if links are being provided that claim to show that it did not chart in Germany, if they in fact show nothing of the sort, or if they in fact do show that it charted in Germany but that is hidden from those who do not pay access fees.Rlendog (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Five days are almost over, it's hard to admit a mistake. Let's delete it then... (Maybe nobody will recognise!) --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 16:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Charted in two different countries. HexaChord should keep in mind that AFD is not a vote, and the closing admin is supposed to take the arguments made under consideration. So if three people say, "delete it, it didn't chart" and one person says, "yes it did and here's the proof", the the closing admin should close as "keep". At least, that's the way it's supposed to work (and I've actually seen it happen!). TheJazzDalek (talk) 17:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Obviously, you're allowed to dream of a better world. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 21:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you are so pessimistic. Nothing has been deleted yet, and you have demostrated that the song meets the notability requirements. No one has effectively refuted your information either. Rlendog (talk) 21:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it pessimistic or just realistic? My source is still doubted and not yet accepted. At least it's 4:3 now, yes. Is this legit for "no consensus" yet? --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 21:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the album article. One line blurb about this song, no need for its own article. Lets drink Tea 15:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that an article is a stub is no reason to delete or redirect it. There are plenty of valid stubs shorter and less referenced than this one. Rlendog (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm almost reluctant to say keep because I agree with many of the comments above, but referring to the guideline: "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." This song is a charting single in the US for a notable musician and should remain. JRP (talk) 17:17, 15 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 Extreme Programming. MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RDP technique

It's just a proposed technique, how can it be notable? RenegadeMonster (talk) 12:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Improper nomination; reject/restart. – 74 04:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Agree Jenuk1985 | Talk 10:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked the nominator to change their opening statement. Let's not close this early to avoid potential fragmentation of the deletion discussion. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well how about "has it actually received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? I have the feeling that the sources given either are not independent of the subject, lack editorial integrity, or fail to address the subject directly and in detail (or at all, most likely, since this is just a proposed technique). RenegadeMonster (talk) 12:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You tell us the answer to your question. You're supposed to have looked for sources yourself beforehand, with a deletion nomination being the result of such research. Look for sources yourself, and tell the rest of us the conclusion that you come to, based upon that research, as your rationale. See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination. Uncle G (talk) 13:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I google for "rdp technique" "extreme programming" and I find a lot of Wikipedia mirrors and a couple of papers by Mehdi Mirakhorli, who I believe is the proposer of the technique. RenegadeMonster (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - and the creator of the article. RenegadeMonster (talk) 14:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's a much better rationale. You looked for sources, and that's what you found. Uncle G (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yup, reject/restart. There's no notification of the proposed AfD on the article so potentially interested editors won't be aware, and the 5-day clock's ticking. It's procedurally inappropriate to continue.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Close~~ as incorrect nomination. The AfD is about 4 days old and there is still no AfD notice on the article. After closing this AfD, it can be renominated correctly. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with that last point -- no prejudice against a future AfD with a correct nomination.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't fetishize the process. Either of two of you could have completed the nomination, as I just did, and moved the transclusion to the appropriate per-day page, which isn't necessary in this case since it was already transcluded on today's page. There's no need to have absurd "restarts" when 2 out of the three steps of an AFD nomination have been completed. If a nomination is incomplete, one can roll it forward to completion if there's a nomination rationale. Don't let DumbBOT be the smart one. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually I couldn't even remotely have "moved the transclusion", whatever that means, and I had no idea it was possible. That must make me dumb. :-)--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks UncleG, on a technical note, what exactly did you do? I ask because I want to learn. Did you just use {{subst:afd}} to add the notice to the article and that's it? Did you do anything else? Thanks! — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, that was it. I simply did step #1 of the three AFD nomination steps. The nominator had already done steps #2 and #3 xyrself. It was one edit. Uncle G (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Extreme Programming, since this particular technique doesn't seem to have sufficient notability for its own article, with most of the available literature centering on one researcher (Mirakhorli). But there certainly are references to justify mentioning this in Extreme Programming. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:57, 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 07:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another non-notable scheme for organizing or supervising computer programmers, typically written in an ambiguous but effusive style that leaves you guessing how this one is supposed to differ from the last such non-notable management philosophy. This one may be better than others, in that it actually contains how-to description in addition to the standard gushing, but that doesn't make it an encyclopedia subject either. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't you want to be linking to WP:NOTHOWTO when you say "how-to description", not WP:HOWTO? Matt (talk) 01:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - D'oh! Yeah, I do. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 23:37, 13 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. — Aitias // discussion 00:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Backyard Wrestling 2K8

There is nothing on the games company which is producing this PC Game, there is no official company website (that I can find), so it looks like either this game is fake or never going to happen, see no reason to keep this article around as there is nothing official on this. Afkatk - The Mind Reader (talk) 07:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 2K is a copyright of 2K Games, who wouldn't license their trademark to some guy with a vague game they would never touch who needs until the end of 2009 to release a game meant for 2008. I'd think the creators of the game of the same title would also be interested to know this guy is using their title. Nate • (chatter) 07:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I believe the 2K8 is meant to signify the year 2008, not related to the 2K Games trademark. As such, your argument appears to be based on false premises. MLauba (talk) 13:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Buyers would automatically assume 2K=this game was created by 2K Games, which it wasn't. 2K would definitely seek to have this title changed if it existed. I also argue for deletion because the IGN release date of December 31, 2009 suggests "I pulled this date out of thin air." Nate • (chatter) 00:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IGN portal appears to suggest this is not a hoax. There are other, better reasons to delete. MLauba (talk) 13:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Too early, no significant third-party coverage to warrant inclusion. MLauba (talk) 13:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I initially thought this was a hoax until I saw the IGN link. IGN and Gamespy are usually fairly reputable sources for video gaming news, although neither of the listings qualify as non-trivial, also violates WP:CRYSTAL. -Senseless!... says you, says me 14:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails inclusion criteria as per WP:NOTE. No reliable sources.--Sloane (talk) 04:26, 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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remittance to India

Contested PROD. Unencyclopaedic and likely to be, or become, inaccurate. Should be deleted for much the same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparision of online remittance services in United Kingdom for sending money to India. PROD removed without explanation by IP. DanielRigal (talk) 20:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteI don't even see the point of this, completely unencyclopedic. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 22:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It was created by the same guy who did the other AfDed article. I am pretty sure he did it in good faith, thinking it was useful information. He just didn't understand the distinction between useful information and encyclopaedic information. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTDIR—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst the creator may not have understood with the first article, xe did understand with this one. This article, in contrast to the deleted one, has prose content, and even a source discussing the subject of remittances to India in depth. See the article by Chishti. DanielRigal, instead of repeatedly trying to delete this article, you should have considered simply editing it. You have an edit button. You could have just zapped the table and made it into a stub about remittances to India. It's not as though there is a shortage of sources on the subject (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). You were even handed one on a platter by the article's creator. Be bold and edit! Deletion nominations are not the only tools in the toolbox. Uncle G (talk) 01:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see a subject here distinct from remittances in general, and there is already an article about that. Why break it down more than that? We don't need a sub-article on every single subject covering its application to each country. We don't need or want Pancakes in Germany, for example. Such things should only exist if there is enough to say about the individual countries to justify a separate article. The fact that this is a stub indicates that there is not. Since you took the inappropriate stuff out there is very little left. I have no objection to what little there is being moved into the remittance article but I see no future for this as a separate article. I strongly suspect that an article of this type could only ever be a list of remittance services and Wikipedia is not a business directory. Just because I am a deletionist does not mean that I mindlessly tag everything for deletion on sight and I resent being characterised in this way. I do rescue articles when I see scope for it. In this case, I don't think there is any hope for this one. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - We break it down more than that because the world outside of Wikipedia has broken it down more than that. (Addressing subjects as the world has documented them is the very foundation of our notability criteria.) Multiple independent sources exist that treat this very subject in depth. You haven't read them yet, have you? Go and read them! No-one said anything about mindlessness apart from you. I said nothing about mindlessness. I merely said that you've just tagged the article for deletion, again and again, using only one tool from the toolbox when it isn't even the correct tool. Mindlessness is your characterization, of your own actions as they are described to you. If you don't like your own characterization of your own actions, then do something about it. Change your actions.
    From what you write above, your actions are based upon your lack of understanding of our Wikipedia:Article development process and our Wikipedia:Editing policy. The fact that an article is currently a stub says nothing about the subject. You're wrong to think that way. Most of Wikipedia is currently stubs. All of Wikipedia (with a vanishingly small number of exceptions) was a stub once. The provenances and depths of the sources available are what counts. They show whether an article can be expanded from its beginnings as a stub. And that very process of starting from a stub and expanding is how articles have been written here for the past eight years.
    This is a collaboratively written project. Put in the effort to collaboratively write. Look at the sources available for any given subject, and attempt to expand the article from them. Kerrrzapping a price list and transforming it into a good start of an article on remittances to India you will find rewarding, not least because you will know that you've transformed a poor article into a good one. Trust me. ☺ So follow the various "find sources" links above, pick a source, and start writing. Begin with Goopta's IMF report if you like. It has some verifiable facts in its second paragraph that you could put straight into this article. (Hint: What quadrupled between 1991 and 2003? It wasn't a population of elephants. ☺) Uncle G (talk) 12:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think our approaches diverge as much as you think. The article, at the time I tagged it, was an obvious candidate for deletion, as others have agreed. You have turned it into something completely new and different by deleting almost all of its content and starting from scratch.
    It is now effectively a completely new article and should be considered as such. I guess somebody could complain that doing this circumvented the right of anybody who wanted to vote "keep" on the original article, but that was so unlikely to happen that I don't have a problem with it.
    I still think that it would be better as a section within the remittance article where the subject can be given a more global perspective and the common elements in all remittance systems covered without duplication. This need not be at the expense of having good solid coverage of the Indian remittance industry. It is not like the remittance article is too large or unwieldy as it stands. That said, I am now persuaded that it could be a separate article, although I still see this as the second best option at this stage. Accordingly, my recommendation on the new article is weak merge with a second preference of "keep".
    I am not sure how we should approach the AfD from now on as the whole thing is a bit moot. I would be happy to withdraw the nomination but some people have already voted to delete, based on the old content. I guess we have to let the closing admin decide how to handle that?
    Although we disagree about some things, we are both trying to achieve the same thing, i.e. to remove poor content and add, or facilitate the adding, of good content. Can we try to make the tone a bit less aggressive in future?
    --DanielRigal (talk) 14:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please see WP:BEFORE which explains useful steps to take to avoid embarassment at AFD. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, I did not exercise the deletion tool. I edited the article, as you could have, with the editing tool. Even an editor without an account has the tool that I used. No deletion was involved anywhere. This is the point. You're erroneously conflating deletion with editing, both in your approach to the tools available in the toolbox and in your thinking of what the tools even are. If you think that this is "new and different" (when in fact much of the content is the same and the citations have merely been cleaned up using the appropriate citation templates) then think about how it was made so. It wasn't deleted to make it "new and different". It was edited. Uncle G (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I can see that it would have been better if I had stubbed it and suggested the merge but I don't accept that I am suffering from some fundamental misunderstanding in my approach to Wikipedia. I have rescued other articles in the past. My mistake here was to fail to recognise that a couple of sentences in the article were rescuable and pointed the way to a different approach to the subject. It looked like a basic act of uncontentious housekeeping to put it up for AfD, and others clearly thought the same. The trouble is that it looked so obvious that I genuinely missed the scope to completely recast it. I will take more care to look out for rescuable "curate's egg" scenarios in future. Anyway, to make it official, I would like to formally withdraw the nomination. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable so I have done a little cleanup and added a citation. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - can be rescued easily - see WP:BEFORE. Bearian (talk) 20:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a dictionary definition of one minor statistic. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dicdef. Stifle (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is nothing like a dictionary definition as there is no focus on a particular word, etymology, pronounciation, etc. The article is a stub. Please see WP:DICDEF which explains the difference. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Data but Merge with Remittance (possibly with redirect to a section on India) unless & until more is developed in the India section of that page. Ventifax (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect with Remittance. There's no reason to have separate articles for each country on this phenomenon. The main article suffices. --Sloane (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge This doesn't need an article of its own as the topic itself hasn't been talked about in third-party sources. Basing it off on one news story violates WP:NOT#NEWS as encyclopedia articles should be general topics in themselves and not specific details based off of one news report. Themfromspace (talk) 05:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is discussed at length in numerous third-party sources and so your opening statement is false. Since you seem to have had trouble noticing the several sources already supplied, I have added another - a substantial paper published by the IMF. Please note that participants at AFD are expected to look beyond the current state of the article, per our editing policy. This is not a GA review - we are considering a stub here. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached, based on the rewritten article. Had it not been rewritten totally, I would have closed as delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG (talk) 05:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Running the risk of pedantry, this AfD is really about Remittances to India, yes? Remittance to India is a redirect. Baileypalblue (talk) 08:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - I moved the article in the course of improvements. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is clearly notable; it's an economic phenomenon that accounts for 3% of India's GDP. There's plenty of reliable source coverage available to satisfy the general notability guideline. The subject is deep enough that people could (presumably do) make their careers studying it, so I don't think WP:DICDEF or WP:NOTDIR are serious concerns here. The outstanding question is where to cover the topic. People have suggested merging to remittance: why not merge to Economy of India? It has at least as good a claim to the subject, and the subject could be developed there in much greater depth without overbalancing the article. The fact that multiple unrelated subjects have deep claims on this topic indicates that it should be merged into none of them, and remain a separate article instead. Keeping the subject independent gives it more breathing space/room to grow. Baileypalblue (talk) 08:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:Heymann rewrite and Baileypalblue. Certainly notable and sources certainly exist. The rest remains regular editing. -- Banjeboi 11:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Uncle G has it correct. This is not the same as earlier deleted articles. Any current concerns can easily be met with WP:CLEANUP. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the poor unsourced dictionary definition that was nominated for deletion has been completely rewritten into a well sourced article, which given the financial importance to hundreds of millions of people, certainly could (and I think should) become a well referenced Feature Article. See the diffs. T L Miles (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: rewritten informative sourced article. It's closing time! pablo_hablo. 22:10, 12 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 01:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Softies (song)

Lacking notablity. All it lists is a Weezerpedia site, and I can't seem to find any reliable sources on Google. Versus22_talk 05:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:23, 9 March 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 06:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to album article as not much is known yet. The band is a favourite of journalists, so plenty of articles will be written once the single has been released. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 06:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: yet to be released - notability not established for song. Trivial coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 08:10, 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luxembourg–Serbia relations

Non-notable relationships, there is nothing notable on having some habitants from a country living in another country. Article does not assert anything extraordinary. Prod was removed. See related deletions:

Enric Naval (talk) 05:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-subject. WillOakland (talk) 05:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - WP:N isn't met. This is yet another of the ridiculous articles on bilateral relations created by Plumoyr (talk · contribs) and their sock puppet. Nick-D (talk) 05:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, they don't even have embassies in each other's countries. Punkmorten (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails the usual tests for notability. Yilloslime ^T_C 05:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a lot more foreign relations articles which deserve to be deleted before this one. For example: Kosovo–Micronesia relations, Kosovo–Liberia relations, Kosovo–Maldives relations, etc. (about 50% of Kosovo-so and so relations articles are completely worthless), all deserve the axe before Lux-Serbia. Luxembourg and Serbia are two historic European nations and their relations are notable in my opinion. --Tocino 05:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, don't worry, those will get the axe too :D I'm gonna mass-nom a few of those after this one closes. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Important comment - in case you haven't noticed that are hundreds of the same articles on Wikipedia. I don't see any difference between this one and for an example Cyprus–Luxembourg relations. There is no difference between the article you listed here and that one (and literally hundreds of others). So what are we gonna do? List them all for deletion or delist this one?--Avala (talk) 10:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

first stablish a consensus that they are not notable by listing a few ones (with this one there should be enough now), and then mass-list them by groups, making sure that we don't accidentally catch a notable one on the net. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But we do not have any notability guidelines for this subject. When is the article on diplomatic relations notable enough to stay on WP?--Avala (talk) 12:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be damned if I know when. I'll just start on the less notable ones and work my way up until they start being kept :D --Enric Naval (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this needs to be determined prior to taking any action, including this particular article.--Avala (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, of course. With no real historical, economic or territorial links between the two countries, the mere existence of relations doesn't justify an article -- certainly one created so mindlessly. Diplomatic relations are not in themselves notable, and can be covered by "Diplomatic missions of..." articles (which we do). - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:45, 13 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. — Aitias // discussion 00:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Master Chefs Multicultural Cuisine

Non-notable web television series, I did originally PROD it, but that was removed. I don't think speedy is appropriate here, as "... has become popular among the Saskatchewan community ..." appears to be at the very least asserting some notion of the program not being straight out CSDable. Unable to find any sources or reliable third party coverage. — neuro^(talk) 03:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability requirements RP459 (talk) 04:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not finding any reliable source coverage or any indication it satisfies WP:WEB. Baileypalblue (talk) 04:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. -- samj _in ^out 03:32, 11 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 01:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Degree Programs at Ohio Wesleyan University

Anything encyclopedic here should be in the main article for the school; anything else violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY. THF (talk) 03:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yeah, unless there is something noteworthy about the programs offered, which is doubtful, this is basically just a directory of departments and not an encyclopedia article. Indrian (talk) 03:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete directory, thoroughly unencyclopedic. JJL (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and then consider whether to Merge back. The list of majors is considered appropriate content in the article on a college--and whether to list it separately is a decision on style. It was previously split, and afd is not for considering the merits of such editing decisions. I am not sure whether it should be separate, but this is not the place to discuss it. DGG (talk) 03:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you show me a guideline or something to prove that "a list of majors is considered appropriate content" ? If you can I will second your opinion. Nerfari (talk) 22:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Indrian. RP459 (talk) 04:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 04:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ohio_Wesleyan_University#Curriculum.2C_degrees_and_majors. Per WP:UNIGUIDE academic departments are generally not considered notable enough for their own articles; presumably this extends to listings of degree programs, therefore this AfD should not endorse keeping the article as a stand-alone. The content is appropriate for inclusion in the parent article, and ordinarily I would endorse a merge, but I share DGG's opinion that we should leave that move to the article talk page, considering that the material was split out per a recommendation made during a Featured Article review. Redirecting asserts that the material is not notable enough for its own stand-alone article, while keeping the content intact under the redirect in case a consensus forms to merge it into the parent article. Baileypalblue (talk) 05:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion on the parent article talk page. Baileypalblue (talk) 05:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:LIST. --Mr Accountable (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, too bad its not a list so that really does not apply. Indrian (talk) 21:36, 11 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 National_University_of_Sciences_and_Technology#Profile. MBisanz ^talk 02:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Degree programs at NUST

AfDs for this article:

WP:SPAM. Anything encyclopedic here should be in National University of Sciences and Technology, anything else violates WP:NOT. THF (talk) 03:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. A simultaneous nomination appears to exist, but appears not to have been completed, or was vandalized. THF (talk) 03:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete directory, thoroughly unencyclopedic. JJL (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and then consider whether to Merge back. The list of majors is considered appropriate content in the article on a college--and whether to list it separately is a decision on style. It was previously split, and afd is not for considering the merits of such editing decisions. I am not sure whether it should be separate, but this is not the place to discuss it. DGG (talk) 03:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per JJL. RP459 (talk) 04:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 04:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DIR and WP:N - lists of courses are routinely deleted. Nick-D (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to National_University_of_Sciences_and_Technology#Profile. This article was created as a result of what I consider to be a mistaken recommendation during a peer review; WP:UNIGUIDE asserts that academic departments are generally not notable enough to merit stand-alone articles, this presumably also extends to listings of degree programs. A previous UNIGUIDE assessment recommended including this information in the parent article as a two-column list, so I have no qualms about recommending a merger. Baileypalblue (talk) 05:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As per comments on the article's peer review here, I created a separate article for the degree programs. As I see now, Degree programs at Duke University and Degree Programs at Ohio Wesleyan University are also under consideration for deletion. Instead of deleting, merge/redirect it to the parent article (refer to Baileypalblue comments). Marsa Lahminal (talk) 16:59, 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 Massachusetts Lottery. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Outing

94 year old woman in the news in 2004 for an unsuccessful lawsuit to receive a lottery jackpot as a lump sum (Massachusetts Lottery only pays annuities.) Fails WP:BLP1E a google search reveals that this is the only event she has been noted for - Wikipedia is not a newspaper, the mention in Massachusetts Lottery is more than sufficient. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 02:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability requirements RP459 (talk) 04:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Massachusetts Lottery, which already covers the subject adequately. Subject is utterly low-profile/non-notable except for this incident, therefore BLP1E precludes a bio article on her. Baileypalblue (talk) 07:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Possibly the oldest person to win a multi-million dollar US lottery prize. More notable in that she could not collect (directly from the lottery) in cash. If she is still alive, she will celebrate her 100th birthday in March 2010. Loveyourcar (talk) 14:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Age is utterly immaterial to notability in this case. --Ged UK 14:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the lottery article. She is notable only for one event, so fails WP:BLP1E. --Ged UK 14:51, 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 Legal Advisor (OARDEC). MBisanz ^talk 02:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James R. Crisfield

WP:BIO currently without any WP:RS; has had a notability tag for over a year without improvement. It would be possible to WP:PUFF up the article by stringing together the handful of places where news organizations have quoted a single memo he wrote,[14] but there's not the significant independent coverage that confers notability. THF (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 02:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 02:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, I think poking the creator to improve the article is a better route. Crisfield seems to (barely) squeak across as notable, [being interviewed by the New York Times for example, on the Guantanamo proceedings and such. He's not "just a legal figure", he's a "legal figure who goes to the press" -- and I'm always in favour of having WP biographies about anybody who's quoted in the press (within reason) -- because otherwise you see embarrassing gaffes like when FOX News labeled Paul Fromm as a "free speech advocate", when he's actually a very vocal White Supremacist. Simple googling of Fromm's name would have prevented that, and I like to think WP does its bit to make sure that when a reporter googles a source's name, we have an impartial record of who that person is. (Again, within reason...the Tallahassee dog catcher is probably not notable). The judges, lawyers and clerks who participated in the Nuremberg trials all have articles, I can't see that Guantanamo is any different. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 02:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet wp:bio notability standards. The only "poking of the creator" that should be going is to tell him to quit creating articles that clearly do not meet WP:BIO in order to further his cause of making Wikipedia everything Guantanamo Bay. With respect, --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sigh -- I know I have requested you, dozens of times, to comply with policy, and confine your comments to the issues, not your perceptions of personalities. I am going to repeat that request here. Geo Swan (talk) 12:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sorry, but I think your intentions are important here. You are a SPA account that only creates articles about everything and anything that is somehow related to GB. Most of the content you create are WP:BLP1E's, if that much. The amount of articles that you create that goes through afd's outnumbers by far the creations of other editors. You were advised by a multiple consensus of editors to stop creating these BLP1e's, yet you stubbornly continue to create these non-notable bios. Please stop turning WP into a battlefield for you war against GB and stop creating articles that do not meet WP:BIO. With respect,--brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - One of the very unfortunate features of the wikipedia is that although it has the goal of encouraging a civil discussion, collegial cooperation, and a culture of civility, a subculture has grown up within the wikipedia's deletion fora, where violations of the wikipedia's civility policies are so routine they sail past most participants without comment. I am not a "single purpose account". Why just this year I have started William H. Latham, William H. Latham (icebreaker), Caterpillar 789 dump truck, Caterpillar 777 dump truck, Vidar Viking, Saint John’s University, Haji Yacoub (Uttar Pradesh), Saint John’s University School of Law, CCGS Gordon Reid. None of these articles have anything to do with "GB", or the "war on terror". I urge you, in the interests of the project to quit mounting personal attacks. Geo Swan (talk) 18:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ -- I think it is very important to cover Crisfield because he is the author of several important rulings. Crisfield's memos document the controversial practice of OARDEC scheduling "do-overs", when the first Tribunals determined captives weren't combatants after all. Crisfield's memos clarify the difference between the CSR Tribunals and the competent tribunals required by the Geneva Conventions. Crisfield's memos clarify that the evidence against the captives is largely "hearsay evidence". I know that it might seem appropriate to some readers to suggest, "so mention these memos in article X". But that won't work because Crisfield's ruling should be referred to in multiple other articles. Shoehorning the coverage of Crisfield's rulings into a single other article is, I believe, a mistake. Some of these rulings may not belong in the suggested target article. And shoehorning them into a single other article short-changes the readers of the other articles where Crisfield's rulings belong. Since he merits mention in other places there should be a central place that discusses just him. And the logical place for that coverage is an article about him. Geo Swan (talk) 12:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC) This editor's revised opinion is below. GRBerry 18:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Yes, I am aware this article is missing info like where he was born, went to school, and career before and after Guantanamo. If I had found any of that information I would have included it. But I don't think the absence of this kind of information means an article should be deleted. Sometimes we know practically nothing about someone, who is still definitely worth covering. There is an 8th Century scholar known as the "false Geber". He wrote his books under the name of a famous Arab scholar. Back in the days were every book had to be copied in longhand it was a well-known technique to get one's work republished by using the name of someone famous. Most of the impostors didn't make worthwhile contributions. But false Geber did. He was the first to publish techniques for the purification and use of sulphuric acid. Isaac Asimove listed both Geber and false Geber in his Biographical Encyclopedia of Science that listed the top 1000 scientists of all time. A lack of info about individuals' birth, schooling, early career is not a bar to covering them here. Geo Swan (talk) 12:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article has now been WP:PUFFed with the use of the adjective "notable" and a lengthy chart of the editor's picking and choosing from primary sources and then synthesizing it with third-party sources that don't mention Crisfield. Still doesn't establish notability for the person, as opposed to a subsection of the Combatant Status Review Tribunals article discussing memos by Crisfield and others. THF (talk) 13:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Geo Swan's points are compelling. 76.70.118.218 (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC) — 76.70.118.218 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete No sources of biographic data on this individual are used in the article, nor was I able to find any. WP:BLP1E applies, the potential merge target is Combatant Status Review Tribunal, the information in this article would not enhance that article, so merging should not occur and deletion should occur. GRBerry 15:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I'm reluctant to invoke WP:BLP1E for an extended event, but it seems unlikely that this person will ever be known, or of note in the sense that we invoke notability -- that is to say, enough people care about his life to get nontrivial coverage in secondary sources. Ray^Talk 16:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Legal Advisor (OARDEC). Since I expressed my keep opinion I have slept on this. And I have changed my choice. Combatant Status Review Tribunal is already too long, and will grow even longer as it grows more complete. "Legal advisor" was Crisfield's official title, and I will be happy with this material being merged with Legal Advisor (OARDEC). And if significant biographical material about Crisfield's birth, or career before or after his Guantanamo hitch emerge, further changes can be discussed then. Geo Swan (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That seems a more plausible place. But what would go? Source 6 is already (mis?)used there. Sources 7, 5, and maybe 3 seem more reasonable for use there, but not the data or text here. Better if you just used those sources there and we sent this page and its history to the dustbin. GRBerry 18:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry. I frankly don't understand this comment. What downside do you see to merge and redirection? Geo Swan (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  I'm only willing to do that for a BLP when there is some content to merge. I don't see any content here that I am willing to support merging. A good article on the legal advisors would not be a quote mine from primary sources, it would be a summary of the descriptions given by multiple independent sources about the role and performance of legal advisors. The content here does not meet that test. Indeed, reviewing the article I just found one of the four quotes had to be removed as failing the test for verification, it clearly misattributed to Crisfield the advise of someone else. (I'd previously fixed this in Legal Advisor (OARDEC).) Merge and redirect means leaves the redirect exposed to vandalism without the new page patrol line of defense - I'll live with that for a Pokemon, but not for a living person's name in the absence of actual content to be merged with authorship attribution. GRBerry 21:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The subject is not notable, and notability is not inherited. Simply being an attorney at GTMO is not enough to impart notability.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 17:35, 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 00:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MetroPCS Coverage

Unencyclopedic; WP:IINFO; more properly done by directing reader to official coverage webpage Cybercobra (talk) 02:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cricket Coverage (not proposed by me) --Cybercobra (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For all intents and purposes, this could be covered in a paragraph or less on MetroPCS with a link to their official coverage map. Having a list of every tower they've built is unnecessary. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 02:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Mister Senseless. RP459 (talk) 04:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - reasons as for Cricket Coverage. Deb (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK Delete-Need assistance with expanding on a paragraph about their coverage on the main page, Thanks --Christopher Kraus (talk) 22:54, 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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Them Terribles

Fails WP:BAND. Has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial works. No charted single in any national chart. No gold certifications. No non-trivial coverage of international or national concert tours. Has not released two or more albums on a major label or important indie label. Members have not moved on to notable bands. Is not the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city. No nomination for Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis. "Dew Circuit Breakout" doesn't qualify as a "major music competition". "Bustin Down the Door" is not a notable work of media. No national rotation. "Get to know Them Terribles" is 41 seconds long on the MTV website, not "half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network" —Kww(talk) 19:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not going to harangue individual commenters, but I, at least, would greatly appreciate it if you would mention in what way you believe the subject has satisfied WP:BAND, or, failing that, why WP:BAND is not the relevant guideline.—Kww(talk) 21:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Look at the sources the article now has. Reconsider your Has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial works then. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 22:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sbdaily.com, the Daily Nexus, and sbdailysound.com are local papers, so they don't contribute to notability. Aside from that, you've only got the MTV2 coverage of an MTV2 contest.—Kww(talk) 22:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you show me policy that "local papers" are trivial and unreliable and not 3rd party? --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 22:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I don't see that about local papers at WP:N or WP:MUSIC. WP:MUSIC says school & University papers are often considered trivial, so Daily Nexus is not a big help, but I don't know of any similar issues with local papers. Can you point that out? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised: it's only explicitly stated in WP:CORP:"The source's audience must also be considered; evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability, whereas attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability.". If you do a search on "local coverage", you can also see that it's a commonly prevailing argument at AFD, although it doesn't win 100% of the time.—Kww(talk) 22:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep they have a small ounce of notability. [15] they have a biography on mtv.com, [16] is a last.fm reference, [17], [18], [19] §hawn poo 20:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, enough glass split. Come back later (days, not minutes) and review it again if you want. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 20:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ironic keep - the article seems to assert notability satisfactorily now. Honest and non-sarcastic congratulations to Wikidemon for bringing it up to standard so quickly. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 20:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and my compliments to TreasuryTag for his proven good faith ;) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Times Square concert.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to satisfy WP:BAND per the subjection of several independent sources - non-trivial. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 21:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They have some notability and also have been played and recognized by MTV. To me that satisfies WP:BAND Brothejr (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, participated in the Vans Warped Tour. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Adequate notability established; more would be nice. PhGustaf (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability has now been established.--Dmol (talk) 23:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 02:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment reverted inappropriate NAC as nom concerns were still outstanding. No reason to close in one day with issues unaddressed. No comment on notability StarM 02:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It does fail WP:BAND. Only significant coverage is in local papers, the MTV brief mention is really part of something else, and the "brief stint" on the VANS Warped Tour means little, local bands are often invited to play a day or two. I can't find them on any of the past years' Warped Tour articles here.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This really does kind of force some tension between "non-trivial coverage in local works" and the implied standard for subjects, which would presumably force us to demand more general attention. IMO, this is where WP:BAND or WP:CORP or WP:ATHLETE start to make sense (WP:ATHLETE especially). Some prep football player (that's US High School football) will get coverage in the local paper for tossing a game winning touchdown. Such coverage, were it in Time Magazine or The New York Times, would give us some clear indication that he is notable. For a local paper like that, we have to be much more careful. It may be inposible for us to neutrally protray the subject (or portray the subject with due weight to their significance in the industry if we granted time in the local paper at the same level as time in a major news outlet. So the subject notability guidelines give us some pointers. Has the band charted? Have they been a major part of a major tour? Are they signed to a major recording company? These are signs that they are 'notable' within their field and good signs that coverage of them will exist. I don't know in this case. I'm inclined to say 'weak delete', but I have a dim view of the SNGs in general where they conflict with the GNG, so I'm not sure. I will say that this should be given the five days before being closed. Protonk (talk) 02:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If they had toured with some signed band on a nationwide tour (something more than "won a competition and get three days on Warped Tour or in Times Square" I'd vote to keep. And the Warped Tour thing happened in 2005. There just doesn't seem to be much there there.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#C1, for non-trivial mentions in the Daily Nexus; [20], [21], the Santa Barbara Independent; [22], [23], [24], and a sort-of mention in the PR Newswire ; [25]. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:There's at least a question about the value of local coverage, but PR Newswire? That' a band generated press release.—Kww(talk) 13:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As mentioned above there's non-trivial coverage by several independent reliable sources. Also, I've been shouted out of DRV in the past by several administrators for trying to get articles with much less coverage than this deleted. Not a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument but an observation. EconomicsGuy (talk) 07:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep, there's no reason to drag this out.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I snow kept it before but got ranted on for doing it... I thought (I know its not majority vote but still hear me out) 9-0 keep was enough for a snow keep but i guess I was wrong... §hawn poo 17:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I applaud you for being bold enough to do it. There are certainly sysops who've snow-kept articles after less than a day, very recently. Nevertheless, I think non-admin closure's probably best done strictly by the book.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I objected to the snow keep (and still would, if anyone is thinking about trying it) is that no one is addressing the deletion argument: the failure to meet the tests laid out in WP:BAND. The only sources on this are local newspapers reporting on a local band and MTV2 promoting its own contest. Put those aside, and this band fails every test in WP:BAND, but no one seems to care to apply the guideline to this article. There's always a chance that editors will come by that pay stricter attention to guidelines and quality of sourcing than the group that has already commented.—Kww(talk) 18:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't "voted" in this because I'm undecided; I'm unfamiliar with the contest in which they participated. If "Dew Circuit Breakout" is a major music contest, they seem to clear #9. If it isn't, they seem marginally but not (imo) clearly non-notable. But I do want to note that we don't need to put local papers aside, because they're not excluded by WP:BAND or WP:N, although you've quite rightly pointed out that they are under WP:ORG. It's understandable that an organization of local notability may not be notable enough for Wikipedia, but with bands local notability is actually implied in one of the criteria: "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city...." Local newspapers would be dandy to demonstrate the latter. (I know that nobody is claiming that here; I'm just pointing out that local sources may be fine per WP:BAND.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't argue against local sources to prove test 9, but I would treat that as a narrow exception. Case 9 really is a narrow exception: per local area, one and only one band can qualify.—Kww(talk) 19:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to wonder if this article would've drawn this much attention had it not been the focus of teh dramarama earlier on. Pointless delete but I want it on the record; this band was a top six in a moderately high-level competition, and that would seem to be the limit of their notability at this point. No albums on recognized labels; no substantial coverage (PR Newswire is emphatically not a good source, and discounting the PR stuff I count a whopping four articles in Google News Archive); no indication of national touring... nothing that meets WP:MUSIC to my eyes. (And yes, winners of the MTV contest have reached notability, but they're signed to recognized labels and have major tours on their resumes.) If we're changing the guidelines for bands, let me know, 'k? Tony Fox (arf!) 20:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It seems they've cleared notability... Also FYI the article has only been around for less than 48hrs, so maybe we should give it a break as it seems based only on that point that it could be expanded to me et notability if it doesnt now. §hawn poo 21:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find more, feel free to add it. I couldn't. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Top 3, not top 6. That is "placing" (per category 9) because the top 3 of 12 finalists were flown to New York for what seems to be a nationally-broadcast play-off. They were also featured in at least a couple MTV-produced documentary segments devoted to them (which is significant coverage by a reliable source of nationwide distribution). It's already mentioned that it formally passes criterion #1 (coverage), so it's a bit of an IAR argument to say that local newspapers and entertainment news documentaries don't count. It satisfies #10 - they are one of the groups (along with David Bowie, The Stooges, Leonard Cohen, etc.) on a notable film soundtrack. If you think a small independent film doesn't count, again, that's an IAR argument. And then #11, rotation on a major radio network. It was sourced as on rotation at MTV2. MTV ought to count - no reasonable difference between a nationwide video network and radio network. So it satisfies four criteria of notability. And yes, I do feel this was a retaliatory AfD nomination, which along with it looking like a SNOW anyway is why I haven't felt much like participating. Wikidemon (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly sure what I would be retaliating for ... so far as I know, you've never done me any harm. The questions really are whether this contest is an important one or not (which could be argued, but no one has ... it certainly isn't in the class of American Idol), and whether MTV promotion of an MTV contest is an independent enough source. I'd like to hear why you believe the surf documentary is notable. As for the MTV2 rotation, that again strikes me as MTV2 promotion for an MTV2 contest, and I would discount it on that basis.—Kww(talk) 00:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To me this seems to be more of an issue of WP:POINT than anything else. AfD isn't the right place to be debating these sort of guideline issues. Tothwolf (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

? Discussing whether an individual set of facts surrounding an individual article meets or fails relevant guidelines is exactly what AFDs are for.—Kww(talk) 00:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on all the above discussion it seems to me you are trying to determine the scope of WP:BAND and other guidelines. That is not what AfD is for. Tothwolf (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI fully agree, this AfD is becoming an arguement of policys/guidelines §hawn poo 01:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Santa Barbara Independent is definitely a good enough reference, they have editors, therefore they are reliable. WP:BAND #1 does not exclude local papers and I don't see why it should. (Bands from out of town get covered in local papers too, and that also contributes to their notability.) Together with the other cited references (MTV etc) this article passes WP:BAND #1. Strummer25 (talk) 11:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the significant coverage identified above in the Santa Barbara Independent and the Daily Nexus is fine to meet the primary notability guideline. In general I do not agree that coverage from local reliable sources should be excluded from establishing notability and, unless an article fails other inclusion policies, meeting the main notability guideline is enougth to merit inclusion regardless of particular subject specific notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 21:24, 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 merge and redirect to Crystal Lake Community Consolidated School District 47. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leon J. Lundahl Middle School

Non notable intermediate school, lacks significant 3rd party references Rtphokie (talk) 02:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Crystal_Lake,_Illinois#Education. THF (talk) 03:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if possible or delete Non notable §hawn poo 05:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
M/R to Crystal Lake Community Consolidated School District 47, we don't need AfDs for schools that aren't going to be deleted. Just merge to the district's page and move forward as that is the general process when a school district article exists. StarM 15:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 02:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment reverted inappropriate non-admin close by user who had participated in the AfD. User does not agree that article should be re-directed to district, so we'll have to let this run. StarM 02:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
redirect as is standard for a middle school unless someone can show particular notability. I personally think middle schools should have articles, but that doesn't seem to be the general consensous. Hobit (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to school district/ county/ community article, per nom and standard practice. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 03:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Crystal Lake Community Consolidated School District 47#Middle schools per common precedent. Cunard (talk) 04:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 04:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 04:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Crystal Lake Community Consolidated School District 47#Middle schools per accepted practice. TerriersFan (talk) 12:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the local district, as per standard for lower level schools under High School. --Ged UK 14:07, 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 02:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Map of the Village of Williamsburgh (1845)

A merger suggestion tag has been removed without discussion almost as soon as it was inserted. This belongs as a picture with caption in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, not as an article on its own. Merge, and, if they don't want it there, delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE or delete, does not qualify as an article.--It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 02:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge should not be an article on its own. RP459 (talk) 04:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Image page already has all of this text in its description, which is where it belongs. Whether or not to include the image in Williamsburg, Brooklyn is a decision for the editors of that article. Zetawoof_(ζ) 04:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a duplicate of the image page. WillOakland (talk) 05:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's PRODable really, but as we've got this going anyway. It's simply a recreation of the imagine itself, perhaps a confused uploader? --Ged UK 14:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LEAVE AS IS I created it because it is a map, so a small thumbnail with a caption in the article is too small to be very useful. I would have it link directly to the image, but the image is quite large and wikipedia defaults to display at largest possible dimenisions when you click on the image. It points to the need for better image management tools on wikipedia. I don't relly see the harm in leaving this article. By having it present makes wikipedia better and provides more information to the user. Shouldn't the user experience be the ultimate test? Repliedthemockturtle (talk) 14:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nobody is saying the map should be deleted. The file [[File:1845_Williamsburg_Map.jpg]] is valid. You've said that By having it present makes wikipedia better and provides more information to the user, but it doesn't. The article contains the exact same information that is contained on the file page. It's pure duplication. On the file page, if you want to see the full size image, just click on the picture and you'll get the full version. --Ged UK 15:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is not the same thing. The full resolution page is unwieldy and not easy to navigate. Try the experince for yourself, starting from the WIlliamsburg page. How about I just uploda the map at a lower resolution and we delete the extra page? Repliedthemockturtle (talk) 15:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Currently, the article under discussion is a full size version of the map and info on the map. The map page itself contains a link to the full size map, and info on the map, thus they are the same. I totally agree that this page is unwieldy, but I'm confused as to what you were trying to achieve with this page. Yes WP defaults to teh largest size when yuo link, but it can easily be resized. See Wikipedia:Extended_image_syntax for help on how to do that. If you want to insert the map into another article, say Williamsburgh, then the only sensible way is by using [[Image:{name}|{type}|{___location}|{size}|{upright}|{text}]]. Does that make sense? --Ged UK 15:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I hera what your saying, but the average user doesn't know how to save or manipulate images. I changed the size and uploaded full res to wiki commons.
- Comment from nominator. Please note that I never suggested that the file itself should be deleted. On the contrary, it should be kept by all means, at least until a better resolution becomes available. Now you could have a thumbnail version of the map within the article, as suggested, and all one would have to do to get a full-size version of it is click on it. No need for you to do anything more, actually. What the article nominated here is really doing is nothing but duplicate a page that serves your purpose in a much better way than what you intend to do. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment It's alright. I made all necesaary changes. Repliedthemockturtle (talk) 15:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE Thumbnail exists in Williamsburgh article. I uploaded a lower resolution version of the file so it is viewable in a reasonable manner. I moved the hu-res version to wikicommons for use by researchers etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Repliedthemockturtle (talk • contribs) 16:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
transwiki & delete - http://wikimapia.org/ or http://www.mapipedia.com/ is more appropriate. But really user:Repliedthemockturtle has done whats needed. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 02:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I removed the link from the Williamsburg, Brooklyn article, so all taht is left to do is to actually delete the page and removed the "merge nomination" template from Williamsburg, Brooklyn.Repliedthemockturtle (talk) 15:11, 12 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 redirect not likely. MBisanz ^talk 00:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lord of This World (Black Sabbath Song)

Article fails WP:MUSIC. Song is an album track that has never been released as a single, has never placed on any international music charts, and has never been nominated for any significant music awards. Enigma^msg 02:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The Real Libs-speak politely 02:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. RP459 (talk) 04:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. Afkatk - The Mind Reader (talk) 08:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Master of Reality... I actually think it might be a plausible search term; it has after all been covered by multiple other notable bands. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Lord of This World is actually a redirect to the album. Not sure if this is also necessary. Enigma^msg 16:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the album, I think it's possible that people would serach for this, but as a song as and of itself it's not notable. --Ged UK 13:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-charting non-notable song. JamesBurns (talk) 05:36, 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 speedy delete and redirect to Thing-Thing. Mgm|^(talk) 10:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thing Thing Arena 3

A7 declined because of a user's thought that online games do not count as "web content" ViperSnake151 01:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11 or A7) as egg bacon spam sausage and spam. I would also say lack of indication of importance, but I like spam spam spam.... MuZemike 03:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I thought it was implied that online games were web-content also, and I swear I've seen other flash games speedied. Regardless it smells like promotional prose to me, but it looks like this will have to go through the five day process. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 06:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7: looks like web content to me. No assertion of importance, evidence of notability, or reliable source coverage. Baileypalblue (talk) 06:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleteThere's already a topi called Thing-Thing which covers the content in this anyway, it's justuseless promotion material. Afkatk - The Mind Reader (talk) 09:09, 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 write about the building and not the museum. We'll keep this as a redirect to the new article about the building. £5 for Mr DiverScout. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Witchcraft and Wizardology Museum

None notable, article was started by the owner so is advertising . I don't like listing for Afd but I think this is beyond saving. Tuxraider reloaded (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The building (which the article is mostly about) appears to have a certain modicum of notability, but the museum itself, not really. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references to support the claim that such a museum even exists. Looie496 (talk) 00:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment I would have renamed it to be an article about the pub that was once housed there, or the address, but there must be dozens of pubs with similar notability, and we don't have articles about other White Lion pubs, or even all that many pubs. If you look at Category:Public_houses_in_England, the benchmark for inclusion is (or should be) quite high. Sticky Parkin 01:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response - Fair point, but what do you mean by 'other White Lion pubs'? AlexTiefling (talk) 11:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I presume it means other pubs called "The White Lion". It is a common pub name. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right; but unlike pubs called Hobgoblin or The Moon Under Water, there's no intrisic connection between pubs called 'the White Lion'. I'm just nitpicking, I guess. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and refocus to an article about the building, which is a Grade II listed building. JulesH (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How many of them are there?:) People live in many listed buildings in almost every village or town, as their homes. Does the tiny rickety house my mum nearly bought get an article? This shop is only one third of the building, no. 21. The remains of the listed building, numbers 19,20 and 21 are just shops now. All listed means is (annoyingly for the occupiers) people have to maintain it in a certain way, and can't make many alterations to it. We don't have pages for most of the many listed pubs. But I suppose it would be better than the current article, which is an advert by the bloke who runs the shop or something.:) Sticky Parkin 21:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the relevance of how many they are. They have all been selected by English Heritage as buildings that are of particular historical or architectural interest, which shows notability. There is a long-standing consensus that listed buildings are notable. JulesH (talk) 08:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that reference, Jules. That shows that the article's claim that the building dates from 1541, and is Elizabethan (note contradiction) is false; the listing entry shows that the building dates from the 17th or early 18th centuries - in other words, about one or two centuries later than the claim. Additional thought: the claim that this is well-known as one of Britain's most haunted buildings can, in fact, be checked. I don't have my copy of Haunted Britain by Anthony Hippesley Coxe (I hope I spelled that right) to hand, but something like that would be a good starting point. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding references that the White Lion pub may in fact date from c. 1541, but the architectural assessment suggests that the buiding that housed it may have been demolished and rebuilt. The Reader's Encyclopedia of Shakespeare, for instance, records the date of opening of the pub as 1591. 1541 is plausibly a misreading of this figure (or vice versa).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and rewrite. The museum itself is clearly not notable. It can't even agree on its own name. This seems to be its homepage: [26]. It gets a local newspaper review here which makes it clear that it is a very minor establishment with little to recommend it: [27]. The building sounds like it is notable, provided the claims can be substantiated. Listing is certainly not automatic notability but there are additional claims here. The article should be recast about that if it is kept. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the entry (and museum) has issues, and the page requires a lot more editing, but notability under Wikipedia crtieria for museums is establishable. Original article may have been COI, but a bit of work and some research should sort out that issue. There are plenty of references to prove that the museum exists, even though it seems to have altered its name a few times. Building is notable, and luckily listed building status protects buildings like it from the attention of owners who wish to act as architectural deletionists! XD DiverScout (talk) 10:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is not a proper museum. It is a small commercial entertainment based exhibition. Its website has the following disclaimer: "Due to changes in Consumer Law replacing the Fraudulent Mediums Act 1951 we are obliged to state the following: "All services provided on ghost hunts, vigils and other events are for entertainment purposes only."" The single review I found does not constitute significant coverage. Maybe there is more under its other names so I had another go with Google. This is another candidate for its home page: [28] (it seems to link to the other one). Here is its listing on the local tourist board site: [29]. I am not seeing more RS coverage than that and I don't think it is sufficient. I still think that the building may be notable (provided all those historical references checkout OK) but the museum should not get more than a single sentence noting the current use of the building, if it is kept. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - well the three reviews I've added (out of a plethora on the net) include one from a notable newspaper. There is also an entry from the County Council. A museum does not have to be a registered museum, it simply has to record an area of history. Many museums are not registered as per UK legal museum status. The onlt difference with this one is that it covers an area that some people will find controversial due to religious considerations. If sources can be found for the building, outside of the context relating to the museum, perhaps this could be considered for a change of emphasis. DiverScout (talk) 11:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - My original comment below addresses the question of 'UK legal museum status'; there is no such thing. I'm astonished that you think this nomination or debate has anything to do with 'religious considerations'; no-one has mentioned such a thing before you. The reviews you added are interesting; but the one from the Birmingham Mail strongly suggests that this 'museum' has no collection at all - just a few gimmicks and a lot of interpretive signage. I don't think it's any more notable than any other commercial operation (a sweet shop, for example) would be in the same premises. And as I've said above, the source that JulesH found suggests that the claims about the building which are made in the article are simply lies. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The name 'museum' is not protected in British law, so any organisation or venue, no matter how minor or how unlike a reasonable expectatation of a museum, may call itself that. The mere existence of an entity calling itself a museum is not notable. Grade II listed buildings are not inherently notable; there are many many thousands of them, especially in older towns like Stratford. There is a well-known and long-established witchcraft museum in Boscastle; this isn't it. 'Wizardology' isn't even a word. I may reconsider if someone can show (1) that the museum's collection contains noteworthy artefacts; (2) that the building's listing level is higher than a basic II; (3) that the organisation is registered with the Charity Commission, and has returned accounts at least once; (4) that the collection is accredited by the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council; or (5) that at least two independently compiled tourist guides (ie, not pay-for-inclusion volumes) dedicated space to reviewing this attraction. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - none of which is required to demonstrate notability for Wikipedia... DiverScout (talk) 11:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, but they are all very good ways of demonstrating significant coverage, which is required, and has not yet been shown. If significant coverage can be shown in other valid ways then that is fine too. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Notability as per Wikipedia guidelines is all that is required. Arguably this article already has achieved that level, but it os not for either of us to make that call. DiverScout (talk) 11:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Er, actually, it is for us, collectively, to make that call; that's what this discussion is for. And I think it fails. The building isn't early Renaissance, as claimed. The 'museum' has no notable features. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This leads to an interesting question: If a pub is rebuilt, is it still the same pub? Ditto, if it changes name and or ownership? My impression is that a pub is often regarded as a continuous establishment if it keeps its name. Perhaps that is one to puzzle over as we prop up the bar. ;-) --DanielRigal (talk) 11:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability requires "significant coverage", see WP:GNG. In my view, the Birmingham Mail article only takes us about half way there. The same level of coverage from a second reliable source would switch it to a weak keep for me. If this "museum" really was notable it would pick up quite a lot of RS coverage, in the local press at least. Instead we find only one review so far, written by a guy who visited it by chance (was not actually sent there by the BM) and makes the minor nature of this exhibition clear. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe, pseudoscience,[3] or extremist may be used as sources of information about themselves,...(see Wikipedia:Reliable sources). Well, we both know policy. That is a good start. There are many reviews of this museum - so far I have only spent 7 minutes of time on this article, ignoring a large number of "fringe" articles allowable under the above, and have added citations, wikilinks and references without breaking a sweat and knowing nothing about the museum or the subject before starting. That also possibly says something about the notability of this museum. :) The sources I have already added are secondary sources, "Independent of the subject", and reliable. There are also plenty of them. I believe WP:GNG is met, but may look for some additonal sources later. DiverScout (talk)

Response - This talk of fringe theories is tangential to the main point. It's not necessary to have any particular view on witchcraft, ghosts, or any other such thing in order to assess the notability of this self-style museum. The existence, operation, and notability of museums is not a fringe topic by any stretch of the imagination, and no special pleading is required. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - I don't see it as being needed in this case, as there are plenty of secondary sources, but as this "museum" is part of the fringe due to their supernatural claims, I feel that a case can be argued. We may have to differ on that one. With regard to the earlier statement, it is not for us to decide. Wikipedia is adversarial judicial, in as much as we are not counting votes to retain or delete this article. We need to focus on policy, make our case and then, as you know, a third-party will decide if our case has been made. DiverScout (talk) 12:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they are making serious supernatural claims. The disclaimer on their site makes it clear this is all for entertainment. That said, I also don't think it affects notability either way so we don't need to take a view on this. It is either notable as a tourist attraction or it isn't. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've added a few more references and have noticed that the official local tourist pages refer to this as one of the major tourist attractions in Stratford. Even I'm surprised to read that, but its out there. DiverScout (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response - I can't tell for sure, but I think that local tourist board page is pay-for-entry. Besides which, even if it weren't, tourist boards are not reliable sources; they gleefully report any old ahistorical crap that the venues they're promoting will pass them. To take an extreme example, a tourist board in Wales produced a certificate proclaiming that charity fund-raiser and independent political candidate Captain Beany, the human baked bean was a tourist attraction. I'm not sure we're obliged to take such claims seriously. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response - They don't charge and are independent, third parties. DiverScout (talk) 12:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources aren't adequate enough to probe notability. Delete as per WP:NOTE.--Sloane (talk) 04:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please indicate which elements of WP:NOTE you feel need covering, as I see can't see which part of GNG is not now covered. DiverScout (talk)

Additional sources re the building: Fogg Stratford upon Avon: Portrait of a Town 1986 includes numerous references to this building and its history. It is mentioned in the Readers Encyclopedia of Shakespeare (1966) which gives a date of opening of the White Lion pub as 1591. Fox The Borough Town of Stratford-upon-Avon details the original pub and notes that it was rebuilt in 1753 by John Payton (a prominent historic figure himself). JulesH (talk) 08:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also described, presumably in some detail, in Hill Shakespeare's Birthplace and Adjoining Properties 1885, as it is one of those adjoining properties. JulesH (talk) 08:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The building has a lot of history, and is now a museum. It seems to have adequate references now to back that up. Perhaps an article dedicated to the building itself, which is what most of the content seems to be about anyway, would be more appropriate, with a list at the end that it is currently being used as a museum. Dream Focus 20:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree that it might make sense to switch the focus to the building, with the museum as the secondary section. If we agree I am happy to be bold and modify the article to reflect this, making the current title a redirect. We'd also need to agree the correct title for the new page. Suggestions? (I realise the we need to complete the AfD before acting on this idea) DiverScout (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually you don't need to complete the Afd before rewriting the article, or editing it any way, go ahead. I think there is enough here for an article, its just that the focus is wrong. pablo_hablo. 21:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've fiddled with the text and set a divert to the new page. Apologies if this looks like I'm treading on toes, please revert if offended! The new page needs extra details (such as closure date for Inn) but seems a bit more "comfortable" than it was. Comments on a £5 note please... DiverScout (talk) 23:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge rdunn PLIB 10:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I support the recent bold move by DiverScout; there seems to be a good argument for the notability of the entire historic inn, with the 'museum' as a relevant element in the larger story. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep modified article at new ___location, props (but, sadly, no fiver) to DiverScout, time to close this Afd? pablo_hablo. 11:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as redirect per DiverScout, pat on back (but no fiver, sorry). JohnCD (talk) 11:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as redirect. Good job, Diver. Themfromspace (talk) 20:24, 12 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 00:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Connecticut Mix & Match

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Connecticut Mix & Match

This is the first time I've proposed deleting an article, so bear with me.

I've never heard of this game (outside of Wikipedia) even though I purchase the occasional Conn. ticket. Seems like someone from the lottery was pushing this game that may never be played! No Annuities (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I highly doubt this game will ever get off the ground. Only one other game of this nature exists, at least in the US (Pennsylvania). I'm not hearing of any other games of this kind. This article probably should go. No Annuities (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE-the article can always be brought back if the game ever gets off the ground. For now, I don't see it happening. Loveyourcar (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Google News search does not turn up any confirmation of WP:N required notability -- even a specific search of the Hartford Courant web site finds no evidence this game was ever introduced. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:46, 5 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 01:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:V and WP:N, couldn't find anything on google or google news. If sources turn up, it would probably be more appropriate to make a mention in the Connecticut Lottery article. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 03:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:V and WP:N and WP:Crystal. If this is ever launched, it may be notable then if it fulfills the core criteria. --Ged UK 13:40, 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 speedy deleted by Akradecki as a copyvio (WP:CSD#G12). Non-admin closure. BryanG (talk) 05:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extensible Mobile Application Server

Would be spam if it told us where to buy the product. As it is, no evidence that the product exists let alone that it is notable. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as a speedy delete due to violation of copyright of [30] --Megaboz (talk) 19:42, 5 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 01:19, 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 00:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Britt

AfDs for this article:

notability seems questionable and content either trivial or negative. Deleted twice before in 2006 and undeleted [31] in 2007. Rd232 ^talk 00:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete Almost entirely self-published difficult to verify primary sources or non-RS. The argument behind undeletion was based on a variety of sources being provided, but examination shows virtually none of them pass RS anyway --Insider201283 (talk) 01:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - personality is not notable outside of the context of Amway. A google search has a lot of hits - and pretty much all of them are unable to be used as reliable source. Shot info (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've been searching for weeks for enough information to make any sort of article out of this. I've come to the conclusion that he's a good salesperson, who has pleased some and annoyed some people. He's attracted exactly that amount of coverage—nothing of significance beyond self-published sources on the man. Seems to have far too little independent sources writing about him for an acceptable article. - Peripitus (Talk) 02:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I don't think this would fall under G4 as the last AFD was more than two years ago and is likely different. Anyways, I cannot find any reliable sources independent of Amway to indicate notability. MuZemike 03:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Link to previous DRV. I went through deletion review, and at that time the article was allowed to be created. The link is here. --Knverma (talk) 08:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Knervma, as above, hardly any of sources in that link are WP:RS or WP:V so I'm not sure why the recreate went through. Do you have any better sources? I'm sure Britt was likely covered in some of the many third party books on Amway, which are WP:RS and WP:V. --Insider201283 (talk) 12:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That's hardly a clear DRV, I'm surprised it was recreated, though I'm presuming it was on the strength of the sources. He has one line in Forbes, apparently one line in Compasionate Capitalism, a brief reference in Triangle Business Journal article about the fraud, three lines in the MSNMC article, none of which could be called 'substantial' coverage. IBOAI is a trade organsitation so unlikely to be independent, 14 of the 21 sources are self-published. I think that covers the WP:RS criteria. --Ged UK 13:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Britt is notable in a political and economic sense. 76.70.118.218 (talk) 14:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC) — 76.70.118.218 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete per above. THF (talk) 14:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete Per Ged UK's analysis. Looks to me like he's not quite passing notability. More sources might change my mind but right now I'm not seeing it. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 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 The Ten Commandments for a Designer of Finnish Heraldry. MBisanz ^talk 00:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Ten Commandments for a Designer of Finnish Heraldry

Per WP:NOTMANUAL, content that lists instructions, tutorials or how-tos does not make a suitable Wikipedia article. This article's topic also constitutes non-notable fork content and may further constitute original research. Issues of wikification and WP:NOTMANUAL were brought up about a year ago or longer, and no significant improvement has been made, nor does such improve appear to be possible. The article's topic is necessarily non-notable fork content and unencyclopedic. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think the best analogy here is with a page like The Ten Commandments. The WP article should not just say what they are, it should explain them and their history. These commandments seem to be the work of one author and so not really notable enough to give a full explanation of. An article about the book that they originated in would be more warranted. CapitalSasha ~ talk 01:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not wikipedic, but I would hope that some of the material can be incorporated into other articles. Deb (talk) 12:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Never became wikipedic. Junior Woodchuck (talk) 13:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, then delete Merge into Finnish heraldry, then delete as it is a highly unlikely search term. --Ged UK 13:19, 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. Discussion to merge should take place at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St. Peter's Primary School, Cloughreagh

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/St. Peter's Primary School, Cloughreagh

Non-notable school. No references at all, and nothing to say about it other than it exists. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge to the school district or locality as we usually do for primary schools without specific notability. -- Eastmain (talk) 00:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge, just as usual, and as we've been doing consistently for over a year now. DGG (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the district article, as is common practice. -Senseless!... says you, says me 06:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per standard practice on primary schools. --Ged UK 13:06, 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 00:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hay Island (Connecticut)

This is one of the smallest and least interesting of any geographic feature even in the tiny town of Darien, Connecticut where it's located. A Google Maps search for "Hay Island, Darien, CT" [32] will show it's a spit of land that extends 1,000 to 2,000 feet off of a larger peninsula. There are tiny peninsulas all over the place on the Connecticut shore, and like almost all of them, there is next to nothing that can be reliably sourced about this one. Oh, we do know that a rich guy, William Ziegler (a fine person by all accounts) lived there before his recent death, and he named a holding corporation after Hay Island. It's very expensive land -- I'll give it that -- but that's not unusual. Violates WP:N, WP:RS and it's been a magnet for vandalism in the past (check the history). I'm an inclusionist, but there's no hope for a good article on this one. Noroton (talk) 23:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - To the town's article. Is there a conflict here? No need to AfD this, just be bold and redirect it. Yah! :) §FreeRangeFrog 04:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: perfectly decent geo stub. Plenty of reliable source coverage available, see Google Books [33], GNews [34]. Previous vandalism is not a reason to delete the article. Nor is size or lack of "interestingness". Baileypalblue (talk) 04:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Having web pages show up on a Google search results page isn't enough. Neither of the searches you point to leads to any sources giving any encyclopedic information on the subject. The GNews results page tells us who lived on the peninsula before they recently died and the fact that the place has been used as a kind of boundary for state shellfish regulations. There is no evidence anywhere that this topic will ever sprout an actual encyclopedia article. We have no sources that delve into the topic with any "significant coverage" and no reason at all to think that we'll ever find any. Watching the Hay Island page to prevent further vandalism is a drain on the time and energy of volunteers. If this is a "perfectly decent geo stub" I can produce 800 more from the shoreline of Connecticut on more significant geographical features -- and that's no exaggeration. Just go to Google Maps and follow the coastline. -- Noroton (talk) 04:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 00:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment have undone inappropriate non-admin close done far too early. No comment on notability, needs to run. StarM 00:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Noroton (talk) 04:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Geographical features like this are generally notable and sources do exist to expand this article (this for example) --Oakshade (talk) 00:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, sources do not exist. I've looked. Did you read the source you cite? It actually says nothing at all about Hay Island peninsula itself but only gives a brief description of the cove that lies to the north of it, and it fits the definition of inadequate "trivial" coverage given in WP:N. Not every geographical feature -- brook, hill, reef, rock, what have you -- is worth a Wikipedia article. Noroton (talk) 04:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am in agreement with Baileypalblue. I don't think that a compelling argument for deletion has been made. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, no compelling argument has been made that this spit of land is notable enough for an article. After looking, I haven't found any reliable sources offline or online that provide any information. Even geographic features should have some prominence in some way. I don't expect to find any sourcing on it because it's an insignificant mound of earth surrounded on three sides by water and topped with a mansion -- a description that fits almost the entire coastline of this county. Can anyone tell me why this particular insignificant piece of land deserves an article? Does every other 20-acre tract on the planet deserve one? Believe me, I'm not unsympathetic to the existence of articles about notable subjects in Darien, Connecticut. I think I've created most of them. My user name is the same as the section of town that this mound of earth is sometimes called a part of. I could create 30 articles about subjects, many of them geographical, from this same town that would be more notable, reliably sourced and longer than this one. But they wouldn't be encyclopedia articles, they'd be permanent stubs, because there just isn't enough reliable sourcing. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a gazeteer. Nobody who follows a link to get to this Hay Island "article" will fail to be disappointed by seeing only a few sentences, at most, ever. There's not even any information here worth merging into another article. Noroton (talk) 04:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Places are inherently notable, I wish I could find the link that mentions this. I'll hunt for it. --GedUK 13:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps the following would help, but the fact that there is nothing in policy specific to geography means that general guidelines like WP:N should apply:
  - Wikipedia: Notability (geography) (just an essay): The lack of an official charter and legal boundaries and other documentation means that we will have to weigh the quality of non-official information on a place to determine notability. For example, a named subdivision that takes up part of a county, but has no formal legal boundaries, will be notable if evidence can be shown of substantial non-trivial information about that subdivision.
  - The article looks like a dictionary definition, to me (at least the verifiable parts of its two lines and four short sentences). Here's a relevant passage from Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (a policy): All stubs should have the potential to develop into full articles. A stub that has no possibility whatsoever for expansion beyond stub status is presenting the verifiable information in the wrong way. Wikipedia should not have single-fact articles. This seems to apply to stubs that aren't dictionary definitions.
  - From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes (also not a policy or guideline): Major geographical and geological features featured on maps, such as lakes, rivers, mountains, mountain passes, etc., are acceptable. [...] City streets are contested, but minor streets are not generally acceptable. Most numbered roadways are acceptable, but should only be created if they can be described beyond the route itself. Major, unnumbered streets and roads beyond the level of a side street or neighborhood roadway may be created, but are not guaranteed to remain, as outcomes have varied. The map shows this is not a major geographical feature. The Google map has a miles/kilometers key, so you can see just how small this place is. I quoted the passage about streets and roads because this mound of dirt is a lot like a minor road. For anyone reading this, there is probably as much notability and information about your nearest street corner than there is on this spit of land. How low do we want to set the bar for the significance of an article topic? -- Noroton (talk) 17:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as now referenced article will always remain a stub, but that's okay. A merge to the Darien, Connecticut can be discussed on the article's talk page, AND THEN one might consider a redirect, if at all. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope that actual WP:N policy matters to the closer of this AfD, because this article simply doesn't meet Wikipedia policy and guidelines. The only thing actually sourced in the article is the fact that Hay Island exists and its north shore is on Ziegler's Cove. Of the only two sources that could be found about the island, The U.S. Coast Guard book only talks about Hay Island Ledge (a rock, apparently just below the surface and a few hundred yards offshore) and Hay Island Ledge bouy. I did a search of that book and found absolutely nothing on the island itself. The second book, a guide to the Long Island Sound shoreline, mentions where Hay Island is, and that its north shore is on Ziegler's Cove. Every single other bit of information under the "Hay Island" heading in that book is about Ziegler's Cove. Which has it's own article: Ziegler's Cove, which is not up for deletion. I think I may have read a few lines about Hay Island in a book on Darien history. There simply is no reason to believe that there are any sources, or any collection of sources, that provide more than a trivial amount of information on this topic. Topics that have no hope for more sourcing than this are supposed to be deleted. If anything is non-notable, this is it. -- Noroton (talk) 01:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sourced the island being the home of William Ziegler III (deceased), the family of which all that Ziegler stuff in the area is named. Actually might be a nice article about William in the offing, as he's done some notable things. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've looked into it, but he just doesn't appear to be that notable. Lots of fine people give their money away to good causes, buy up companies with it or pay off the taxes on large estates with it, especially in this area. The information about him does add to the article, but not in a way that makes the article actually notable. Long Neck, the peninsula that Hay Island is attached to, is actually more notable, but despite the fact that it's mentioned (briefly) in local histories, I've been reluctant to start an article because I don't yet have enough sourcing. On a lighter note (I don't mean for it to be snide) here's a proposed history section for the Hay Island article, to reflect it's actual notability (closing admin, please feel free to skip, although someone might want to include the Kensett information in the article):

The history of Hay Island, beyond the fact that it has long been owned by the Ziegler family, is unknown, even though the history of the surrounding area is known. In each era of history, notability has passed by this spot. Siwanoy Indians were known to have populated the shore areas more heavily than inland, including spots within a few miles of Hay, but whether they settled on Hay Island any more than anywhere else (or at all) is unknown. Colonial settlers made Long Neck and other nearby peninsulas into common areas for growing winter corn or keeping cattle and other animals by fencing off the land connections of the peninsulas, but whether Hay Island was then attached to Long Neck is not known. Colonists straightened out their legal claims to Long Neck in the 1680s by effecting a legal land purchase from local Indians for an unknown price. The Town of Stamford, which then owned the property, quickly divided it up into private lots, but it is unknown if Hay Island was a part of any of this. During the American Revolution, Tories from Long Island would raid Darien, and stashed loot in a cave about 1.5 miles northeast of Hay Island in a spot known as "Tory Hole", but whether they did anything with Hay Island other than to row past it is unknown. Large estates were built on Long Neck in the 19th century, including Anson Phelps Stokes' estate at the southern tip of Long Neck. Andrew Carnegie spent two summers at Stokes' estate, but it is not known if either Carnegie or Stokes ever visited Hay Island or ever paid much attention to it or even saw it. Stokes' estate later became a Roman Catholic convent and a school for girls where Eunice Kennedy Shriver and Kathleen Kennedy were schooled, but there is no record of either of them running off the school grounds and visiting Hay Island. It was not along the route from the nearby Noroton Heights railroad station. Prominent 19th century artist John Kensett lived on nearby Contentment Island with artist Vincent Colyer and his wife, and Kensett painted all of the surrounding area. He depicted Hay Island in his Long Neck Point from Contentment Island in which Hay is a smudge of distant trees near the middle of the picture, neither hauntingly distant, as is Long Neck Point, nor close enough for a detailed depiction, nor colorful like the sky or water, so that it is one of the least prominent parts of the painting. Charles Lindbergh, his wife Anne Morrow Lindbergh and their family lived about 1.5 miles to the northeast of Hay Island, and Lindbergh family members may have sailed or rowed small boats near Hay Island, but there is no record of that, either. In fact, as one considers the people and events at further and further remove from Hay Island, more and more notable history and current importance can be found in the town, county, state and nation that Hay Island is in, but none of it appears to ever associate itself with Hay Island, one of the world's gazillion insignificant, quiet retreats, as notable as a Typical Brook in the Amazon Rain Forest, a Stretch of Sand Dunes in the Sahara or a Patch of Ice in the Antarctic. Or perhaps the spot can be best compared with 11 Downing Street [OMG there's an article on that!!] or 1598 Pennsylvania Avenue, which appear to have narrowly missed numerous associations with historical notability. Hay Island is larger than 1994 WR12, an asteroid, but the island has never been lofted into space, as of 2009, and therefore poses no potential threat to planet Earth — although the island's tiny size and the wealth of some of it's owners, present and potentially in the future, the possibility cannot totally be discounted. It is rumored that an appropriate historic plaque [35] has been posted somewhere on the island, but no sources could be found for this, either.

I believe the above, almost all of which can be sourced, is all that can actually be said about the notability of Hay Island. That is, that it doesn't have any. Why don't we wait for some famous person to buy it and do something to make it notable? The chances of that happening are not zero. -- Noroton (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've found that it's impossible to get a geographic ___location article deleted on Wikipedia. You can have a ___location with no buildings, no residents, that isn't a CDP, isn't an incorporated area, and nothing's been written about it in > 50 years—and you still can't get the !votes for deletion. I'm dreading the day when Johnny Doe, non-notable teenager who wants a WP article, realizes that while he can't have his own article, his article on Johnny Doe's house will sail through AFD. Next up: an article on Johnny Doe's bedroom? Current ___location of Johnny Doe's feet? sigh Dori (Talk • Contribs) 22:51, 12 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 00:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freida Parton

Fails WP:MUSIC. Her only album did not chart, nor did any singles. She is not the subject of significant reliable third party sources. Seems to only be famous for being Dolly Parton's sister. -- Darth Mike (join the dark side) 00:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First line says it all she is best known as the sister of Dolly Parton Notability doesn't automatically confer to family members. I've also stripped out some unsourced potentially libellous BLP info. --Ged UK 12:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability is not automatically inhereted. JamesBurns (talk) 05:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of her own notability. Releases not enough for WP:MUSIC. Duffbeerforme (talk) 04:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seem to be notable and she has achieved notability outside the "being dolly partons sister" area.--Judo112 (talk) 17:40, 12 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. Marasmusine (talk) 12:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resistance and Liberation (mod)

Fails relevant notability guidelines RenegadeMonster (talk) 08:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Resistance and Liberation (without the "mod" suffix, that is) and redirect to List of Source engine mods. Could be a plausible search term. MuZemike 17:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking reliable third-party sources, failing WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:N. No prejudice against creating a few redirects to the list of mods article. Randomran (talk) 00:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, redirect optional. A search would find it in the list article anyway but a redirect does no harm. It might also be worth somebody familiar with this stuff looking at the other mods listed. I looked at a random sample of them very quickly. Some are looked OK, some a bit borderline and some were referenced only to primary sources and blogs. The latter group should be considered for the same fate as this one. Given that most software is not notable, I wonder how many mods are? Probably more than I would expect but certainly not all of them. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of Source mods are notable, the problem is that those who create the articles rarely start it off in the right direction. Couple that with the fact online sources like IGN don't do proper mod coverage in the same way that print sources like PC Gamer do, and someone comes along, sees a poorly written article, googles it and sees nothing and so it ends up here. Ironically for games only available online, the sources that indicate that a mod is notable are usually only in print sources. -- Sabre (talk) 11:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources.--Sloane (talk) 04:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Source engine mods, there's some coverage of it there. -- Sabre (talk) 11:07, 11 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 Kerala ethnic groups. MBisanz ^talk 00:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Malayali Keralites

Neologism and vague classification. The title also appears inappropriate and ethnically divisive and POV. If the article survives deletion it needs to be merged with Demographics of Kerala. ~~We could also create separate articles for Tamils in Kerala, Kannadigas in Kerala, etc.~~ However, the vague term "Non-Malayali Keralites" should be removed. The Enforcer _{Office of the secret service} 12:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —The Enforcer _{Office of the secret service} 12:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Probably the article can be renamed to Non-Malayalis in Kerala to avoid neologism. Salih (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Why do we not have articles like Non-Tamils in Tamil Nadu, Non-Marathis in Maharashtra, etc. I am sorry; I feel it is too vague and not required. It is also very poorly sourced. We, already, have articles for most communities described in the article, like Cochin Sikhs, Palakkad Iyers, Cochin GSB's, Kasaragod Havyakas, Cochin Gujaratis, etc. I don't think this article is necessary.-The Enforcer _{Office of the secret service} 17:55, 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, — Aitias // discussion 00:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, and possibly rename This seems to be a good signposting document that pulls togther a range of info in a number of other articles. It's sourced, and the numbers of people included in the broad subject field certainly makes it notable to my mind. Not having the other articles is no reason to delete this one. If there are sources that would support the other articles, I don't see why they couldn't be created. If neologism is an issue, and I don't know if 'Keralites' is one or not, then rename as per Salih. --Ged UK 12:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:The section name Major Non-Malayali communities carries peacock terms. Besides, the content of the section seems to be wholly made up of stuff probably copy-pasted from the articles pertaining to the mentioned communities. It does not contain anything unique.

Redirect to Kerala ethnic groups This is an improved name I think, and I've no problem with leaving the redirect behind, as I'm not enough of an expert in whether the search term is likely, so I'd rather err on caution. --Ged UK 14:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This section, and this, have no inline citations and are probably OR, which makes this list, the only useful content in the whole article. And I don't think, we need to retain the whole article for the sake of a list.

In case, you feel that having a total of four inline citations makes the article "well-referenced", sorry I don't think so. And 2 of the 4 citations are for the list (which, as we saw earlier, appears to be the only useful content in the article) and the remaining 2 are for the lead.-The Enforcer _{Office of the secret service} 17:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Keralites" is not a neologism; but Non-Malayali Keralites sure is. Consider the prospect of having articles for Non-English Englishmen (NEE), Non-French people of France (NFF), Non-Belgian people of Belgium (NBB), etc.-The Enforcer _{Office of the secret service} 17:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Often, the term "Keralite" is used synonymously with "Malayali", but only because Kerala is almost entirely populated by Malayali people. It might be important to distinguish people who are from the state of Kerala, but not of Malayali background. Sarwicked (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Malayali language is considered to be native to Kerala and non-Malayali speakers are believed to have migrated from outside over the centuries. Malayalam is the official language of the state and is spoken by almost 98% of the people. Of the total population, only about 2 or 3% have a different language as their mother-tongue. However, I don't understand the necessity of grouping together an Indo-Aryan Sikh settler with a Dravidian Tamil or Kannadiga, of course, they have very little in common apart from from the fact that they are all migrants from outside. Moreover, individual articles for these communities do exist. Besides if you are to consider Malayali as an ethnic designation, then on what basis shall one conclude whether one is a Malayali or not. Malayali-speaking Jews and Nambudhiris are believed to have migrated from outside about 2,000 years back; at the same time, some non-Malayali speaking people like the Kerala Iyers have been residing in the state for around 500 years. Since they've been living there for so many generations, would that not make them Malayali? Besides, the term non-Malayali Keralites must've been very rarely used to refer to outsiders as is evident from this-The Enforcer _{Office of the secret service} 01:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a legitimate list-type article, giving an overview with links to main articles on each group. I agree that it should be improved to add sources or remove unsourced material. Redirect. I don't see merging into Demographics of Kerala, which covers many demographic aspects, not just ethnicity. But I would prefer to see the article renamed to Kerala ethnic groups and a short section on the Malayalis added for balance. Then Demographics of Kerala#Ethnic groups could point to this article as {{main}}. I may add some sources for the ethnic group sections. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note. As an experiment, I did a first-cut article Kerala ethnic groups to show my preferred structure, borrowing material from this and other articles, and skipping POV content. I would prefer to redirect this one to Kerala ethnic groups Aymatth2 (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Yeah, this one sounds pretty good. We may very well redirect this article to Kerala ethnic groups~~-The Enforcer _{Office of the secret service} 01:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kerala ethnic groups looks great; while the other ethnic groups have their own pages, this page gives side-by-side overviews of their respective representations in Kerala. While this article might not contribute information about a specific ethnic group that wouldn't be found elsewhere, it is a good page about Kerala. Sarwicked (talk) 03:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty good idea. Redirect Non-Malayali Keralites to Kerala ethnic groups. Thanks to Aymatth2 for creating Kerala ethnic groups. Salih (talk) 05:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginning to have doubts about it. It will be a good idea to merge this content into Kerala ethnic groups. But is it right to convert Non-Malayali Keralites into a redirect page. As I've already said, it is a neologism and I don't think anyone would be searching for using this keyword.-The Enforcer _{Office of the secret service} 08:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it will be best to merge all the useful content with the other article and delete this one. As I've already pointed out, we don't usually have Wikipedia articles with such names; there aren't even redirect pages with such names-The Enforcer _{Office of the secret service} 08:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to make the page a redirect, rather than delete it, if only to preserve the edit history. I could imagine someone looking for information on Keralites minority groups using a name like this, which would come to the top of the search results if not a direct hit. A redirect costs next to nothing, may be useful, does no harm. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, you're right! My point of reasoning is that apart from being a neologism, the name of the article also seemed slightly divisive and xenophobic. Anyway, as you say, we need to preserve the edit histories. Yeah, a redirect seems pretty okay to me-The Enforcer _{Office of the secret service} 02:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ "Ethnically divisive" is a wrong reason to delete an article. Neither do I see any POV issues. There are about 1 million non-Malayalam speaking Keralites, bigger than the population of hundreds of cities. I support the title Non-Malayalis in Kerala proposed by User:Salih. --Docku: What's up? 18:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This would create a problem, since we would have a fork. This article includes some original research on non-Malayam communities in general, without sources, followed by short descriptions of these communities, while Kerala ethnic groups does not contain the original research, but does contain more detail on all ethnic groups in Kerala including those that speak Malayalam. The other editors contributing to this discussion had reached consensus of redirecting to Kerala ethnic groups, and in fact had started to improve that article. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vote change: Redirect to Kerala ethnic groups. Guess i overlooked this proposal. While I understand what is in Non-Malayali Kerlaites can be accomodated in Kerala ethnic groups, it still could be a separate article if it has had sufficient information for a stand-alone. But, with whatever little information is in the article, better be redirected to Kerala ethnic groups, atleast for now. --Docku: What's up? 18:34, 14 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 00:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of May 2008 UK fuel economy ratings A-D

It is just a copy and paste of a large table of data found here http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/downloads/may2008.asp , nothing more, nothing less. I'm not sure which rule this breaks exactly, but I'm sure we can't fill Wikipedia with articles about public ___domain data tables, what would be the end of it? Habanero-tan (talk) 10:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we add the related articles with other letters of the alphabet as listed near the bottom of the article too. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep There doesn't appear to be a valid reason given for deletion. Jenuk1985 | Talk 10:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I described the problem as best I could you don't have to be an unhelpful bureaucrat about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Habanero-tan (talk • contribs) 11:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy delete G12~~ The reference page clearly says the data is under Crown Copyright so it's not public ___domain. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/copyright.asp - Is this compatible with WP? It gives permission to reproduce as long as the copyright info is included. It is similar to the CC share alike licences commonly used here. Jenuk1985 | Talk 11:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently, it does. In that case I think it should be transwikied to WikiSource which is a better place for statistics than Wikipedia. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually Wikisource does not tend to accept statistics such as this. Suicidalhamster (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not compatible with Wikisource (or here) as it says the material must be reproduced accurately and not be used in a derogatory or misleading context, which is a restriction on derivative works. Stifle (talk) 12:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've got to agree with User:Jenuk1985 here. Since G12 doesn't apply, I don't see any defensible argument for deletion. I do see an article based on sourced, verifiable information.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - I'm not convinced that the material can be used without violating copyright. Under Crown Copyright, material can only be reproduced if it isn't used in a "derogatory" context. The Crown Copyright article says that the UK government does "not consider material under Crown Copyright redistributable under such licenses as the GFDL". --Megaboz (talk) 16:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- In view of the fact that some editors are uncertain about copyright in this case, I'll list the matter here: [36].--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note – (edit conflict) I have also tagged the article as a possible copyvio as shown here. Note that this hides all content, but it is still accessible through the edit screen. I will also notify the article's creator about the possible copyvio, as recommended at WP:CP. MuZemike 17:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

!Vote changed to keep based on input from people who know more about copyright than I do. I'm not aware of any policies or guidelines which would require deletion, so we might as well keep it. –Megaboz (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--I'm not a copyright expert, so if it turns out we're breaking the law, I'll render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. But I don't see a rationale for deletion here, even though I don't really see the point of having these long lists. It's not listcruft though, since we're dealing with real verifiable facts here. In short, I'm with S Marshall. Drmies (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / Move to Wikisource This article is exactly what point four of WP:NOTREPOSITORY defines Wikipedia not to be. Wikisource already host stuff under crown copyright, so it shouldn't be a problem there. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 21:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought... is there really any point in copying stuff that freely exists elsewhere? Move it to Wikisource if they'll have it. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 21:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why move it elsewhere-- people do tend to come here first--and why not--we're a reasonably reliable general encyclopedia. We can deal with this and all subsequent revisions also--we are not paper. DGG (talk) 05:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That people tend to look at Wikipedia first doesn't mean we should try to host material that is better suited at WikiNews, WikiSource, WikiQuote or WikiBooks. Wikisource was started exactly for this kind of material and uses the same software so is equally well-equipped to handle future revisions. Instead of promoting people to drop stuff at Wikipedia, we should be educating them about the existence of other WikiMedia projects. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Send to WP:CP as it seems to be a copyvio. Stifle (talk) 12:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — neuro^(talk) 23:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Stifle: I sent it to WP:CP on 4 March, but they don't seen to have noticed. :(—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Listings on CP don't come current for admin attention until after 7 days, which gives contributors to the article a chance to address issues by verifying permission or rewriting. However, I sometimes peak ahead and so noticed this one. :) If I'm to be the closing admin of the CP listing, I'm going to need to seek feedback on whether this list represents copyright infringement or not, since I'm unclear the degree to which creativity is involved in this compilation ala Feist, "sweat of the brow" notwithstanding. I'll ask for feedback at WT:C. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Are Database rights even valid in the United States? ViperSnake151 01:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should keep the copyright stuff to the copyright board. I understand (from my talk page) that there doesn't appear to be a copyright concern in this case, so I want to re-iterate that my !vote remains unchanged at keep.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just verifying that I wrote to Mike Godwin about it, and his e-mail response indicates that as long as the chart is not an exactly duplicate (as it doesn't seem to be, comparing to the Excel sheet), we're okay ala Feist. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:07, 13 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.